|
L_Clan_Sup3rMaN
|
10-15-2008, 04:27 PM
Post subject: Raising less PF from LP than EP.
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 834
|
|
I'm sure you guys have heard of people doing that, or have seen people do that, or do it yourself. Just wondering your thoughts on it and is it +EV or only against certain opponents?
What I'm talking about is raising to about 3x BB from CO and BU and doing the standard 4x BB from UTG and UTG+1 and blinds. Anyone like it? Anyone against it?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Galapogos
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Loser's Lounge
Posts: 2,323
|
|
I raise to pot from UTG to CO and 3x OTB. Of course this can always change depending on table conditions.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sauce123
I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
|
|
|
al yell
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 515
|
|
I may be taught to do differently as my game improves but for now i adjust my openings proportionately to the BB's stack (effective) regardless of my position:
> 50bb = 2.5x
< 50bb > 100bb = 3bb
100bb = bet pot (3.5x)
< 100bb = 4x
If the BB is a station I'll start 4x regardless and generally bet smaller when I want to get called by a weaker player.
blind vs blind when I'm in the SB I'll 4x as well.
|
|
|
|
minSim
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Deventer
Posts: 1,512
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Galapogos
I raise to pot from UTG to CO and 3x OTB. Of course this can always change depending on table conditions.
|
Please elaborate that if you want.
I don't have much time now, but I'll get back to this thread with a long reply with all my thoughts. I wanted to start a thread about this myself, but will join in this one. I hope it get's some good replies to have this cleared once and for all.
|
|
|
|
Muzzard
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 1,843
|
|
I always used to raise 4bb open from all positions, then I canged to 4bb from EP and 3bb LP, now I just raise 3bb from everywhere.
I don't think it really matters that much as long as you have some sort of consistent strategy. I think overall too much emphasis has been placed on this subject and really it's not warranted.
|
|
|
|
Galapogos
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Loser's Lounge
Posts: 2,323
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by minSim
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Galapogos
I raise to pot from UTG to CO and 3x OTB. Of course this can always change depending on table conditions.
|
Please elaborate that if you want.
I don't have much time now, but I'll get back to this thread with a long reply with all my thoughts. I wanted to start a thread about this myself, but will join in this one. I hope it get's some good replies to have this cleared once and for all. |
Well, if I'm getting spazz 3-bet and for some reason I don't want to leave (very unlikely) I open from all positions at 3x. And if I'm at a table full of loose passives I bump it up 4x.
Lately everyone loves to build big pots OOP with 3-bets so I like to open the button less since I want to be able to call a lot of hands and exploit this oddity.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sauce123
I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
|
|
|
ihategnomes
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,225
|
|
I can see argument for both really. On one side, raising more IP than OP will allow you to build bigger pots when you have a better position. On the other side of the coin, you want more people to fold when you are OP than IP. Honestly I don't think the latter applies that much, if someone is gonna call, 1BB most likely will not make a difference. Personally I raise everything 4BB but used to raise 4BB IP and 3BB OP. Why I change I dont know, but I really don't think it matters that much.
|
|
Field mice are fast, but owls can see in the dark.
<Bbickes> i still wanna know if the thing in your avatar is a real chick or not
<Bbickes> or am i e-crushing a dude
|
|
STHollywood
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 107
|
|
Im certainly not an authority, but my thought is that pre-flop raise size should be dependant on what your purpose for raising the hand is (i'll elaborate in a second)
Obviously a good player will notice what you are doing with your raise sizes but i doubt that most players up to 100nl and maybe even 200nl will be paying enough attention.
So here is what I mean: Let's say that you are playing 50nl and you have AA UTG. Well the pot raise is 1.85, if im not mistaken, but on this hand what is your purpose? Almost all the time you want your money in as quickly as possible; so why not raise to 2.25 and build a bigger pot cause this hand usually has 3 streets of value? And if you are in late position and there are limpers then maybe raise to 2.75 or something. So now an opposing situation. Let's say you have 78s on the button and it's folded around to you, now pot is still 1.85. Now what is your purpose here? Well 78s is a hand that has to hit to be profitable against most pre-flop calling ranges. So, in that case building larger pot pre-flop makes no sense since you will be folding 78s posrt flop much more than AA or KK type hands. In fact with a drawing hand you want more space post-flop so you can make profitable semi-bluffs, so raising to 1.50 or just simply pot makes more sense. Mid pocket pairs for me are somewhere in between. A pot sized raise is my standard.
So, as I said, if you are playing against good players than this could get you in trouble (although you could adjust to their adjustment and then it could be helpful), but IMO raise size is more plan specific than position specific. Although they are related because starting pre-flop ranges change with position.
Any thoughts?
|
|
ISF while watching me play: "Wow, you're really butchering this."
|
|
al yell
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 515
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by STHollywood
Im certainly not an authority, but my thought is that pre-flop raise size should be dependant on what your purpose for raising the hand is (i'll elaborate in a second)....Any thoughts?
|
the purpose is constant is it not? : extract as much value as possible from your hand.
You should never adjust your bet sizing in relation to the relative strength of your hand as it is easily exploited.
|
|
|
|
al yell
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 515
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by minSim
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Galapogos
I raise to pot from UTG to CO and 3x OTB. Of course this can always change depending on table conditions.
|
.. I hope it get's some good replies to have this cleared once and for all. |
'once and for all' will never happen imo. Not saying you shouldn't post your elaborations, I'd actually really like to read your opinion on the matter. My point is simply that, the game will constantly evolve, constantly change. New adaptations and popular approaches to the game will fluctuate as will their counter-strategies by necessity. This is partially what gives the game its longevity.
That being said it's not necessarily the fact that a single approach can't be profitable over a long period of time. All the more reason to be up to speed with the general consensus and make creative and personal adaptations to suit your style based on these insights.
|
|
|
|
STHollywood
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 107
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by al yell
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by STHollywood
Im certainly not an authority, but my thought is that pre-flop raise size should be dependant on what your purpose for raising the hand is (i'll elaborate in a second)....Any thoughts?
|
the purpose is constant is it not? : extract as much value as possible from your hand.
You should never adjust your bet sizing in relation to the relative strength of your hand as it is easily exploited. |
Yes you are right it is easily exploitable which is why I said the thing about it depending on who you are playing against.
But I have to respectfully disagree about the rest. Yes, the purpose is to extract the most value possible from your hand but that is a blanket statement. If that was an complete explanation for what we are discussing than basically you are saying we can just not talk about any situation in terms of bet-sizing. We should never adjust bet sizing to the relative strength of our hand? In most non-bluff situations we are doing exactly that. Say we are playing a hand and we see "here the best play is to bet" then we think how much. Also checking is a decision to bet 0. So, in every situation we are adjusting our bet sizing to the relative strength of our hand against our opponants range. Yes it is easily exploitable pre-flop but obviously I am not doing this versus gabe, or sauce or whatever, Im doing this against 50nl HUGE fish who would never notice or think about it.
|
|
|
|
al yell
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 515
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by STHollywood
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by al yell
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by STHollywood
Im certainly not an authority, but my thought is that pre-flop raise size should be dependant on what your purpose for raising the hand is (i'll elaborate in a second)....Any thoughts?
|
the purpose is constant is it not? : extract as much value as possible from your hand.
You should never adjust your bet sizing in relation to the relative strength of your hand as it is easily exploited. |
Yes you are right it is easily exploitable which is why I said the thing about it depending on who you are playing against. |
- was only speaking in terms of PF, as per the subject of this thread - I hear ya on the rest.
|
|
|
|
Numbr2intheWorld
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,561
|
|
Aaron i kind of skimmed over your post, you're right but also wrong (i'll elaborate).
I think that at lower levels no one is gonna "exploit" changing raise sizes. That is, if you're always raising $3 with AA but $2 with anything else, the donks and also probably the regs still aren't folding their KT preflop. And, also, using a raise size like that can be beneficial. But, your 87s leads me to believe you don't understand some things. A lot of times the raise size has to do more with who you're playing instead of your hand. For example, when i'm playing against players to my right who are extremely tight, i will start minraising the button (and continue to if they don't loosen up) because they're folding wayyy too much and making me money. Another example is when the blinds are way too loose, but are folding everything postflop, i may start raising 5 or 6x on the button because they are going to donate so much money preflop just to fold their hand on the flop. These are the types of situations where adjusting raise sizes should be considered, your hand is a minor factor.
There was a 2p2 thread a while back where someone posted a hand against phil galfond (OMGClayAiken) when he was playing at midstakes (by the way, idk why he was playing midstakes). galfond c/r mid pair top kicker in some limped pot and everyone had no idea why he would do it considering the situation. He replied by saying "I think the main difference between high stakes and midstakes players is midstakes players Play the Game while we Play the opponents."
Just something to think about.
|
|
|
|
STHollywood
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 107
|
|
Hmmm....interesting Max. That makes a lot of sense.
Of course I was refering to playing a level at which there are simply 4 types of players: 1) really loose really passive 2) really loose really aggresive and 3) compeltely by the "book" 17/13 and 4) 8/4 nit.
But. alas I do see your point.
|
|
ISF while watching me play: "Wow, you're really butchering this."
|
|
bigspenda73
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pwnsylvania
Posts: 7,546
|
|
4utg 3.5utg+1 3CO 2.5-2otb 4sb
|
|
|
|
Galapogos
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Loser's Lounge
Posts: 2,323
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
4utg 3.5utg+1 3CO 2.5-2otb 4sb
|
What limit are you playing at now? I think you're giving up a bit too much money to be doing this at small stakes.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sauce123
I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
|
|
|
bigspenda73
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pwnsylvania
Posts: 7,546
|
|
when I play nl either 100 or 200
but I haven't played NL seriously for like 2 months now
Also, where am I giving up money, in ep or lp?
|
|
|
|
bjsaust
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ballarat, Australia
Posts: 5,842
|
|
4xUTG, 3.5x (pot) utg+1 -> CO, 3xbtn, 3x SB.
I make it a bit bigger UTG because I find 3.5x gets a lot of callers and multiway pots OOP suck. I also have a stronger range UTG so a bigger bet is +EV.
3x OTB because I have a weaker range, I need less folds to be profitable purely on steals, and most players adjust poorly when 3-betting for their blind defence v's a smaller raise.
SB is probably a mistake and should be 4x because I'll be OOP, but I dont steal a lot from SB so normally I have a pretty strong range, and again I dont need many folds to be profitable with my steals. I'm also lazy and but bet pot button is right there (and in SB thats $3).
Adjustments should be obvious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galapogos
Lately everyone loves to build big pots OOP with 3-bets so I like to open the button less since I want to be able to call a lot of hands and exploit this oddity.
|
Man, I thought I was unique working this out  .
|
|
Just playing to improve.
|
|
Numbr2intheWorld
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,561
|
|
oh yeah, and at 5/10 i raise 3x from utg-CO and if there are regs in my blinds, most of the time i 2x the button. I'm also playing significantly looser on the button.
|
|
|
|
Galapogos
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Loser's Lounge
Posts: 2,323
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
when I play nl either 100 or 200
but I haven't played NL seriously for like 2 months now
Also, where am I giving up money, in ep or lp?
|
Just all around. Mind you, it's just my opinion and there could be a drastic difference between sites we both play on. But I think players are just too passive and loose if you table select well to be keeping pots that small initially. For a while I tried 3x from everywhere and I really didn't feel it was optimal at those levels.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sauce123
I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
|
|
|
meeloche
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,131
|
|
I like 4x everywhere 100nl and below. The reason is the 3 betting dynamic in most cases doesn't warrant adjusting. Another reason since you should have a postflop edge why not have bigger pots waiting for you when you are playing against people who only playing their cards.
|
|
|
|
bigspenda73
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pwnsylvania
Posts: 7,546
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Galapogos
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
when I play nl either 100 or 200
but I haven't played NL seriously for like 2 months now
Also, where am I giving up money, in ep or lp?
|
Just all around. Mind you, it's just my opinion and there could be a drastic difference between sites we both play on. But I think players are just too passive and loose if you table select well to be keeping pots that small initially. For a while I tried 3x from everywhere and I really didn't feel it was optimal at those levels. |
I mean I would just be careful about blanket statements
I run at the tighest like 28/24 or something, not a big fan of opening 4x with such a wide range, seems like since my opponents calling ranges have my opening range crushed I would be losing value.
|
|
|
|
Fnord
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck
Posts: 19,336
|
|
I think it's probably optimal, but I think people do pay enough attention that I don't want to toy around with opener sizing so I just open 3x everywhere figuring that I'm opening way more often with position.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
06-02-2012, 08:10 PM Merge Network 6.0 Looks to Retain Current Player Base
Linear Mode
