Limping K3s in position

dnoyeBdnoyeB DetroitRed Chipper Posts: 284 ✭✭
I have started to limp certain hands in position that I think have a high potential upside in situations where the downside I believe is low. Suited kings fits this description for me. My two objectives with this move are to

1. Keep low variance
2. Attack limpers range.

It is a pure exploit and is only used under the following conditions

1. the pot has be limped to me.
2. I am on the BUT or there is a high chance the BUT will fold.
3. The blinds are unlikely to raise.
4. My limping range must be stronger than the tables. They can't be limping AK or suited A.
5. My raise in this position is unlikely to get fewer than 2-3 callers.
6. Table is sticky

And that's that.

I know the book says we should be attacking them but I guess I don't really know what that means. They are already attacking themselves by entering the pot with these weak hands. When I make a standard raise with a proper range that should be more than enough of an attack.

When I limp my suited kings I am also attacking them but for less. It's a poor mans attack. One where I want to keep the SPR big so I don't want to raise. I feel K3s is profitable in this position. The alternative is to fold it. I don't think that is profitable vs. the tables limping range.

If I had a larger bankroll perhaps I could raise the K3s since I think I am ahead. But I think this is a high variance hand that will typically flop nothing or everything so I want to limit the money in it. And anyway turning $2 into $30 is as good as turning $4 into $60 when you have a limited bankroll.

When its limped to me and I have AA I am raising lets say to $17. With 3 callers I have more than my share of equity but I am still going to loose sometimes. And those losses won't be small vs. the crap cards that were probably hit. I can raise even bigger here to get isolation but that is still increasing my variance?

Comments

  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭✭
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    I know the book says we should be attacking them but I guess I don't really know what that means.

    It means raise
    :)
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭✭
    K3s is a bad hand. By limping, you're playing bingo poker, hoping to hit well enough to win a decent pot.
    How do you expect to win postflop against 3, 4, 5 opponents in a limped pot when you don't hit?
    And are you even happy with KXX board (or even KKX) ? What about XX3 board? So for value, you only expect KX3 and X33 boards? These are REALLY rare (2% of the case? - I'm at work and don't have Flopzilla here).
    And FD (10% on flop) won't always complete - and even if it completes, you can either not be paid (too obvious) or lose (to nut flush, to a boat).

    So, tell me, when/how do you win money ?
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    They are already attacking themselves by entering the pot with these weak hands.
    This means nothing (?). I guess you mean they are splitting their equity since they will be more player in the pot ?
    But if that's so, why do you want to join the gang with K3s ? How is this profitable?
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    When I make a standard raise with a proper range that should be more than enough of an attack.
    So the question is: why don't you stick to a proper range ? Aka fold the junk, raise the good (enough) ones?
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    If I had a larger bankroll perhaps...
    [... ]
    when you have a limited bankroll
    So you've a bankroll issue to correct here. Play the right stakes for your bankroll; or pump your bankroll up.
    You can't play with 200bb. You need several 100bb buy-in for each sitting (imho) and 10-20 buy-in at least in your bankroll (I'd advise more on the 20x side)
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    When its limped to me and I have AA I am raising lets say to $17. With 3 callers I have more than my share of equity but I am still going to loose sometimes. And those losses won't be small vs. the crap cards that were probably hit. I can raise even bigger here to get isolation but that is still increasing my variance?
    2 important things here:
    - We don't play our hand, we play a range.
    - craps hit less frequently well than our good chosen holding.

    "Tight is Right" allows you to reduce your variance and strength your game.
    And K3s doesn't fit any tight (although we could see it in a bluff steal range from BU, but this is already a bit more advanced)
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    5. My raise in this position is unlikely to get fewer than 2-3 callers.
    6. Table is sticky
    This is a problem of pain threshold. People are of course sticky if you throw 2$ more. Nobody fold for 2$. Look bigger! (https://redchippoker.com/raising-preflop-limp-fest-pots/ ) Even absurdly big if necessary (https://redchippoker.com/attacking-limpers/)
    (But ALWAYS with a plan)
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,200 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Let me explain this and all thinking like this.

    The basis of the abstracted game of poker is the polar vs. bluff catcher paradigm. In it, a range takes a risk and offers a price to another range to guess that it might not be so strong after all. One lays the odds and the other receives them - this forms naturally, as you can see, because the weaker range is perceived to need the discount of price. By the river, the only the strongest perceived range is offering a price to the bluffcatcher, who now faces a decision. So they said, from the beginning of poker - "do you have it?" - and now far, far more nuanced and precise, but still the essentially the same.

    Hence poker players learned to raise naturally, understanding this or not, as it started the process of polarization - the great money maker of big bet games. Why? Because nut hands want the most money in the pot, while bluffs the most protection. It's more than that, in fact - without the buffs, no one calls. They work together.

    Which brings us to your post. When we choose to limp or delay or vary this process in some way, equities, instead of trending toward a strong vs weak paradigm, skew closer and closer. Hands that were strong lose their equity share, and weaker hands rely on the deck or skill differences or luck to fade the other equities.

    So when you say you are going to limp, you are veering away from the basic paradigm. It is naturally harder and requires more skill while embracing the least clarity. Why? because you are now outside the Polar vs. Bluffcatcher paradigm, and everything is muddy.

    One is free to do whatever they want, of course! That is one of the beauties of the game. However, you might ask yourself why it is that beginning and intermediate poker players want to deviate first, act fundamentally second, or in other words, work with the basic paradigm or against it, and so usually, against themselves.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Thanks for posting your thoughts. I'm going to give you two different responses in two different reply boxes.
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    I have started to limp certain hands in position that I think have a high potential upside in situations where the downside I believe is low. Suited kings fits this description for me. My two objectives with this move are to

    1. Keep low variance
    2. Attack limpers range.

    I don't really buy these.

    1. I don't think that this keeps variance lower. Variance is about getting into big-pot situations where the equity demands that you play aggressively both with and without the nuts. In fact, I would argue that drawing to the second nuts actually increases variance since you can't be sure that, when you make you're hand, you're ahead.

    2. Attacking means aggression. I don't think that you mean that you're attacking the limpers' range; otherwise, you'd be raising. I think that what you mean is that you are over-limping with a stronger range than the limpers are, thus giving you a post-flop advantage in addition to your positional advantage. Is that right?

    dnoyeB wrote: »
    It is a pure exploit and is only used under the following conditions

    1. the pot has be limped to me.
    2. I am on the BUT or there is a high chance the BUT will fold.
    3. The blinds are unlikely to raise.
    4. My limping range must be stronger than the tables. They can't be limping AK or suited A.
    5. My raise in this position is unlikely to get fewer than 2-3 callers.
    6. Table is sticky

    And that's that.

    I don't see this as a "pure exploit". I see this as something that you have identified as a way to get into more pots with your opponent to try to outplay them post-flop giving your range and positional advantages. If this is a "pure exploit", then so is raising with aces.

    Rather, I see this is a tactic that you are trying in order to create a hand and pot that you're more comfortable playing. (And this is what my second post will address.)

    Given 1-4 above, these all scream "raise" to me, not limp. I think that it's really the fear of 5-6 above that is driving you (and, obviously, your bankroll; more on that in a moment). If 5-6 are difficult for you, then I would simply suggest tightening up your range. Eventually, you can add K3 into your raise range here to outplay your opponents with both range and positional advantages -- and do so for bigger pots.

    dnoyeB wrote: »
    They are already attacking themselves by entering the pot with these weak hands. When I make a standard raise with a proper range that should be more than enough of an attack.

    ???

    Then attack by raising! :)

    dnoyeB wrote: »
    When I limp my suited kings I am also attacking them but for less. It's a poor mans attack. One where I want to keep the SPR big so I don't want to raise. I feel K3s is profitable in this position. The alternative is to fold it. I don't think that is profitable vs. the tables limping range.

    Folding is okay if your hand needs a big SPR to maximize its playability. Just fold, dude!

    dnoyeB wrote: »
    If I had a larger bankroll perhaps I could raise the K3s since I think I am ahead. But I think this is a high variance hand that will typically flop nothing or everything so I want to limit the money in it. And anyway turning $2 into $30 is as good as turning $4 into $60 when you have a limited bankroll.

    Honestly, the bankroll is irrelevant to this hand. It's relevant to your fear. If you're uncomfortable playing for the stakes demanded given your bankroll, then either drop or tighten up your range. Trying to get into more pots by limping doesn't protect your 'roll. Actually, it does the opposite by exposing it in hands that you shouldn't be in.

    dnoyeB wrote: »
    When its limped to me and I have AA I am raising lets say to $17. With 3 callers I have more than my share of equity but I am still going to loose sometimes. And those losses won't be small vs. the crap cards that were probably hit. I can raise even bigger here to get isolation but that is still increasing my variance?

    So, you raise AA and over-limp K3s. Good to know when I play against you!! (There is a big problem there!!)


    I'm not trying to be harsh. I am also NOT trying to suggest that there is no merit in overlimping K3 here. But, I do think that your reasoning is heavily flawed. I wonder if the truth is more along these lines: I want to play K3s in position, but I'm confused about playing it if I raise and get called by a few people. So, I'll limp. Now, I need to find a reason to justify my play. Hmm..... Aha! :)

    Or, to quote @persuadeo:
    persuadeo wrote: »
    you might ask yourself why it is that beginning and intermediate poker players want to deviate first, act fundamentally second, or in other words, work with the basic paradigm or against it, and so usually, against themselves.

  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Second thought:

    I think that you are trying to find a way to play this single hand in a single spot. To me, that's not a strategy. That's a justification.

    Rather, I would suggest that you think about what hands you can play profitably from late position by attacking the limpers and how limping some hands affects (either positively or, more likely, negatively) your overarching plan.

    In other words, rather than building a plan for this hand in this spot, work on a meta approach to the game and then ask if limping K3s in this situation aligns with your plan in general or detracts from it. If it aligns, then great (and no justification needed!). If not, then go back to the previous post :).
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @dnoyeB how long have you been playing poker?

    One reason your bankroll may be limited is because of these over limping spots.

    As @Red said flopping trips less than 2% and you still gotta be concern with sets which make a boat vs your trips, still gotta be concerned with Axs with your Kxs.

    Beating $1\$2 is not hard when you have a decently tight preflop range, know how to cbet, and just pay attention to the table. There is a reason a lot of poker books are the same with their ranges. People have millions of hands which show what hands are the most profitable.

    Widening your range to play bingo, even if it's just $2 is higher variance than folding. You have so many reverse implied odds and as @persuadeo said your basically beating yourself.

    Have you read any poker books?
    Poker Blue Print
    Let their be range (think you can find it on google)
    Dynamic full ring

    Look at it from a math spot. Where you say you can invest $2 and make $30 right? Let's that that as the profit.

    I'll give you 5% for trips, 2 pair, or flopped flush, not counting the reverse implied odds.

    5 x 30 = $150
    95 x 2 = $190

    Out of 100 times you play K3s you lost $40. If $30 is important to your bankroll why would you CHOOSE to lose $40?

    Your main problem is that you do "what you think is right." Think being the key word. You don't have any facts or experience to back this up.

    People at low stakes are thinking the same thing. "Im going to limp AK, so when I hit I have them trapped." Ok, so what is AK equity 5 ways compared to heads up? One of them you actually need a hand to win, other one most likely just need to bet to win.

    If you write down your ranges from each position, your honest ranges, ill share where your likely losing money from.

    When I started playing live poker I just had 5 buy-in. Never went broke in live poker, but was often consumed by work. If your playing 15-20% of hands overall, it's pretty hard to go broke. I've had only ONE 10 buy-in downswing in the last 2 years. That's when I tried to play lag, and turned out I was a bad lag. Getting all in with a merged range of AJ+ 77+ and some times even KQ. Just running into AK KK AA all the time. Low stakes players have a very small betting frequency preflop. You think when you limp Kxs, off suite broadways, and small pairs, then you raise to $17 its not obvious?

    You're losing money and increasing your negative variance with Kxs! If you don't want to take our word for it, will see if you're still here in six months. As a beginning player I strongly suggest you stick to K9s+ for the bottom of your Kx range from CO & BTN.
  • dnoyeBdnoyeB DetroitRed Chipper Posts: 284 ✭✭
    To be clear, this is 100% bankroll issue for me. I should have added;

    7. bankroll is less than 20 buy-ins.

    Red, I can't play to someones pain threshold without a bankroll. Not that I haven't tried.

    I've run my range against what I think is their limping range.
    My range 53.8% equity [K3s]
    Their range 46.2% equity

    So I still assert that playing K3s is fine. Whether it should be limped I think I haven't necessarily shown. I'm reading those links Red posted.

    Persuadeo, I feel like I walked into a tint and you read my tarot cards. Now I need to go home and figure out what it all means :-) I think that went over my head.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    To be clear, this is 100% bankroll issue for me. I should have added;

    7. bankroll is less than 20 buy-ins.

    Red, I can't play to someones pain threshold without a bankroll. Not that I haven't tried.

    I've run my range against what I think is their limping range.
    My range 53.8% equity [K3s]
    Their range 46.2% equity

    So I still assert that playing K3s is fine. Whether it should be limped I think I haven't necessarily shown. I'm reading those links Red posted.

    Persuadeo, I feel like I walked into a tint and you read my tarot cards. Now I need to go home and figure out what it all means :-) I think that went over my head.

    8kic0fn80nem.png

    Against this 25% limping range, lmk what hands you disagree with and why, you have 45% equity with K3s and this is against ONE player! Do this range against 3 more players and see what your equity is.

    Against stronger limping range below you have 44%.
    vodj9h8dtmix.png
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭✭
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    To be clear, this is 100% bankroll issue for me. I should have added;

    7. bankroll is less than 20 buy-ins.

    BR shouldn't affect in-game strategy.

    The best cure for too small a bankroll is learning to make more +EV decisions and less -EV decisions NOT to try to control variance.

    As others have said over limping weak hands like K3s even on the BTN is a -EV decision.

  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭✭
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    My range 53.8% equity [K3s]
    Their range 46.2% equity

    There are 3 mistakes here. First (maybe I understand I wrong?), K3s isn't a range. 66+/AJ+/KQ is a range - including many hands played the same way.

    Second - and big mistake - even if K3s has 53.8% equity against the range you assign, this % only show how many times you should win if you go to showdown RIGHT NOW. This implies you go to showdown. How often do you fold before showdown, losing chunck of this preflop equity? Make the test, play only K3s against the range and see how often you actually go to show down (and if your actual win % is 53%).

    Third - and big mistake - you show here HEADS-UP equity. More players will lower you equity. For example with AA:
    - AA v. 72o preflop has 88.2% equity;
    - AA v. 72o v. 63o. and you're down at 74.8% equity;
    - AA v. 72o v. 63o v. 22 v. JTs and AA has 53% equity.
    Even if you play against trash or dominated hands, you're losing a lot of equity just because you face more players.
    So saying K3s has XX% equity is valid only if you are heads-up, not in a multi-way pot.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    dnoyeB wrote: »
    My range 53.8% equity [K3s]
    Their range 46.2% equity

    There are 3 mistakes here. First (maybe I understand I wrong?), K3s isn't a range. 66+/AJ+/KQ is a range - including many hands played the same way.

    Second - and big mistake - even if K3s has 53.8% equity against the range you assign, this % only show how many times you should win if you go to showdown RIGHT NOW. This implies you go to showdown. How often do you fold before showdown, losing chunck of this preflop equity? Make the test, play only K3s against the range and see how often you actually go to show down (and if your actual win % is 53%).

    Third - and big mistake - you show here HEADS-UP equity. More players will lower you equity. For example with AA:
    - AA v. 72o preflop has 88.2% equity;
    - AA v. 72o v. 63o. and you're down at 74.8% equity;
    - AA v. 72o v. 63o v. 22 v. JTs and AA has 53% equity.
    Even if you play against trash or dominated hands, you're losing a lot of equity just because you face more players.
    So saying K3s has XX% equity is valid only if you are heads-up, not in a multi-way pot.

    And -

    You have to compare K3s to the limpers+blinds ranges - this is not a HU pot. and there is NO WAY K3s has 53.8% equity in the multiway pot you are choosing to play
  • dnoyeBdnoyeB DetroitRed Chipper Posts: 284 ✭✭
    First, Austin you keep sitting down at this table and I keep telling you that I am not doing this against you. That range is a raising range not a limping range. The range I am targeting is more like

    j25tzclgycx0.png

    Yes K3s is not a range. I have a few more hands in my limp but it just makes my range stronger. So I didn't add them. This is just a question about the one hand's worth so I'm trying not to loose focus even though I know you want to play a range and not a hand bear with me.

    It is a valid point that the blinds could be stronger than my range for sure.

    I realize that this is one V one so it makes my statement technically incorrect but that does not change much. AA drop in equity with each additional player but what does that really mean as long as it gets its appropriate share right?
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @dnoyeB if that is truely their limping range then you need to be punishing them. I don't always think it should be a big raise, maybe just $6-$10 so you gain initiative and perhaps position. That range will miss the flop so often that cbetting half pot on most textures is just auto profit.

    Risk $10 preflop and $20 on the flop and just print money. Especially if you get 1-2 callers with that range.

    By limping you let them realize their equity cheaply.

    Also using your chart, you think $1\$2 players have a PFR of 24%?

    vd8h68523lkn.png
  • dnoyeBdnoyeB DetroitRed Chipper Posts: 284 ✭✭
    I know there are a lot of problems with K3s. I have laid out a lot of pre-conditions in order to make this hand playable. I think I'm good with it even with so many tiny problems. But maybe I am wishing because I really want a weapon against the wild speculators.

    That being said, I read the article you linked (funny the last comment was akin to my position). I like the idea of changing my range based on the number of limpers. I have been under the idea of "attacking" the limpers because their range is weak. So I was attacking with my whole range. Going harder raising bigger.

    But the article suggested I could trim my range after so many limpers. So sometimes I have to fold an otherwise good hand because there are too many limpers to play it. It seems unfair but I am comfortable with it. Then the remainder of my range I can go harder with.

    It just never occurred to me that I am raising bigger and bigger hoping to get more folds then perhaps I should be using stronger and stronger hands?

    Does this make sense? If so I think I can try this alternative for a while and see how it plays out.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭✭
    Being "comfortable" with it doesn't make you money. At least 80% of this game is folding so I suggest you get comfortable with folding weak hands like this.

    Also, consider 2 pros in this thread and pretty much any decent poker resource will tell you to fold and yet you persist?

    GL on the felt
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    kenaces wrote: »
    Being "comfortable" with it doesn't make you money. At least 80% of this game is folding so I suggest you get comfortable with folding weak hands like this.

    Also, consider 2 pros in this thread and pretty much any decent poker resource will tell you to fold and yet you persist?

    GL on the felt

    2 pros of higher stakes and 2 skilled Degens at least for lower stakes. My graph is a result of folding around 80% of hands. If you want to lower your variance it starts with folding.
  • dnoyeBdnoyeB DetroitRed Chipper Posts: 284 ✭✭
    Yes, it seems unfair but I am comfortable with folding it
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    kenaces wrote: »
    Being "comfortable" with it doesn't make you money. At least 80% of this game is folding so I suggest you get comfortable with folding weak hands like this.

    Also, consider 2 pros in this thread and pretty much any decent poker resource will tell you to fold and yet you persist?

    GL on the felt

    2 pros of higher stakes and 2 skilled Degens at least for lower stakes. My graph is a result of folding around 80% of hands. If you want to lower your variance it starts with folding.

    Nit lol ❤️
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    kenaces wrote: »
    Being "comfortable" with it doesn't make you money. At least 80% of this game is folding so I suggest you get comfortable with folding weak hands like this.

    Also, consider 2 pros in this thread and pretty much any decent poker resource will tell you to fold and yet you persist?

    GL on the felt

    2 pros of higher stakes and 2 skilled Degens at least for lower stakes. My graph is a result of folding around 80% of hands. If you want to lower your variance it starts with folding.

    Nit lol ❤️

    What can I say? I enjoy printing money. Can mix it up postflop, but start with a solid preflop range. 100bb games wider range is usually -EV.

    I challenge you to play a wide range at 100bb and show a profit 😀. Im just doing as im taught. Thank you.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018
    If I played 100BB for a living I would be tight too don’t worry 😉
  • Martin DMartin D Red Chipper Posts: 79 ✭✭
    Hi OP, I play the smallest available live stakes with a very limited BR as a rec player. The main reasons for this is (a) kids and (b) I don't want to deplete my online roll. Online is my main game, I can only make it to a casino maybe once a week but can play online 4 nights a week on top.


    I think its important to take BR out of the decision making process, and the best way to do that is to set some personal BR rules. Sure, you can't afford 20BI, but can you afford 5, don't withdraw when you win and partially refill from Liferoll when you lose? As long as you are a winning player you should slowly grow to a decent BR like that. Set a rule like that then forget about BR on the table.

    More generally, I find I have to work hard to avoid being, infected I guess is the word, by the logic of the guys I play with. It sounds like you have a bit of that here - I've done this exact thing before and had to slap myself on the wrist a few times.

    Regarding K3s, you think you have a card edge here and I disagree. I think they are limping unsuited connecters, suited hands including better Ks and Aces, pocket pairs up to maybe 99, unsuited aces, maybe some double broadways. Also the occasional AA/AK because they think it's clever. Maybe other junk but as a group I don't think you have a big enough card edge.

    You do still have a positional advantage, but you need a big skill edge. I'm sure a guy like Sam Trickett can sit down at my table and play whatever the hell he feels like, but I usually can't. I'd need to be fairly sure that either all the limpers will play 100% fit or fold post, or that maybe one guy will 100% guaranteed blast off with 3rd pair or worse as a bluff every time. This would be profitable but high variance. Also, in that case why not raise?
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Martin D wrote: »
    Hi OP, I play the smallest available live stakes with a very limited BR as a rec player. The main reasons for this is (a) kids and (b) I don't want to deplete my online roll. Online is my main game, I can only make it to a casino maybe once a week but can play online 4 nights a week on top.


    I think its important to take BR out of the decision making process, and the best way to do that is to set some personal BR rules. Sure, you can't afford 20BI, but can you afford 5, don't withdraw when you win and partially refill from Liferoll when you lose? As long as you are a winning player you should slowly grow to a decent BR like that. Set a rule like that then forget about BR on the table.

    More generally, I find I have to work hard to avoid being, infected I guess is the word, by the logic of the guys I play with. It sounds like you have a bit of that here - I've done this exact thing before and had to slap myself on the wrist a few times.

    Regarding K3s, you think you have a card edge here and I disagree. I think they are limping unsuited connecters, suited hands including better Ks and Aces, pocket pairs up to maybe 99, unsuited aces, maybe some double broadways. Also the occasional AA/AK because they think it's clever. Maybe other junk but as a group I don't think you have a big enough card edge.

    You do still have a positional advantage, but you need a big skill edge. I'm sure a guy like Sam Trickett can sit down at my table and play whatever the hell he feels like, but I usually can't. I'd need to be fairly sure that either all the limpers will play 100% fit or fold post, or that maybe one guy will 100% guaranteed blast off with 3rd pair or worse as a bluff every time. This would be profitable but high variance. Also, in that case why not raise?

    Well said @Martin D

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file