Min-raise preflop

[StealTheButton]

There are several limpers and the player on the button, SB, or BB minimum raises everybody. This is probably done with a hand like J 10s or KQ off, or Axs. It annoy the heck out of me and I see no value in this whatsoever- maybe in limit poker where you give yourself proper odds to draw your hand. However in NL anyone can raise any amount to deny you proper odds. All your raise is really doing is creating volatility and making it much harder to read what someone's bet means.

I don't ever do this, and if I do raise in limpers in late position I raise a meaningful amount to thin the field and build my pot. I rarely limp except when there are limpers before me and I have a hand that plays well multi-way. It just annoys me that I now have to call due to the odds I am getting, but I did not want to risk this many chips pre-flop. This play is usually done by very bad players. For the more thoughtful, deliberate players out there, do you use this as part of your arsenal?

 

[eberetta1]

Oh my goodness. I do not know how many times my premium hands have lost to 46os, 37os, 25os. So no. If I am a button , bb or sb, I have no duty to let all these limpers see a flop for cheap.

 

[Hermus]

It just annoys me that I now have to call due to the odds I am getting, but I did not want to risk this many chips pre-flop.

Why? They're making a suboptimal play and you can profit. If they have you beat they win the minimum and if they're behind they're giving you a great price to continue.

For the more thoughtful, deliberate players out there, do you use this as part of your arsenal?

Only when I miss click, which is actually how I interpret a min-raise from most reasonable players.

 

[mushthebush]

I almost always min raise preflop and sometimes post flop as well. One reason for doing so is that it makes my 4-bet cheaper. Another reason is that it annoys players with strong feelings and emotions and they tend to lose their patience after some time, which in turn becomes more profitable for me. People also interpret a min raise as a check or as a statement of weakness. So if I hit the board big then instead of checking I min raise and then call and hope that by the river I can get the opponent’s whole stack in. For me it works at a better value than other alternatives, because it is generally accepted as annoying.

 

[popstani]

I believe that min raise in 2,3 or more limpers isn’t really smart way of playing. For me it’s sign of bad play and who ever plays like that, doesn’t know what’s he doing. In this situations I mandatory attack with large bet and punish every min raise, putting lots of pressure on the opponent. So next time, probably would think twice with min raise into 3-4 limpers

 

[eetenor]

There are several limpers and the player on the button, SB, or BB minimum raises everybody. This is probably done with a hand like J 10s or KQ off, or Axs. It annoy the heck out of me and I see no value in this whatsoever- maybe in limit poker where you give yourself proper odds to draw your hand. However in NL anyone can raise any amount to deny you proper odds. All your raise is really doing is creating volatility and making it much harder to read what someone's bet means.

I don't ever do this, and if I do raise in limpers in late position I raise a meaningful amount to thin the field and build my pot. I rarely limp except when there are limpers before me and I have a hand that plays well multi-way. It just annoys me that I now have to call due to the odds I am getting, but I did not want to risk this many chips pre-flop. This play is usually done by very bad players. For the more thoughtful, deliberate players out there, do you use this as part of your arsenal?

Thank you for posting

All actions are viable depending on frequency of use and response of villains.

Min raising a hand like A5ss vs 3 limpers -that are not folding to a normal raise size- is actually better than just calling on BTN or raising larger.

If your V check to the raiser on the flop more often than not- which most weak Vs trap sets and do not lead 77- 88- Ax in a raised pot- then we get to see 4 cards for 1bb more a great thing if we flop 2h4d6s or even 2x5x9s or Ax9x3s etc

We might also min raise 65-54 on BTN not as we can trap A-2-3 -4 -5 hands that make 2 pairs or wheels when we make bigger straights.
Why the min raise? As others have posted it shifts players range perception of us in the specific hand. They may assume our range is not what it is and make big mistakes vs that range post flop. It also may stop the blinds from squeezing a wider range again letting us see the flop for only 1bb more than a call would.

Remember in these types of games we do not need to balance our range that is why the min raise is viable. We never have to include AA KK QQ AK into that range unless we decide to target a specific player's aggression.

Again weak passive tables where the V's play straight forward post flop are where we are using this bet size.


Doing the same action in SB or BB has no value for getting to see more cards therefore has less value.

Hope this helps

 

[Rahatis]

Min raise in such spots is always a sign of a pro. Not at poker though.

 

[pwalker4201977]

I don’t mess around what’s I’m raising a pot. I make it where only one or two people are in the pot

 

[StealTheButton]

Thank you for posting

All actions are viable depending on frequency of use and response of villains.

Min raising a hand like A5ss vs 3 limpers -that are not folding to a normal raise size- is actually better than just calling on BTN or raising larger.

If your V check to the raiser on the flop more often than not- which most weak Vs trap sets and do not lead 77- 88- Ax in a raised pot- then we get to see 4 cards for 1bb more a great thing if we flop 2h4d6s or even 2x5x9s or Ax9x3s etc

We might also min raise 65-54 on BTN not as we can trap A-2-3 -4 -5 hands that make 2 pairs or wheels when we make bigger straights.
Why the min raise? As others have posted it shifts players range perception of us in the specific hand. They may assume our range is not what it is and make big mistakes vs that range post flop. It also may stop the blinds from squeezing a wider range again letting us see the flop for only 1bb more than a call would.

Remember in these types of games we do not need to balance our range that is why the min raise is viable. We never have to include AA KK QQ AK into that range unless we decide to target a specific player's aggression.

Again weak passive tables where the V's play straight forward post flop are where we are using this bet size.


Doing the same action in SB or BB has no value for getting to see more cards therefore has less value.

Hope this helps

Some interesting theory here. You are right in that your raise will often give you a free card going into the turn as they check to the raiser. You will stack someone who catches a wheel with your higher straight. With that same logic though you could catch the idiot end of the straight and someone else will stack you. There are also the situtions where you lose chips with 56 to K6 and A6

I do think that many players will see this as a raise with a less than premium hand and the blinds will be inclined to squeeze with almost any pair and many Ax hands. "May assume our range is not what it is." I'm not sure what this means, but I think that the majority of players that I come across are not really cognizant of this anyway.

While you can make arguments for this play for some obscure or unlikely situations, I still feel that increasing the size of the pot without thinning the field works to your disadvantage.

 

[Zapahlohotrona]

In general, minraises, like any other strategy, do not work without adjustments. The only thing that can be done adequately against them preflop is to actively start 3betting. At low limits, it is not that there is no point in minraising - its advantages are more than compensated for by the main drawback - less pot, less cost of a blunder.

 

[eetenor]

Some interesting theory here. You are right in that your raise will often give you a free card going into the turn as they check to the raiser. You will stack someone who catches a wheel with your higher straight. With that same logic though you could catch the idiot end of the straight and someone else will stack you. There are also the situtions where you lose chips with 56 to K6 and A6

I do think that many players will see this as a raise with a less than premium hand and the blinds will be inclined to squeeze with almost any pair and many Ax hands. "May assume our range is not what it is." I'm not sure what this means, but I think that the majority of players that I come across are not really cognizant of this anyway.

While you can make arguments for this play for some obscure or unlikely situations, I still feel that increasing the size of the pot without thinning the field works to your disadvantage.

Thank you for responding

When playing in exploitative situations the ROI on using exploit plays is very high. Much higher than standard lines.

You state that a 1bb raise may cause the blinds to widen their squeeze range- if so than we can add in AA KK to our 1 bb raise on BTN when aggros are in the blinds.
Especially if they raise and get callers and we can then over shove our AA KK hands.
If your entire table is now so aggro that players are always raising limpers then we just do not use the min raise exploit.

We also want to play post flop head-up on the BTN with 65s vs a V in the blinds with a wider range deep stacked. We can hit and we can steal as soo few boards are going to allow that V type to stack off OOP.

Again this is V dependent and it requires us to be focused on our table V and their tendencies.

This is of course a low frequency play with a specific range of hands that we would not play for stacks with if we hit just one pair on flop. Thus your K6 dominating 65 hand situation would never lose a medium size pot played for value but only as a bluff. We are playing exploit poker we do not then turn that exploit into a thin value play post flop with a pair of 6's 5 kicker.
Also if the SB raises Ax suited to 10bb not our suit we are getting 39% equity to call 65s not counting implied odds. We would need to call 8 to win 24 3-1. Same equity if SB has all but A6 A5 but we are seldom losing a big pot in these spot as we are IP

Not suggesting you should do this- only that you could do it on the right tables.

Hope this helps

 

[Medina]

I agree on everything, it is unnecessary to risk against so many players.
I recently got into exactly this situation. Very unpleasant situation, especially with AA.
I didn’t raise significantly and a lot of us looked at the flop, after which I went all-in in vain
No problem, i learned from the case