In a split-pot game, there are generally three reasons to raise: (1) you believe you are the only person playing for one half of the pot and have multiple people playing for the other half, leading to a situation where you can raise with impunity; (2) you think you have the best hand or best draw and are raising for value against worse hands that may call; or (3) you feel that you can get a better hand or better draw to fold. Knowing when to raise, and why, can be tricky in split-pot games.

Consider two different raises from a recent session of limit Omaha hi/lo that I played. The table could best be described as very, very tight. Raises were given far more respect than they deserved. In the first hand, I was dealt and limped into the pot after two early-position limpers. One player called behind me before the big blind checked.

The flop came down , making top set for me and giving me the low-end of a gutshot straight draw. It also put a made low on the board. As you might expect, when the action passed to me, I bet out. The player behind me folded, bringing action around to the big blind, who check-raised. She was probably the tightest player at the table. As soon as she check-raised, nobody else wanted a part of the pot. It quickly became heads-up between the two of us.

Fixed-limit games, by design, require multiple decisions in every pot. That can lead to either a cascade of poor decisions resulting in missed wins and/or small losses, or a plethora of correct.

1. Limit Texas Hold'em Poker Strategy Tips. Limit Texas hold ’em is deceptive. It appears easy to play, yet beneath that simple facade lies a game of extraordinary complexity. Many variables must be considered when making decisions, and figuring out the correct play is often difficult.
2. Here are some painful lessons from the bottom end of the poker food chain: low stakes, fixed-limit hold'em. Last time I discussed some of the reasons I enjoy low limit hold'em (i.e, $4/$8.

Poker Strategy Fixed Limit Credit Cards

I called the raise, then raised myself when the board paired sevens on the turn with the . My opponent called, then check-called the river. I showed a full house, aces full of sevens, for high and 8-7-5-4-A for low. My opponent turned over , making three sevens for high and the nut low, 8-7-3-2-A. She also left me scratching my head. Why had she check-raised the flop?

On the flop, the big blind made the nut low, and a pair of sevens for high with no draw to speak of. At first blush, therefore, it appears that she was raising for value. However, because she has almost no chance of scooping the pot and will instead only receive half, her interest lies in building the pot as big as she can. Given the extremely tight table conditions, her check-raise is going to fold weak high draws and mediocre low draws. These are hands that either (a) she would rather see call against her nut low, or (b) she would rather have call because they have zero impact on her half of the pot. The only rationale I could come up with for the big blind's check-raise was that she was afraid of having her low counterfeited by a deuce or a trey falling on the turn or river. That will happen one time out of four, not nearly often enough to be concerned about — especially in a five-way pot!

Later on that session, the same player was involved in another pot against two opponents. I opened the betting with top two pair on a board of . I was called by one opponent before the player from the earlier hand, now on the button, made a strong raise. I had played with her long enough to realize that she wasn't raising any kind of wrap; her most likely holding was a set (given my cards, a set of eights). One early-position player called the two bets cold. I called, looking to fill up on the turn; the other player in the hand called as well.

The turn was the , a card that missed me. We all checked the action around to the button, who bet. She was called by the early-position player and the player on her right, but not by me. I folded. The river was the and brought a bet from the early-position player. That bet was raised by the player on the button's right. The button steamed for a few moments before dejectedly mucking her cards. The early-position player called. He held for the nut low and ace-high. The player on the button's right turned over for the nut low and a pair of fours for high.

If the button was steaming when the third heart hit the river and she was faced with calling two bets cold, she steamed even more when she saw the winning high hand. 'How could you raise that?' she asked the player on her right.

'Why, what did you have?' he responded.

'I had a set! I thought you made a flush.'

In this hand, it's unclear if the late-position player was raising because he thought he was the only person going low and had caught two big high hands around him (a flush and a set), or if he legitimately thought he could knock the button off of her hand. Given that he had no high hand, I'm guessing the former. But this instance clearly demonstrates that there is more than one reason to raise. Sometimes you hope a worse hand calls (or in a split-pot game, that you can trap a third player into putting extra money in the pot); sometimes you hope a better hand folds.

One of the keys to success in fixed-limit betting is to understand what a given decision — like a raise — will accomplish in a particular situation. Fixed-limit games, by design, require multiple decisions in every pot. That can lead to either a cascade of poor decisions resulting in missed wins and/or small losses, or a plethora of correct decisions and modest gains. Over the long run, each adds up in its own way.

• Tags

  OmahaPokerNews Strategy

Since stumbling towards retirement nine years ago, Andrei Joseph has played low limit hold 'em in more than 100 poker rooms across 20 states. He would be $37,000 ahead — if there were no rake! Here's the first of two articles from Joseph in which he explores some of the attractions and challenges of what for many poker players is a favorite variant.

The insults rain down: 'How can you play that game?' 'It's nothing but bingo!' 'You can't push anyone off a hand!' 'So many people call, there is always going to be someone who sucks out on you!'

Often offered by no-limit hold'em players, there is an element of truth to some of these claims. But low stakes, fixed-limit hold'em (defined here as $4/$8 and below) is still the game for some of us. Let's see why.

The beginning of my answer is that all forms of poker are different from the other games offered in a casino, in one key respect — it is possible to win.

Casually, some casino goers will say 'let's play blackjack,' 'let's play craps,' or 'let's play poker' as though all are the same. However, this apparent similarity is utterly false. In all the other casino games, if you play long enough you are guaranteed to lose.

Poker, on the other hand, if played skillfully against the right opponents, offers the possibility of us actually winning. What a novel thought! What a joy — I can enter a casino without an automatic sense of doom or need to rationalize that my losses will be the cost of 'entertainment.'

Those other casino games hold virtually no allure for me now. One might be successful on any given single visit, but repeated efforts at roulette, slots, keno, baccarat, craps or blackjack will inevitably fall victim to the predetermined odds that favor the casino. Playing 'perfect' blackjack reduces the house odds to half a percent, but in the long run you will still lose (unless you are a successful card counter — and good luck with that).

Poker and sports betting are the only games in which skill can overcome cost. Of course, the other side of this coin is that winning at poker requires work. The adage of 'a few minutes to learn, a lifetime to master' is true. There is an enormous amount of knowledge to acquire and skill to hone.

Even so, why play limit hold'em rather than no-limit?

First of all, for many of us the idea when playing games like poker is to have fun. And while winning (or losing) money is certainly a central factor affecting how much fun we have, there are other considerations, too.

Poker Strategy Fixed Limit Income

When I play poker, I want to relax and enjoy myself. I personally can't do that playing no-limit. Others can, but I can't. I am comfortable with a $12 decision. I do not enjoy a game in which I raise preflop with pocket jacks only to be reraised and face an all-in decision.

Don't delude yourself; there is no significant money to be made at low level limit hold'em. Even if you dominate the other players, the rake is simply too big a factor to accumulate stacks that will change your lifestyle.

But the variance is much less than it is in no-limit. Your losses will be relatively low and more controlled. If you have traveled an inconvenient distance to reach a poker room, or you are on vacation, you will still be able to sit for hours and not lose your shirt.

Perhaps this helps explain my perspective: I play poker, but I do not consider myself a poker player. And, at this point, I don't want the tension of a bigger game.

I don't possess the ability to read players in a sophisticated fashion. Nor do I have a serious poker bankroll. But I do want the little buzz, the intellectual challenge, and the social camaraderie poker can provide, both with friends and strangers. I enjoy the comps and the fact that I can shuffle chips with either hand.

Different games fit different personalities. No-limit is a psychology offering with a curriculum reliant on imperfect perception and aggression. Meanwhile, limit poker has been cleverly described as 'competitive algebra.' Enroll in the course of your choice.

Poker Strategy Fixed Limit Definition

• Tags

  cash game strategylimit hold’emlive pokerbankroll management