raise strategy in limit hold 'em

Now that I've started playing limit Hold 'em I've noticed a strange strategy used with disturbing success. It is simply raise every hand no matter what. Then bet the flop. if anybody raises, reraise. You get the idea. Whatever the other guy does bet one step further. You would think eventually this would bite him in the ass but no. when ever somebody's had enough to call him to the river he just keeps winning.It is beyond frustrating it is infuriating. Is this a legitimate strategy? or just like all-in lotto in NL? My counter strategy so far has been tighten up and slowplay him while watching everybody else go kamikaze and destroy themselves and then I at least cash. (hopelessly shortstacked of course). I havent tried using this strategy yet because its just too cheesy. I mean how can you win a whole tournament just by repeatedly mashing the raise button? But he does. Is there a beter way?

I have seen that, too. The thing is, usually enough players are like you and see what this maniac is doing. The "smart, tight" group will take him to the river with a better hand instead of lesser hands. For a while, he will pick up fish stacks, but later will lose it all to the "smart, tight" group before the payout structure. That being said, it is beyond frustrating and infuriating waiting on this to happen (if, indeed, it does.)

Any strategy that shows success has to be considered legitimate. In this case the strategy seems to be two-fold. First to pick up those fish stacks (love that term), second, and equally important is to put other players on tilt, thus making bad decisions.

A quick story. I played a 30 seat SnG at Stars last year and watched one guy max the bet every hand. EVERY HAND. By the time he finally lost a hand he was such a big stack it barely dented him. He showed down garbage nearly every hand, and sucked out on most hands. I got lucky in that one as I hit nothing early, and saw what was happening. I folded EVERY HAND. I came in second in that SnG.

My guess is that it was a fluke, that his strategy is not profitable in the long run. But as I have not had the balls to explore that strategy, I can't be sure of that. Certainly if, for whatever reason, somebody starts off big and aggressive, they can amass a large enough stack to overcome a lot of beats.

Hold 'em rewards bold agressive play

Seriously, this is NOT a winnign style unless you're playign people who are scared to go to showdown with TPWK agaisnt this guy on a completly dry board. And seeing 100 hands of this is no guarantee it works in the long run, because everytime he raises 93o and gets called by 99 and sucks out, he is still losing money. Now, how much he is losing if we consider that he might make better hands fold all the time, it might not be that high...

See, if people take only TPWK and better to showdown, this strategy is immediately profitable. If you fold any pair, ace or king at any point, you're probably making a mistake. But most people will look at a flop of A-K-J and figure that they're pocket treys have to be folded, and they'd be wrong often enough for him to show a profit from it.

As I said in the blog post, if meta-game and reads weren't present, this is a decent strategy at heads-up limit hold 'em. Not perfect, but not far from it.

So you're saying if I have TPTK, I should call him to the river and I will win most of the time. And if everyone else has folded. Obviously he'll suck out sometimes and have a good starting hand sometimes. Oh and the dry board part. Meaning no str8, flush, or boat possibility?

Also my chief complaint is ::A Monkey Could Do That!!:: I could teach a 4 year old to do that. A cat sitting on the keyboard could accidently do that. Somebody having a seizure could do it! How would a pro beat them? WWJD?

Calling to the river depends on who you're playing. I don't know if you read about the guy I played that I wrote about in the blog, but the reason to wait until the river to raise was because he was prone to folding if he got action before that. So I waited until the river to put in action, because then I knew I had gotten at least the "guaranteed" amount of money from him.

In heads-up limit hold 'em, this strategy is decent if the players around the table had no memory. But since it very quickly becomes obvious what's going on, it's actually a suicidal strategy. The only redeeming factor would be if he played this way only until it was obvious what he was doing, and then switched. Which is like 5-7 hands, probably.