Originally Posted by William Martin
I was thinking about this for some reason.
Given the fact that you only hit a flop 1 in 3 times. If you are heads up in a pot and are faced with a continuation bet, why is it not always correct to raise with any two cards given the probability that your opponent has more than likley missed and will have to fold.
Of course, there are high pocket pairs which do not need to hit, which may make this play incorrect, but I just wanted to discuss it.
Hit a flop once every three, raise regardless of the cards and theoretically it is a +ev play? Or is it?
It's a good question. It's difficult to guess exactly right because there are many things that "depend" but we can still make an estimation on whether or not it's profitable by assuming some values - without having to actually calculate exactly how profitable.
So, when we raise every time, we clearly want our opponent to fold most of the time. Therefore, the ideal (but somewhat realistic) opponent would be one who folds two times out of three; i.e. the times that he missed the flop.
If the pot is $X after he bets into you, and you want to make a pot-sized bluffraise, you're risking $X to win $X. So when you raise a dry flop that you missed your gain is:
- 33% * X You lose $X when he calls you and you're beat.
+ 67% *X You win $X when he folds.
For simplicity, we ignore the times that you have the winning hand even when called, but we also make an extreme assumption in what he'd fold so it ought to even out some. On the surface, and this is what you thought in your opening post, you have a winning proposal (+0.33X) in raising every flop. In practise, however, your opponent will quickly figure out what you're up to. He's going to start widening his range for which hands he calls a raise with on the flop, things like A-x and even king-high if your range is wide enough. He might trap you with strong hands, and worse, rebluff with some part of his range.
You have the right idea, though. If you have an opponent who always c-bets, strive to find the most exploitative way of dealing with him. And, to be fair, raising every time is not THAT bad of a strategy if you have a tight opponent who doesn't adjust well (chances are, though, that an opponent that c-bets 100% of the time isn't squeaky tight).