Post-flop play: Calling vs. raising

I've just skimmed through TJ's book again recently (I really need to buy some other poker material...Theory of Poker will most likely be my next read). TJ very strongly advises that you should "A better or a raiser be, a caller never be" unless you are setting a trap or chasing a draw with pot odds. On the surface, this makes perfect sense of course. You raise, and you have two chances to win (they fold, or you have them beat). If you just call you need to have the best hand. You also hear people say "I raised him to find out where I was at. When he came back over the top of me, I knew I was beaten." You learn something with a raise.

However,

I'm going to pull a Mike Caro and question conventional poker wisdom for a second. For raising your opponents bet post-flop to make sense, I think you need to have folding equity. There needs to be a chance that you will make your opponent fold a better hand than you have. If the range of hands that are better than yours are most likely too strong for your opponent to lay down, or your opponent is too weak to realize that he "should" lay these hands down, then there is no folding equity.

But what about the information gained with a raise? What about losing a little with a 2nd best hand vs. losing a ton with a 2nd best hand that goes to a showdown?

Yes, there is this. However, keep in mind that you also give out information with a raise as well as receive it. You may scare away a 2nd best hand that might have put you on a draw or 2nd best if you had just called and therefore kept betting and added value to your hand.

In conclusion:

Instead of almost always raising/folding with hands that may or may not be the best hand, perhaps it is sometimes greater +EV to just call. This depends on folding equity of a raise vs. value lost with a fold, taking into consideration the range of hands your opponent will bet with and how much or how little of a "calling station" they are.

Thoughts?

Sounds well thought out to me. I agree with that.

Lower stakes: call
Higher stakes against skilled players: raise

Don't raise on button for both skill levels.

Quote:

---

Lower stakes: call
Higher stakes against skilled players: raise

---

It's true that there's usually much more folding equity vs. skilled players than vs. the fish.

That makes sense but if you raise every time aren't you just gonna become a maniac style player and everyone at the table would know. Maybe you would have to use that strategy in moderation for it to work then again TJ knows a lot more than me about poker.

BTW - Michael I'm from Lake Orion Michigan

--This is an essay written by mason malmuth that I found called "Calling all the way."


When talking poker strategy it is usually agreed that aggressive players do better than passive players. In fact, this is common knowledge, and in my opinion it is very accurate. But of course, there are always exceptions. What follows is a hand I recently played in a $30-$60 hold 'em game at The Bellagio where it appeared to be correct to call on every street. However, as you will see, some of the decisions were very close.
First, here's a quick summary of the hand:

It was my first hand and I took a late position blind to the immediate right of the button. The player on my right had also just sat down and he posted as well. So instead of there being $50 in blind money, this hand began with $110 (and four blinds).

The first three players folded, an unknown player raised, it was folded to me and I called with

As Js

The button and small blind folded, and the big blind called. So three of us saw the flop.

The flop was


Ts 6d 2c
The big blind checked. The original raiser bet. I called. And the big blind called.

The turn was the Ah. The big blind checked. The original raiser bet. I called. And the player in the big blind position called.

The river was a blank. The player in the big blind checked. The player between us bet. I called. The player in the big blind folded, and I won as my opponent showed a pair of kings.

Now this hand brings us to several questions. They are:


Why not make it three bets before the flop?
Why not fold or perhaps raise on the flop?
Why not raise when the ace comes on the turn.
Why not raise on the river.
Let's answer each of these questions. First, the argument for reraising before the flop is to drive out the other players, particularly the big blind, and to gain position on the raiser in a probable heads up pot. This can be especially nice with the extra money in the pot. The reason not to raise is the combination of the possible quality of the raiser's hand versus my ace-jack suited. In my opinion, this decision is very close. I would have made it three bets if my hand was a little better, such as ace-queen suited, or if the original's raiser would have been in a little later position implying that he would raise with a wider range of hands.

On the flop, it should be pretty clear that it is necessary to play on. I hold two overcards which has a small chance of being the best hand, have a backdoor straight-flush draw, and there is a fair amount of money in the pot -- remember the two extra blinds. So the question should be whether to raise or call? The advantages of raising is that it will probably knock the player in the big blind out, earn a free card on the turn if I choose to take it, and if reraised, information is gained concerning the quality of my opponent's hand.

There are also reasons not to raise. One has already been mentioned and that is you might get reraised. Another is that by letting the third player in he can become your ally. What I mean by this is that if a blank hits on the turn, the original raiser will be less likely to try to run a bluff through two players as opposed to one. In our book Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players we have some discussion on this idea. See page 178 where we state, "When you keep a bad player in on a close decision, you won't have to guess as much when a good player bets."

In addition, you would definitely want the big blind out if you knew that your hand was best in this situation. But that's not the case here.

The call on the turn is a play that I think is obviously correct, but one in which many players, particularly those with less experience, would do differently. Sometimes, even if you think that it is likely your hand is best, you are still better off going for an overcall if there is a reasonable chance that you don't have the best hand. Since the original raiser could also easily have ace-king, ace-queen, or a few other hands that are better than mine, this became an obvious call.

By the way, if I thought that I should raise on the turn, then it means that I probably should have made it three bets before the flop. If you don't see why, you may want to pause and think it through.

The river play is also straight forward for similar reasons. If the bettor has a better hand than my pair of aces, jack kicker, you certainly don't want to raise. If he is bluffing or perhaps betting a weak hand for value (which was done), he should just fold to a raise. So why not go for the overcall? This way I'll save money when my hand is second best, and occasionally will gain an extra bet when my hand holds up.

As can be seen, even though this hand could have easily been played much differently, calling on every street, which is normally poor poker strategy, became correct. However, those of you who usually call on every street, are not only probably playing too many hands, but in general will also be playing your hands poorly. In fact, players who routinely play like this are your ideal opponents. But, as this hand shows, there are always exceptions in a game as complicated as poker.

©2004, Mason Malmuth, All Rights Reserved.

Against horrible oposition, raise!

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Fnord is UTG+2 with J:club:, A:heart:.
UTG calls, UTG+1 folds, Fnord raises, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, CO folds, Button folds, SB calls, BB calls, UTG calls.

Flop: (8 SB) A:spade:, 5:diamond:, Q:heart: (4 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG checks, Fnord bets, SB calls, BB calls, UTG calls.

Turn: (6 BB) 3:diamond: (4 players)
SB checks, BB bets, UTG calls, Fnord raises, SB folds, BB calls, UTG calls.

River: (12 BB) 8:heart: (3 players)
BB bets, UTG folds, Fnord calls.

Final Pot: 14 BB

Results in white below:
BB shows 4c Ts (high card, ace).
Fnord shows Jc Ah (one pair, aces).
Outcome: Fnord wins 14 BB.

Haha, Fnord.

Yeah, I definitely think there are situations where calling down is best.

True, but saying you need the near nuts or folding equity to raise is just plain silly. There are lots of reasons to raise and against horrible oposition the set of hands you're likely against allows for thinner value raises. Particularly when lots of worse hands will cold call 2 or fold their 4ish outers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

True, but saying you need the near nuts or folding equity to raise is just plain silly.

---

Who said that? I don't agree with that.

But as for times to call down, I don't play with the type of fish that you do anymore, so its different, and its especially different in NL. A raise could likely mean a reraise all in at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Preflop: BB calls
Flop: BB checks, BB calls.
Turn: BB bets, BB calls.
River:BB bets.

---

I'm trying to justify BBs moves and I can't.
he calls a raise with T4o, He calls the flop with 2 runner-runner straight posibilities, and that's about it.
He bets the turn with an inside straight draw, then calls when he gets re-raised.
The chances that this river would help anyone are V-E-R-Y slim, and he continues betting into someone who has bet at every street. The only question I could possibly ask is if Fnord will call the river bet or raise it. I would realize that Fnord would NOT fold.

This is tearing me up. I just can't understand how someone can be so bad :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michael1123

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

True, but saying you need the near nuts or folding equity to raise is just plain silly.

---

Who said that? I don't agree with that.

---

The original post. I assume he would raise the near nuts, so I threw that in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humphrind

I'm trying to justify BBs moves and I can't.

---

Call my PFR with trash from the BB: Bad
Call the flop: Horrible
Bet the turn: Well, I might fold
Call the turn: Bad, no reason to think his gutshot isn't good.
Bet the river: Silly. I might fold maybe once in 200 hands played out like this.

Don't try to understand players this bad. Just value bet/raise them to death. Don't let them play cheap pre-flop. Don't let them showdown their crap cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

True, but saying you need the near nuts or folding equity to raise is just plain silly.

---

I'm not saying this. But I am saying that you should have folding equity or at least be pretty darn likely to have the best hand (taking into consideration what your opponent bets/calls with) to raise.

There's such a thing as raising to fold your opponent out, and then there's raising to get more money in the pot when you think you have the best of it. If you are reasonably confident that you have the best of it, and your opponent is a calling station who won't catch a clue that he's beat if you raise, then raise.

My point was that there are often profitable reasons to call somebody down vs. raising. I didn't say that it should be the standard play.

Keep in mind also that a raise in NL and a raise in limit are not the same thing, even if they are the same chip/$ amount. One has a lot more implied cost attached to calling it than the other.

I'm thinking back to Mike Caro's audio lesson on checking and calling being an underrated option. I used to think he was somewhat out to lunch on that topic (exception: I thought it was fine for use on the river). Now I find myself checking and calling from the front more and more often with medium strength hands.

Don't raise if only a better hand will call and every better hand will call. Common sense, yes. But I often see it not applied.