this is part of the PP article for today, by Rolf Slotboom

Raising preflop on the button with what looks like the best hand - when raising may in fact make it harder for you to defend your hand after the flop.

Let's say that in limit hold'em you hold ace-jack offsuit on the button. There are three relatively weak limpers in front of you, meaning that your hand is quite likely to be best on the given deal. Even with this being the case, it is usually better to just call than to raise in situations like this, and it has to do with the nature of your cards. An ace-jack offsuit will often win with a hand like top pair / good kicker. Now, if you get the type of flop you want (say, J93 rainbow), you would like someone with a hand like jack-ten to lead into you, so you can raise and shut out overcards, smaller pairs and straight draws. But if you raise before the flop, this might not happen. People will often check to you, knowing that you will probably bet, but because the pot is much bigger now, they will be more inclined to call you - even with relatively weak hands. This is not what you want, holding just one pair yourself, simply because one-pair hands tend to perform rather badly in multiway pots. (Of course, the higher the pair, the more likely it is to survive.) Even if someone does bet into you and you raise, people might still call you with hands like KT or Q9, and they may be correct to do so - while in an unraised pot they would probably have let go. So, this is the type of situation where just calling before the flop might cost you less in case you miss, plus if you do hit, you might be able to defend your hand better. This despite the fact that you do seem to be holding the best hand before the flop, and thus it would seem only logical to raise.

for those of you unfamiliar with the original discussion or for anyone who wants to review it

http://pokerforums.org/showthread.ph...ght=limit+hold

I thought this was a great discussion with good points on both sides.

In most of the games I play...

because it doesn't apply to your game this makes the advice wrong?

This was published in Cardplayer months ago, and was debated and ridiculed on 2+2 also.

well it is on PP today, and I don't frequent 2+2 so that is of no use to me

ow let's say that the flop is J93 rainbow and everyone does check to you. When you bet, there will be 7 bets in the pot. That is more than enough pot odds for the following hands to remain in with you: gutshots are 5.1:1 (so hands like KT would be correct to call); overcards are 3.1:1 (so hands like KQo would be correct to call); open-ended straights are 2.2:1 (so hands like T8s be correct to call); and top-pair w/ overcard would be 7:1 (so a hand like QJ would be a marginal call if that player even thought he was behind).

your math is very wrong, gutshots are not 5.1 to 1 they are 12 to 1. raising would make it correct for a gutshot to call.

you are never going to eliminate open ended draws so i won't even discuss them.

His point was that by not raising people will be less likely to check to you, allowing you to raise on the flop and eliminate more hands on the flop, for 1 bet middle pair will stay, for a bet and a raise they will drop.

Second, if one of the original limpers does have a J, he will likely still bet out on the flop. A small stakes player rarely looks at top pair and thinks he is beaten, and even if he thinks it's possible, I think it would still be the right play to bet out in order to get the preflop raiser to define his hand. In any event, if that player is in one of the later positions and eveyone checks to him on the flop, your raise could likely drive out everyone else who has not yet entered the pot since they would have to call two bets. Again, that could have big benefits for you.

WARNING this post may get a little preachy.

I disagree with this thinking. You play low limit, Beavis plays low limit, most everyone on here plays low limit. Underestimating your opponents is what makes you totally disregard a theory like the one presented. you discarded it so quickly that you misunderstood his reason for not raising, namely so everyone will NOT check to you, since you showed no strength. i do not care if you agree with it or not but don't just disregard it without thinking.

Everyone on here that plays low limit believes there are opponents are so bad that their only chance of winning is to get lucky. Yes it is true that many low limit players are terrible but you shouldn't pigeonhole every player into this category. similar to the poker tracker big blind play thread, where advice was offered on ways to improve but in the end you guys just chalked it up to variance. since it is a simple explanation and it shows no faults, because the only way you can lose is if you get unlucky.

I constantly work on my game, have you ever seen me author a river rat post or a glory corner post? the reason I don't is because I do not underestimate my opponents or everestimate my playing ability. instead of blaming a river rat I see if there was something I did wrong. if you take the time to study them even the dumbest opponent is using some sort of logic (no matter hoe misguided) to make his decisions. I think a lot of you just lump them into categories without taking the time to figure out why they do things.