To make a long argument short (because sersly, I could take up the whole first page of this blog with the suckout and comments after) I'm gonna stick with the after-argument Mac and I had last night.
To complete (the bring in) or not to complete (the bring in), that is the question.
I'm talking about a poker game called Stud 8 or Better, but I think the concept applies to Stud AND Razz for that matter. And I'm not talking about just completing, but completing the BRING IN.
For starters, I'll start with a quote from the FTP Forums (this is a whole thread on the subject btw) by Perry Friedman, who is considered an accomplished Stud player:
And here I am! My tip was written about stud hi, but most of the same reasons apply to hi/lo and razz. Other than in rare tourney situations, I will never bring in for a completion in stud hi/lo.
Here is a link to my tip:
http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/proLessons.php?lesson=26
Perry
Well, here is the actual link to the tip. But here is the jist of what it says:
Furthermore, bringing in for a completion limits your betting options. If you bring in for the minimum and someone else completes the bet, you can raise back for a full bet, whereas your opponent can only complete for a partial bet. You can also decide to slow play your hand if someone completes. Completing the bet exposes you to being raised back a full bet. By always bringing in for the minimum, you do not give away the strength of your hand and leave your options open on third street.
So ya, I think completing your bring in is stupid, not aggressive (and that goes DOUBLE in HU play). Aggressive Stud is betting your hands when you know your opponent is weak, fighting over a bring in when its 10 chips is stupid.
EDIT: I found a bit more info on the subject from Ray Zee (courtesy of Dekker, ty Dekker)
"It doesn't happen often, but occasionally the bring-in...will start the action with raise. This always means that he has a playable hand, and it usually means that he has a fairly good hand but not a great hand."
"When the bring-in raises, he typically holds three small flush cards, three small straight cards, or a high pair in the hole. Of these three possibilities, his most likely hand is a high pair in the hole, and he is trying to limit the field. The exception is when this player is steaming, which can be determined based on how he is conducting himself and how he has fared in the last few pots."
"In this situation, you should play very tightly. Players likely to be contesting the bring-in will have quality hands. Also, you will not have the added equity of the bring-in money, since this player usually will not be folding because of additional raises."
[Ray Zee: High-Low Split-Poker for Advanced Players, page 31]
My argument isn't that completing can never be done, but it does typically advertise your hand. And as Perry stated, even with a strong hand, completing your BI for half the bet isn't the smartest play.
another edit!!
Mason Malmuth says this on the 2+2 forums (courtesy of postmodernboy):
I disagree. I virtually never make this play. Against you, I would know that you do not have a pair when you are the bring-in and only call. Against someone who never makes this play, you can never be sure.
In addition, by making this play in a small ante game I believe that the mistake is even worse. When someone tries to steal a large ante pot and they run into a hand in the bring-in they are not always in awful shape because of the size of the pot. In a small ante game that won't necessarily be the case.
I think HU when your opponent is folding to 2/3 of your completions constitutes a rare tournament situation. And the antes had it 20 in the pot, not 10 so yes, I don't mind stealing the antes when given the chance 2/3 of the time. So I was betting. Completion cost me 25 more to win 20 since I would have to bring in for 15 anyway. so I gain 40 chips the 2 times I win and lose 25 chips when I don't take it down. I'm just estimating these frequencies since I haven't run the stats yet, but it couldn't be that far off.
ReplyDeletePerry's advice sounds pretty decent in a full ring cash game, but I don't see how that applies to our situation. I've played Perry in stud8 at full tilt and he's a pretty good player - considerably better than me, but I think this is a case of apply the right advice to the wrong situation.
Betting your hands only when you think your opponent is weak and you are ahead, sounds more like weak/passive play, not aggressive.
i didn't say when i was ahead, i said when you think your opponent is weak.
ReplyDeleteand, had you not rivered a FH, i guarantee you would NOT have kept stealing the bring in when the antes and bi were enough to matter to me.
there was no reason for me to fight over it, when I can give you the impression that im weak (because only a player that completes their bi would assume this), and take them when they matter.
you need to look at the longer term.
oh and btw, you completed your bi on the THIRD hand. So dont give me this "i only did id cause you folded" line.
ReplyDeleteyou did it cause you always do it.
and dont put words in my mouth
bastid :)
What can I say. I'm quick with reads. :)
ReplyDeleteAgainst a passive player, it is a must. It increases your odds and puts additional pressure on the passive player.
ReplyDeleteThere is a differentiation between weak and passive. Playing a passive player, you have to put pressure on them in an effort to make them define their hand. If you had aces, the proper play is to raise, because Mac has to call with the odds that you are giving him. By calling you are defining your hand as either a flush draw or a low draw. Once 4th comes, he should know exactly what you have, which makes his play much easier the rest of the hand.
Not taking an opportunity to force your opponent to either define their hand or make a mistake is sub-optimal poker.
I dont know you juskimo, but I'm assuming Mac does, so I'll try to be nice.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'm not a passive player. If you don't believe me try checking my stats on poker-edge.com.
Just as you say there is a difference between a passive player and a weak player, I believe there is a difference between an aggressive player, and a douchebag.
I agree that you have to let your opponent make mistakes, so when I see mine doing so, I will not discourage him from it.
This was Stud8 btw, If Mac were to complete his bring in, and the action were to me, I wouldnt be raising with AA. You see, I want him to NOT know my hand, thats kind of my reasoning for this whole post.
Im sure Mac didnt tell you that he started this on the 3rd hand, and did he mention I had him out chipped the whole time till he got lucky and rivered a full house VS my flush? And that I he actually raised me with trips when I had my flush showing? So, I would conclude, since I had him on the defense the entire game till he sucked out, that his little bring in plan wasn't working.
You can come up with as many reasons as you can think of to call a bad play being aggressive, but in the end its still what it is.