The logic behind "never call, always raise".

It seems the number one advice is "never call, always raise".

Is this intended to reduce the number of hands you play?
In other words, only play hands that are so good that you can comfortably raise? Forces you to not play marginal hands.

Or it it intended to improve your fold equity? You're always going in strong, so more people are going to fold. Getting you more pots.

Or is it a combination of both?

in all the pages I was teaching poker, the advice they give you is that whenever you are entering got that raise, that is there to go with average good hands .. need to know to choose the moments and have the right cards .. lol

Ladybugger said:

It seems the number one advice is "never call, always raise".

Is this intended to reduce the number of hands you play?
In other words, only play hands that are so good that you can comfortably raise? Forces you to not play marginal hands.

Or it it intended to improve your fold equity? You're always going in strong, so more people are going to fold. Getting you more pots.

Or is it a combination of both?

Click to expand...

Your assertion that, never call always raise is the #1 advice offered on this forum, or any other creditable forum for that matter is utter B.S.
Suggest you either pay a bit more attention to what you are reading.

Always raise, never call is related to weather you are aggressive or passive, it has nothing to do with being tight or loose...

Sent from my HTC Desire X using Tapatalk

Never say never.

Raising is a strategy, just like calling, checking, 3betting, or folding. Every play in poker has a place and a reason. Always raising every hand you play would very soon land you in trouble.

I would say that the always be raising is more of old school shark play and the term was made popular by the movie Rounders.

It still applies but not so literally you want to be aggressive attacking pots but that doesn't mean "I must raise"

Maybe you're talking about, "If it's good enough to limp, it's good enough to raise." Which would be talking about preflop selection and always coming in for a raise instead of limping every hand. If your playing TAG, and use this, you would need to keep your preflop range somewhat tight as well.

I think one of the main reasons given for raising when entering pots is because it gives you two ways of winning instead of just one (everyone might fold.)

There are situations where limping in instead of raising is a better play though, I don't think this is a one size fits all deal.

For example, if you're at a full table with low blinds, on the button with a hand like 76s and there are multiple limpers by the time it gets to you, IMO limping is better here than raising because of the number of people in the hand. If you raise big to try and get rid of most of the limpers and the flop comes AKJ, now what? At the same time, the odds make folding the button a mistake here too. In some cases it's ok to limp in and see a cheap flop with a hand that has the potential to make people pay you off when you hit.

Literally i think its not always that you have to raise. I think what the advise means is majority of the time, you have to raise. With that strategy most of the time, you're on the money- looking at the whole picture of course.

I remember reading when you raise you can win if you have the best hand or get folds but if you only call you can only win with the best hand.

I call less personally so I make less calling mistakes. Its not something I can do really well.

Any advise that says never or always do something is very likely to be flawed. Even if it's generally good, it's been over-generalized by omitting the possibility of exceptional situations.

Propane Goat said:

I think one of the main reasons given for raising when entering pots is because it gives you two ways of winning instead of just one (everyone might fold.)

There are situations where limping in instead of raising is a better play though, I don't think this is a one size fits all deal.

For example, if you're at a full table with low blinds, on the button with a hand like 76s and there are multiple limpers by the time it gets to you, IMO limping is better here than raising because of the number of people in the hand. If you raise big to try and get rid of most of the limpers and the flop comes AKJ, now what? At the same time, the odds make folding the button a mistake here too. In some cases it's ok to limp in and see a cheap flop with a hand that has the potential to make people pay you off when you hit.

Click to expand...

If you made the standard 3BB +1BB for each limper raise you can take the pot down preflop or atleast isolate and get weak hands to fold. Then if you go into flop headsup and it comes AKJ rainbow you can CB and probably take it down since you repped a big hand preflop. Not raising 76s on the button after multiple limpers is going to lose money in the long run. Either fold or raise in that spot.(Limping is not horrible but far from optimal)

IPlay said:

If you made the standard 3BB +1BB for each limper raise you can take the pot down preflop or atleast isolate and get weak hands to fold. Then if you go into flop headsup and it comes AKJ rainbow you can CB and probably take it down since you repped a big hand preflop. Not raising 76s on the button after multiple limpers is going to lose money in the long run. Either fold or raise in that spot.(Limping is not horrible but far from optimal)

Click to expand...

I'm probably doing something wrong then, because way more often than not somebody gets a piece of the flop and won't let it go, either check-raising or calling when I c-bet the flop, same if I fire again on the turn, and I wind up losing a lot of chips.

Propane Goat said:

I'm probably doing something wrong then, because way more often than not somebody gets a piece of the flop and won't let it go, either check-raising or calling when I c-bet the flop, same if I fire again on the turn, and I wind up losing a lot of chips.

Click to expand...

Its a bluff and not a CB if you are not the preflop aggressor so make sure your not doing that. Also, be aware of what flops you are cbetting on, if you cbet on a Jh 10h 8s board, chances are someone hit a part of it and they are not folding to your cbet. But if the board comes Jh 7s 3c, a CBet should take the pot down the majority of the time, 70%ish I would say.

if you choose the right spot to raise is a positive strategy but have to be very careful that your game or strategy is not read by the oponents because otherwise you can get in a lot of trouble,

Can't agree with this saying. Because let's say you're on the big blind someone raises minimal amount a couple of players call and you have suited conectors. Seems like an obvius call because of the pot odds and you havd good hand. I ussually raise if I try to steal the blinds or I have relatively strong hand and don't want a bunch of players in the pot, but saying to never call is just wrong imo.

never and always dont mean anything in pokr

The main reason cos this statement has been told it BECAUSE raising gives you the PRIVILEGE of the aggression and being the AGGRESSOR allow you to take the pot in several ways.
Anyway strategies in poker change very often: what was a MUST TO DO few years ago maybe NOW it isnt and maybe in few years will return BACK TO BE: it is a matter of tendencies.

About limps I have to say that atm this strategy returned: I cant remember now when and where exactly but in a FINAL TABLE EPT composed of several very very skilled online players, there were continuous limps and overlimps which were opposite of what everybody was expecting from those aggressive online players (3bet, 4bets, 5bets shove e so on).
Nothing of that happened and that featured final table was labelled as the worst boring EPT FT EVER.
In the opinion of the players that one was the optimal for that match.

Propane Goat said:

I think one of the main reasons given for raising when entering pots is because it gives you two ways of winning instead of just one (everyone might fold.)

There are situations where limping in instead of raising is a better play though, I don't think this is a one size fits all deal.

For example, if you're at a full table with low blinds, on the button with a hand like 76s and there are multiple limpers by the time it gets to you, IMO limping is better here than raising because of the number of people in the hand. If you raise big to try and get rid of most of the limpers and the flop comes AKJ, now what? At the same time, the odds make folding the button a mistake here too. In some cases it's ok to limp in and see a cheap flop with a hand that has the potential to make people pay you off when you hit.

Click to expand...

I think it's supposed to be towards open limping, as opposed to limping behind.

You don't have any fold equity if you just call

Akorps said:

You don't have any fold equity if you just call

Click to expand...

Maybe your such a huge nit just calling gets folds. LOL I get what you are saying though. It is something I have to remember while playing.

Article about a bot that beats most human players.
The advice has already been stated in this thread, but talk about validation
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/magazine/poker-computer.html?hp&pagewanted=all

Its basically to stop the biggest beginner leak, seeing to many flops.

Absolutely incorrect.... There are certain spots where calling is far better than raising. For example, if you have Top pair with a bad kicker on the river and your opponent raises, why would we re raise? What worse hand does he call with? By calling his raise, we leave bluffs in his hand range, but when he calls our re raise our hand is no good. Therefore there is no value in raising the river. This is obv a very general situation but the point is the same

Ok, so I am going to try the overaggressive strategy. It seems to be the winning way. "Never call, always rraise"

Pros:
* Take down uncontested pots / get fold equity
* Win bigger hands when I have best hand.
Both are EV+

Cons:
But, the flip side is that when I get called, and lose, I will lose bigger than typical.

So, if this the trade-off with long-term EV+ ?
Pros outweigh the cons?