Theory: Pre-Flop Raises

[bxb]

People are always saying that we should make our raises pot sized preflop or like 4xBB+1 for each limper. I understand that smaller raises are bad because they give our opponents favorable odds to call with almost all of their hands. However, I don't see what is so bad about over betting pre flop.

Overbetting pre-flop probably gains us more folding equity and also allows us to decrease implied odds.

So why do why never do this?

[VPIP100]

If they have a real hand and move over the top you can:

Never call for set value.

Lose more money than you would otherwise.

People will play back at you

[PietM]

I think you need to walk on the thin line between folding equity and giving odds. If you openraise 7/8 (or more?) BB preflop with your Aces, you won't get any action. And you do want action, although you want villains to make a mistake.

4xBB + 1/limper is, in my opinion, a nice size, which gets called often enough to be profitable.

[Elverian]

If you have one of the power hands, you don't want everyone to fold, you want to narrow the field to a single opponent or two at the most.
If you don't and get reraised off the hand, you're losing more than you need.
Don't always assume that 4BB+1 is universal. You should look at the situation and decide what you want to achieve.
With AA on the button, if it folds you may want to raise 2BB so both blinds don't fold. With 87s in a multiway pot, you may min-raise to nick the button and sweeten the pot with a hand that performs well against many opponents etc etc.

[PietM]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have one of the power hands, you don't want everyone to fold, you want to narrow the field to a single opponent or two at the most.
If you don't and get reraised off the hand, you're losing more than you need.
Don't always assume that 4BB+1 is universal. You should look at the situation and decide what you want to achieve.
With AA on the button, if it folds you may want to raise 2BB so both blinds don't fold. With 87s in a multiway pot, you may min-raise to sweeten the pot with a hand that performs well agaunst many opponents etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't that make you easy to read?

[bxb]

If I am raising 4+1, I am giving people with small pocket pairs to draw to sets with their implied odds. I also suspect that many players will not adjust properly to this and will call too much.

[Elverian]

Not at these limits. You can raise as standard 6BB with AA and KK only and still consistently get callers.

In any case, the last thing you want to do with the big pairs is get involved in a multiway pot.

You can raise 2-3BB from the CO with a wide range of hands to steal the button, not just in multiway pots and not just with connectors. This was just an example of how you need to raise at a level to achieve a desired result.

Another big factor is how loose the table is - if half the table will call a 5BB raise just to see a flop, then you need to be raising more than that with premium hands to thin the field.

[Elverian]

They have a 1 in 8.5 chance to hit their set. If you raise 5BB, they need to make 40BB profit when they do make their set, and that is assuming that they win the pot EVERY time they hit - which they won't. Calling a 5BB preflop raise cold with a low pair is horrible, especially out of position when you can't get full value from the hand.

[Dr_Mabuse101]

I dont agree. If it cost me only 5% of my stack I flat call with every PP even out of Position. Often enough you will get villains full stack when you hit. I have seen so many people going broke with Aces or Kings against sets.

[corsakh]

Depends, if I am OOP I am likely to overbet.

[kazana]

If you consider changing preflop raising sizes you should change them according to what your hand can do post-flop:
- Raise more with hands that either flop a monster or make an easy fold post-flop (usually small/medium pocket pairs. Hit a set & bet big, or miss and fold).
- Raise less if you're more likely to have a marginal hand when you hit on the flop (hands that usually are TPGK types postflop, such as AJ+, KJ+, QJ, and small suited connectors when I'm first to enter)
- Mix it up. So if you're "supposed" to raise bigger with a certain hand, raise smaller a certain % of times (~15-20% usually is good enough for me), and even limp a small % of times (~%5). Of course vice-versa with hands that you'd usually raise smaller.

Realize, that with big pocket pairs, you can go either way. You'll have a TP type hand the majority of times, but it usually will be an overpair, so you can build the pot a bit bigger with confidence. If you hit a set with a big pocket pair, you'll often struggle to get paid off, simply because chances are less that someone has the hand that people overplay frequently: TP

This way, you can exercise pot control before even knowing what your hand looks like. But you'll be more likely able to keep a pot manageable when you only have one pair, but will be able to make the pot grow faster when you hit a set.

By mixing it up (I like to use 2 digits out of the hand no string and interpret them as %), you won't be easily readable or at least the few villains that are actually paying attention - and there are only very few at our levels - can never be certain whether their read is right.
They may think their read is dead-on, but the fact that it isn't is good enough an edge for you.

[Elverian]

Granted, It happens, but firstly, villain has to be deep stacked too. There must be no chance of a further raise behind you. He must be unable to release AA or KK when he's behind.

On top of that, you sometimes see 2 sets hit on the flop when the whole plan backfires, and you lose your whole stack to a higher set.

5% of stack is an amount toted by PNL. It is too much IMO, especially heads up. The implied odds are not there. With a small pair, you have to fold unless you hit the set. When you do, the raiser may have AK, or QQ with an ace hi flop and not pay you off.

Example - If the raiser has AA and you call with 77. If the flop is T73 or similar, he's got to pretty dense to get his whole stack in the middle. He can only be facing a set or 2 pair facing any serious action.

[corsakh]

[ QUOTE ]
If you consider changing preflop raising sizes you should change them according to what your hand can do post-flop:

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to follow this, you are going to be toast. The only thing you can vary your raise sizes upon is position.

[Sam Spade]

I agree. I will call OOP with small pocket pairs if:

Villain's raise fits the 5-10 rule, and villain will put at least 10X the raise amount into the pot during the hand if I hit.

[corsakh]

Interstingly enough, but following 5/10 rule, pocket pairs remain my main sourse of money in micros /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you consider changing preflop raising sizes you should change them according to what your hand can do post-flop:

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to follow this, you are going to be toast. The only thing you can vary your raise sizes upon is position.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're one of the "put in more money out of position" camp? Good luck, mate.

No offense, but I'll rather listen to Sklansky et al. than you.

[corsakh]

More of the "I prefer taking pots OOP rather than playing them" camp.

ps Sklansky is the nuts /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Dr_Mabuse101]

"Granted, It happens, but firstly, villain has to be deep stacked too." I agree.
"With a small pair, you have to fold unless you hit the set."
Depends on Villain. Most of the time I check-fold if i dont hit. But sometimes you can make a move and steal the pot. Depends on board and Villain. Some people dont c-bet with AK etc.

"On top of that, you sometimes see 2 sets hit on the flop when the whole plan backfires, and you lose your whole stack to a higher set." Happens from time to time. But from time to time you win huge pot also. Few days ago I stacked two people with 66 on a 6AT flop. Both with AK!
"Example - If the raiser has AA and you call with 77. If the flop is T73 or similar, he's got to pretty dense to get his whole stack in the middle. He can only be facing a set or 2 pair facing any serious action." No dont think so. What about KK-JJ or ? Many people dont reraise them preflop to trap you. Even with 88,99,89s people will raise you on the flop from time to time. So I dont see this is an automatic fold.

[Warteen]

I have been raising one extra bb if I'm out of position (in the blinds) to maximize my fold equity (and make my hand look stronger, to a dim opponent). It has been working well for me.

[Michael Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
If you consider changing preflop raising sizes you should change them according to what your hand can do post-flop:

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just like saying hey I have aces, you just set yourself up as an open book and will get beaten up on your weaker hands and get little action on the bigger ones. The only thing as already said that varies the volume of the bet should be position.

I used to bet to compensate for being out of position with bigger bets to increase fold equity, but looking back this was crazy spill because you get murdered when someone has a hand. By then the pot is far to bloated and any value in the short term you have created is lost in the long term when it doesn't come off. There are times where this can be used against some weak tight sorts, but it's pretty rare is more the exception than the rule.

[corsakh]

Situational.

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you consider changing preflop raising sizes you should change them according to what your hand can do post-flop:

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just like saying hey I have aces, you just set yourself up as an open book and will get beaten up on your weaker hands and get little action on the bigger ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read the rest of my post? No? Go back, read it again, think about it, and then you're welcome to criticize my advice by bringing in good reasons.

I'm not going to explain everything over and over again for every single poster that feels the need to bloke after the tune of what the majority of 2+2 says.

I've got reasons other than "because most people at 2+2 say so" for why I'm advising this. Do you?

[corsakh]

You need to vent /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Saying "raise less, raise more and mix it up" does not fix the problem. Its still a pattern.

[Gustav]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to vent /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Saying "raise less, raise more and mix it up" does not fix the problem. Its still a pattern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. It's readable. But unless your pattern is just absurdly simplistic:

1. Opponent needs to make a conscious and structured effort to map your raising ranges, over

2. several hundred (shown down) hands, and

3. be smart enough to piece it together, and still

4. be willing to stray considerably from his standard play in order to significantly exploit his newfound edge.


How many of the people you play in micro NL can you say that about, and why the hell are you sitting with them? It sounds pretty paranoid to me when villain likely isn't even thinking that hard about the hand currently in progress, let alone hands already played. Unless they involved villain personally and some sort of suckout.

[Jouster777]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to vent /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Saying "raise less, raise more and mix it up" does not fix the problem. Its still a pattern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. It's readable. But unless your pattern is just absurdly simplistic:

1. Opponent needs to make a conscious and structured effort to map your raising ranges, over

2. several hundred (shown down) hands, and

3. be smart enough to piece it together, and still

4. be willing to stray considerably from his standard play in order to significantly exploit his newfound edge.


How many of the people you play in micro NL can you say that about, and why the hell are you sitting with them? It sounds pretty paranoid to me when villain likely isn't even thinking that hard about the hand currently in progress, let alone hands already played. Unless they involved villain personally and some sort of suckout.

[/ QUOTE ]
All good points. I will add that just because a pattern is readable, it does not mean it is exploitable.

Varying bet sizes based on hand content can be completely unexploitable by using a balancing strategy with other hands.

[corsakh]

Micro is a foundation for later play. Unless you want to be stuck in 25NL for eternity I don't see a reason to indulge yourself in getting used to making mistakes that you know are going to cost you dearly at higher stakes.

And.. would you please care to elaborate hows varying bet sizes on hand content completely unexplitable? If 80% of the time you raise to 6BB, you raise with QQ+ and 20% of the time with low pockets, I find it hard to believe this pattern is hard to exploit.

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to vent /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Saying "raise less, raise more and mix it up" does not fix the problem. Its still a pattern.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nah, I'm not angry or venting. It's just that the typical reaction is "Different bet sizes are EVIL because every guy will be able to read you."
This is simply not true if you're mixing it up properly. And if you don't understand this, you should think about it a little bit harder.
You should also think of the benefits of someone putting you on the wrong hand range when he thinks he has "figured you out".

Sure, if you're too lazy to put an effort into mixing your play you'll be extremely exploitable, and will do far better with one raising size. This is especially the case if you're playing 25 tables simultaneously, and don't have the time to pick a better raising size. But don't discard a useful tool unless you've got a solid reason to do so.

You should really reread NLTAP and the chapter about sizing your raises. And then think about it. That chapter is gold, but gets discarded by know-it-alls who refuse to think a step further than what the average 2+2 sheep blokes for them to repeat.

Pot control doesn't have to start on the turn, you can begin to manipulate the pot size pre-flop if you're willing to put the effort into it. Having that bit of control compounds over the betting rounds and can lead to substantial savings/gains.

[corsakh]

Unfortunately human beings, scientifically proven, is excessively bad at random number generation, especially when the outcome is biased. However some people are pretty good at patterns /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am glad that you think outside the bo(ok)x, it works for you and that you are so happy with Mr Sklansky. Its a nice book and he wrote tons of good stuff. But I prefer listening to thousands of good players with millions of combined hands than one good theoritician on such delicate matters /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
And.. would you please care to elaborate hows varying bet sizes on hand content completely unexplitable? If 80% of the time you raise to 6BB, you raise with QQ+ and 20% of the time with low pockets, I find it hard to believe this pattern is hard to exploit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, reading comprehension F.

22+ are all in the same category. They make very strong hands post-flop if you hit. Some of them make pretty strong hands even if you miss.
If I'd have to single out any of those for smaller raises, it'd rather be AA-QQ since they often make an overpair only, leaving you vulnerable to two pair hands and lower sets but still having strong showdown value if you're able to keep the pot manageable.

When I raise big, 20-25% of the time I'll have some other hands, so I could have hit a set, an overpair, a strong draw, two pair, or air... how would you know which is the case?
Are you willing to raise my flop bet for more information?

The other way around, I've raised smallish, you've been smart enough to figure out what I'd do that with and call with AJ which should be pretty solid vs my range. But I'm mixing up my play.
You hit top pair top kicker with your AJ on a JT6 2-flush flop. You bet and I raise. How will you know what I've got? Are you willing to go broke to find out that whether you're drawing close to dead while the other times I've been bluffing or doing this with a combo-draw?

Edit: Fixed typo

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately human beings, scientifically proven, is excessively bad at random number generation, especially when the outcome is biased.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet again, you should work on your reading comprehension.

From my original reply:
[ QUOTE ]
By mixing it up (I like to use 2 digits out of the hand no string and interpret them as %), ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really truly random, but I'd be surprised if that's not good enough. If you're paranoid, get two 10-sided die. It really ain't that hard.

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
But I prefer listening to thousands of good players with millions of combined hands than one good theoritician on such delicate matters /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough, but I highly doubt there are that many really good players - even on 2+2.

The majority of players are losing players, and if you believe that being a regular poster on 2p2 makes that person a winning player, you're (in my opinion) in for a rude awakening.

[corsakh]

Same way as I always do against normal players using a standard bet size.

This is not exactly a top secret that a solid player raising from UTG 80% of the time has 22+, AJ+, KQs. QQ+ is only a tiny bit of this range. In your case I will be 75% sure its QQ+. Same methods, different error margins. I like seeing you at my table /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[corsakh]

Nonetheless I am yet to see many decent players on 40k NL fulltilt tables mixing up their preflop raises.

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
Same way as I always do against normal players using a standard bet size.

This is not exactly a top secret that a solid player raising from UTG 80% of the time has 22+, AJ+, KQs. QQ+ is only a tiny bit of this range. In your case I will be 75% sure its QQ+. Same methods, different error margins. I like seeing you at my table /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I give up.
You clearly have severe problems with reading comprehension.

[AceLuby]

There has been plenty of discussion regarding this in LOTS of other posts. When it comes down to it neither are more right than the other. Both try to accomplish the same thing, that is give no information on the strength of your hand based on the size of your bet.

Obviously the easiest way to accomplish this is to raise the same no matter what cards you are playing. You could also raise differently every single time, but that becomes difficult. Granted, there are ups and downs to both systems most 2+2ers choose the easier of the two, which happens to be the same bet for all hands. It also makes it easier to 12 table if you have a 4BB + 1BB for every limper calculation that is automatic.

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
There has been plenty of discussion regarding this in LOTS of other posts. When it comes down to it neither are more right than the other. Both try to accomplish the same thing, that is give no information on the strength of your hand based on the size of your bet.

Obviously the easiest way to accomplish this is to raise the same no matter what cards you are playing. You could also raise differently every single time, but that becomes difficult. Granted, there are ups and downs to both systems most 2+2ers choose the easier of the two, which happens to be the same bet for all hands. It also makes it easier to 12 table if you have a 4BB + 1BB for every limper calculation that is automatic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for wighing in AceLuby.

I agree with the disguise part, there's no big difference there, but it's not hard to see that one raise size is optimal.

But my main goal for using different sizes is to, on average, build smaller pots with hands that are typically weaker vs those that are pure powerhouses if they do hit.
Using one-size-fits-all raises makes it more difficult (not impossible, though) to manipulate the pot size post-flop effectively.

Any thoughts on that?

[AceLuby]

In my opinion we shouldn't be worried about manipulating the pot PF in uNL. My theory is that I don't want to play in unraised pots because when I do hit the pot isn't worth it. I worry about pot size after the flop because we have a lot more info on the hand, the pot, and our opponents and whether or not I'm willing to felt it. PF I'm either bumping, calling a raise, or folding and the pot size doesn't even enter my head unless everyone is calling PF. This is also why I standard raise (+- 1BB). I'm always raising and I could be doing this w/ 67s, 22, AK, or AA and those times I do get AA I get paid off huge. PF is not the time to worry about controlling pot size IMO.

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion we shouldn't be worried about manipulating the pot PF in uNL. My theory is that I don't want to play in unraised pots because when I do hit the pot isn't worth it. I worry about pot size after the flop because we have a lot more info on the hand, the pot, and our opponents and whether or not I'm willing to felt it. PF I'm either bumping, calling a raise, or folding and the pot size doesn't even enter my head unless everyone is calling PF. This is also why I standard raise (+- 1BB). I'm always raising and I could be doing this w/ 67s, 22, AK, or AA and those times I do get AA I get paid off huge. PF is not the time to worry about controlling pot size IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait a second, I'm not talking about limping.

But for example, I'm a lot more likely to raise 3BB + 1BB/L with say AQ (the typical TP type of hand), and more in the region of 4BB + 1.5BB/L with 88.

In the first case, I'd be squabbling over a pot that's roughly 25% smaller than in the 2nd case.
And the pot will obv also grow slower.

[AceLuby]

For both of your examples I raise because if I hit I want the pot as big as possible. I don't particularily like that the AQ pot is 25% smaller and IMO I think we're losing value the 33% of the time we hit.

[matrix]

oooh a single giant thread about preflop raises and as far as I can see (I skimmed it sue me) NOBODY has mentioned the single most important factor that you need to take into a/c when sizing your preflop raise.

It's not position (varying raise sizes based on position is a bit silly imo) - it's not how loose the table is (tho this should have some bearing on your preflop raises)

it's STACK SIZES - the effective ones.

Basically you should raise as much as you can provided you still get a caller or at most two with big hands.

If the "table" standard is 4BB then go with that - if the "table standard" is 6BB then go with that - if there are super loose muppets on your table who'll call a 12BB raise if they've already limped in with something then you are a prze idiot if you raise 4BB+1 per limper with AA.

When you got the goods you want value, when you got a hd that might well turn into a monster (a pp for example) think ahead - you want a BIG pot for when the set comes and you want maximum value.

With most other hands implied odds rule the roost and dictate exactly what the optimal raise size should be.

Until you understand implied odds you are flat out guessing how much to raise preflop - the more often you guess the more mistakes you make - the more mistakes you make the less you profit

When you got 54s and half the table has limped to you OTB you are a prize idiot if you raise here 4BB+1 (unless they are all nuts enough to call the raise)

4BB+1 perlimper should be the standard raise size for a number of reasons tho at uNL tables. It's about right for most situations with ~70-100BB stacks - so if for the most part you stick to that size you aren't making many big mistakes.

uNL 2+2 players are (or should be) looking to improve their game above all else - get in hands - get experience - lay foundatiopns for a solid game of poker.

The game of poker is played postflop - preflop isn't actually all that important and there is way mnore money to be made if you can play the turn/river well as opposed to preflop well for hopefully obvious reasons.

There's a bucketload of leaks YOU have that you'd be much better off thinking about and fixing before you want to start playing with how much you raise preflop usually.

Put preflop raise sizes away for now and work on the postflop game you don't have yet - optimal preflop raising is based mostly on stack sizes and what implied odds you want to offer the villains - and how many villains you want to take to the flop. Once you have a plan for the hand taking into a/c how big the stacks are for several differnet flops (and you ought to be thinking like this every hand) then what to raise preflop becomes obvious. Basically you want to raise a little bigger when you have a hand that wants a BIG pot - and a little smaller when you have a hand that's a small pot hand(or likely to be) and you want to mix it up enough so that you aren't readable easily.

I think its far better to work on other stuff cos once you figure out which hands to play and which hands not to play preflop from what positions at these stakes it really doesn't matter how much you raise with them preflop (within reason) the vilains at uNL are SO bad that better postflop play more than makes up for small preflop mistakes.

[kazana]

Even though your TP hand is far more vulnerable than a flopped set?

[AceLuby]

[ QUOTE ]
villains at uNL are SO bad that better postflop play more than makes up for small preflop mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was trying to emphasize (badly I might add). A lot less mistakes happen PF because of implied odds. A lot more mistakes happen after the flop because those are gone and we have more info. That's what we should be concentrating on exploiting. Nice post Matrix

[Jouster777]

If you read TOP chapter on "Game Theory and Bluffing" you get a sense of how it is done. PFR's are far more complex because its not a simple bluff vs. monster hand you hold...instead there are groups of hands that play very differently and within those there is a spectrum of strength.

I don't profess to be an expert on this. My understanding is that the new book "Mathematics of Poker" goes into figuring out unexploitable balanced strategies for simplified situations like these. Learning these stategies in uNL is useless cuz the unexploitable strategy will not be the optimal one cuz villains are not observant enough and they are predictable. In addition to hands we would like to see cheaply vs. don't mind getting it in PF, varying bet sizes in uNL has more to do with how you predict villain will interpret it rather than with not letting villain know your pattern.