Why do online players min-bet/raise so often? |
|
Posted Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:00 am GMT by JMX360
Maybe this is a stupid question and there's something that I'm not seeing, but I seriously don't understand. I see people min-raising pre-flop in late position with aces, or making a minimum check-raise with top pair middle kicker all the time. Is it because they're afraid they'll kill the action with any bigger bet? I wanted your guys' input on this.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:15 am GMT by MrDarling
| JMX360 wrote: | | Why do online players min-bet/raise so often? |
Because they are really really really bad.
I can almost understand their logic when they min-raise preflop with A's (its bad, but I see their twisted logic) however I often see BB min raise after 6 limpers with some hand like K7o.
Posted Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:36 am GMT by Jernej Zorec
decent players adjust to that and will reraise bad players often when they minraise
then good players see that and min raise with strong hands hoping to catch someone who is doing it just too often
and then its minraising hell for everyone
Posted Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:13 am GMT by ninetensuited
a lot of times a minraise after the flop indicates a set/straight or flush, so occasionally i will check/minraise trying to represent this and then bet out on the turn. youd be suprised at how many pots you ca get by doing this
Posted Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:23 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
They hate cats.
Posted Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:35 am GMT by jimmer
i've never fully understood it either.
however........
this tends to happen on the lower stakes. other trends that also happen on the lower stakes include;
more players seeing the flop.
more players calling with weaker hands on the flop.
more players chasing hands without the correct odds
more players who are not willing to laydown there hands that started strong, but are now weak.
players tending to be less aggressive.
Therefore, when playing the lower stakes, if you have the nuts, (or close to it), the min bet can be a good weapon to get more money into the pot.
Imagine you're playing a $0.10-$0.20 cash table and sat in early position and hit a great hand on the flop. You've got five players to act after you. You decide to min bet. The chances are you're gonna get an average of three callers. repeat this bet on the turn and river and you've built up the pot to $3.
Of course, on the river, you're gonna try and extract more money, but you get the picture.
On the micro's, I would use this weapon about 5% of the time, but it's still something i'd use. On the hight limits, never (unless I want to be re-raised of course, or I've just won a big pot with really crap pocket cards and therefore the others think I'm a donk)
Posted Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:47 am GMT by tame_deuces
It is very easy to understand why bad players sometimes min-raise. They don't know pot odds, they don't know odds, they aren't looking at the potsize, they don't know what would be a good raise, they slowplay too much. Its a ton of reasons which all basically state that they don't know the game as well as you do. Plain and simple.
Don't assume low stakes players know this stuff.
A much better question is 'Why do good players sometimes min-raise'. 
Posted Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:28 am GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | A much better question is 'Why do good players sometimes min-raise' |
An even better question: How do I tell if I'm good or bad?
Posted Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:12 pm GMT by MrDarling
| supafrey wrote: | | An even better question: How do I tell if I'm good or bad? |
That's easy, if you are losing in the low stakes you are pretty good.
Posted Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:36 pm GMT by jeffonline
If opening for 3XBB is the norm on that table then open 3xBB with your big hands or you may find marginal hands folding, If limping is the norm limp with you big hand or you may find marginal hands folding, Low stake players see a lot of flops with marginal hands and fold to any substantial variation in betting patterns. You may win the blinds with a pre-flop raise on a limping table, do you take that risk to win 15cents.
Posted Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:23 am GMT by MrDarling
| jeffonline wrote: | | ...If limping is the norm limp with you big hand or you may find marginal hands folding. |
If you limp with big pocket pairs you have to be good enough to fold them post flop. On low levels no one is good enough to know when its good to fold them.
If people fold because you raise, raise more often.
Posted Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:24 am GMT by fiezk
| MrDarling wrote: | | jeffonline wrote: | | ...If limping is the norm limp with you big hand or you may find marginal hands folding. |
If you limp with big pocket pairs you have to be good enough to fold them post flop. On low levels no one is good enough to know when its good to fold them.
If people fold because you raise, raise more often. |
yup. And even a great player would not be able to fold an overpair playing low stakes. Any information he gets is given by the action of someone who has no idea of what he's doing.
Posted Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:12 am GMT by kingetje
| MrDarling wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | | An even better question: How do I tell if I'm good or bad? |
That's easy, if you are losing in the low stakes you are pretty good. |
hahahaaa
Posted Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:15 am GMT by supafrey
| fiezk wrote: | | MrDarling wrote: | | jeffonline wrote: | | ...If limping is the norm limp with you big hand or you may find marginal hands folding. |
If you limp with big pocket pairs you have to be good enough to fold them post flop. On low levels no one is good enough to know when its good to fold them.
If people fold because you raise, raise more often. |
yup. And even a great player would not be able to fold an overpair playing low stakes. Any information he gets is given by the action of someone who has no idea of what he's doing. |
That you, smallclub?
Posted Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:58 am GMT by tame_deuces
| supafrey wrote: | | Quote: | | A much better question is 'Why do good players sometimes min-raise' |
An even better question: How do I tell if I'm good or bad? |
Depends on your culture. And if you mean bad as actually 'doing something in a subpar manner' or bad as in 'a good way but potentially illegal, yet not horribly immoral in the eyes of popular culture'.
For the last one, you don't actually _have_ to be bad, but people have to automatically assume you are. Some (*cough* morons) would say it depends on the amount of chrome on your motorcycle or other possessed items of perceived 'bad' nature. This is false. The only scientifically proven purchasable object to actually help is known to be a red Ferrari of either new or classic make, but due to Hollywood infringement of the material you have to (at some time) drive it at a red light. Money doesn't aid either (except for the Ferrari bit, but you could probably steal one and it would make you even more bad anyway), only blatant disregard for its existence can prove helpful.
The true measure is ofcourse how attracted women (or men I suppose, if you are gay/a woman/testing new territory/too drunk to care) are to you because of your badness. The weird thing is that I don't think it really doesn't matter HOW you are bad. I think it matters more how bad they THINK you are. So being bad is probably similar to makeup, except you don't care about it, purchase it or put it on, and removing it at the right time could actually make you potentially even more attractive. So it really isn't like makeup at all.
And since the attractiveness of men is impossible to judge (not because you can't tell if they are attractive or not, but because you can't trust a single word they say about romantic endeavours), all I can say is that 'tis not meant for us to know.
As for the first version of bad, I think others have answered that nicely.
|
|
