Random raises strategy

The raise amount should be the same no matter what you hold, right? Otherwise you'd be giving your opponents some information.

But what if you raise a random amount between 3x and 5x the blind every time? Now you can raise higher with better cards on AVERAGE but your opponents won't know it. Say for every ten times you have a pair of aces you:

raise 5x two times
raise 4x three times
raise 3x two times
check three times

now every ten times you have a pair of queens you:
raise 5x four times
raise 4x three times
raise 3x two times
check once (to mix it up)

and you can use your watch to determine the amount (using the second hand)
and even if someone KNOWS you're using the watch, they don't know what you have since the raise amount could be with any hand, but just more likely with one of your hands

this is what dan harrington suggests

this way you can be unpredictable, but bet the "correct" amount on average

by correct I mean theoretically correct if your opponents wouldn't use this information

*shrug* sounds fine. But this assumes you're playing against the same ops for a long enough period for this to make sense.

-'rilla

yeah I think it's fine but as harrington also says online you probably aren't going to run into people enough to make it worthwhile to raise more or less than you feel appropriate

This raising the same amount each time business - is this the "correct" way?

I mix my raises up according to the table I'm at, the position I'm in and what bets have been made before me.

If I have AA or KK, I want to be heads up with somebody so I raise an amount that I think will achieve this. In EP this may be 6xBB, but in LP with no previous callers, I will disguise it as a blind steal at 3xBB.
If in LP with several limpers, i will raise 7 or 8 BB to make it look like a pot steal.

Actually, i have an annoying habit of raising seemingly random numbers, like $2.27 or $1.83 etc. I think this confuses people a little, especially when it comes to calculating pot odds. Well, it certainly aggravates them, judging by some comments get. Maybe it intices them to call, because it looks like a bluff.

I can see the benefits of raising a fixed amount each time, but this just seems to be a little too robotic for me. I like my poker to be fun and unpredictable.

How mixing it up can't be the best way I just can't fathom - as long as you do mix it up to a sufficient degree of randomness, of course.

Just raising the same each time may give your opposition no information - but there are times when you *want* them to have information, which can either be real or false. If you mix *these* up, then you've added an extra level of confusion.

If you raise the same each time, you may not give info but you do provide your opponent with predictability - he can work out his odds against you better, he can get an idea of how much you invest from each position etc. etc. It's a marginal disadvantage, I'm sure, but poker's all about the margins.

Biondino, you're giving people too much credit. Most poker players are stupid and don't give a shit what you bet for the most part. They convince themselves that when they see you bet big, that you are bluffing. Betting random can work, but only if you play with the players for a substantial amount of time. 3+ hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boyobach

This raising the same amount each time business - is this the "correct" way?

I mix my raises up according to the table I'm at, the position I'm in and what bets have been made before me.

If I have AA or KK, I want to be heads up with somebody so I raise an amount that I think will achieve this. In EP this may be 6xBB, but in LP with no previous callers, I will disguise it as a blind steal at 3xBB.
If in LP with several limpers, i will raise 7 or 8 BB to make it look like a pot steal.

Actually, i have an annoying habit of raising seemingly random numbers, like $2.27 or $1.83 etc. I think this confuses people a little, especially when it comes to calculating pot odds. Well, it certainly aggravates them, judging by some comments get. Maybe it intices them to call, because it looks like a bluff.

I can see the benefits of raising a fixed amount each time, but this just seems to be a little too robotic for me. I like my poker to be fun and unpredictable.

---

YES WE HAVE A WINNAR!

Is that sarcasm i detect?

I personally like to raise 3xbb with no or 1 limper in front of me, with an additional 1xbb for every limper beyond the first. With this strategy, no one can get any information from the size of your raises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twosevoff

I personally like to raise 3xbb with no or 1 limper in front of me, with an additional 1xbb for every limper beyond the first. With this strategy, no one can get any information from the size of your raises.

---

Yes, but when you have AA you want more money in the pot, when you have QQ you want to eliminate players. That's because AA wins more than 50% against nine random hands so it's even good enough to limp with. Queens, on the other hand, you want to get people out sometimes or go all-in with you.
Yeah, I took this from Harrington. Very good for live tournaments... my first live tournament was really bad because I was used to 3 handed games with roommates so I played really loose and never hit anything and always got raised. Harrignton's book taught me how tight you have to be in real life tournaments.

Betting randomly to me is no different from betting the same. You are giving the opponent no information about your hand. The only difference, is when betting randomly your opponents probably won't notice, and will take your bet size to represent your hand strength, and they'll have that false information. Its your call on whether that's good or bad.

"If you raise the same each time, you may not give info but you do provide your opponent with predictability - he can work out his odds against you better, he can get an idea of how much you invest from each position etc. etc. It's a marginal disadvantage, I'm sure, but poker's all about the margins."

how can he get an idea of how much you invest from each position, when you raise the same from each position? working out odds i don't even think is a marginal advantage: you have to be able to figure out odds for all sorts of amounts, either you can figure out odds or you can't, i've never seen anyone be like "ok, he raised 4 dollars, i can draw with my suited connectors because his stack is XBB deep", then say "oh wow, he raised 3 dollars... that's 3, carry the 1..... aww shit i just fold."

"Yes, but when you have AA you want more money in the pot, when you have QQ you want to eliminate players. That's because AA wins more than 50% against nine random hands so it's even good enough to limp with. Queens, on the other hand, you want to get people out sometimes or go all-in with you. "

I disagree with this. The goals are the same with both hands: you want money in the pot early and often, and you don't want a ton of competition. the idea that AA is good for limping is a fallacy: if you do limp and see a flop with 9 people you will lose money. odds are, you will only get bets called when someone has you beaten.