It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

Now I get the feeling that Matt's book coming out will cover this, but I think it would be cool to get a discussion going ourselves first:

Should we bet different amounts preflop depending on what hand we have?

The arguement for it seems pretty obvious: if we want value, why not bet an amount we will get on average x callers. If we want FE, why not raise a bit more? If we want to build the pot, why not raise a bit less?

The thing is, that we will still be pretty unreadable, just because villain will not know WHY we are raising bigger. At some tables we migt raise bigger with AA, b/c thats how we think we get value. At others, we will raise bigger with 67s, b/c thats how we think we get FE etc.

Now obviously I accept that one of the biggest problems with this is that for the 12 tabling meow chows (of which I admit I am one), this requires a lot more thought than pressing the pot button or using the bet pot script, but what do people think of the theoretical concept of it? And what do people think are some good ranges/hand groups?

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

PF raising amounts should be different - DS has eluded to this on a couple different occasions

I tend to raise hands like small/medium pocket pairs from early position less than I would high PPs/high cards due to how well they play multiway

I'll also raise less to isolate a station that doesn't fold to c-bets relative to an average player that folds some of the time

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

I always raise the same amount regardless of what I have.

Although I think that different types of players can benefit from raising to different amounts pre-flop.

I think that people who are tighter pre-flop (say, 16/13) should be raising more, because their average starting hand value will be pretty high, so they should want more value from the few hands that they play.

Looser players who raise 65s from UTG (27/22 and such) should be raising slightly less pre-flop, because they will miss a higher % of flops, and keeping pots more manageable when you have no pair or a crap pair is a good thing.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

yeah.

Basically you're sacrificing some value from not changing the betting amounts in cash games, due to being unreadable, and ease of use.

Ideally you'd change your preflop raise amount.

And I do change preflop raise amounts depending on position and hand in tournaments, it's a leak not to

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

It's a style issue. You can vary them if it suits the table and if you can adjust to it; because it changes villains' calling range and also the range you're put on (mixing that up is a form of deception you need to handle as well).

My own style is to avoid marginal situations. So I'm much tighter than you guys oop, which is why I need to raise my sc's/pp's the same amount as I do my good hands. Sometimes I'll only raise to 3bb though because it accomplishes the same and I can decide postflop to play a bigger or smaller pot.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

I'm not sure I like the theory of this. I think I disagree with you saying that you'd be pretty unreadable...

Varying bet sizes would stand out in the current environment so people would notice you more and start to read into what you mean by a certain raise much much more quickly than if it were constant. Then you've got to start varying your varying bets to throw off the reads and then you spent a lot of effort screwing around at the point of the hand where you only have 2 cards instead 5/6/7. There's enough intricacy in post-flop play to not worry about this especially if, as you say, you're playing 12 tables. The current situation is such that, once you know your players and hand, you can decide in an instant whether to raise/call/fold. If you went to this you'd need post-flop style analysis pre-flop on 12 tables simultaneously.

There may be a decent set up described but the requirement to not be read, imo, makes it neccessarily worse in overall effect than constant raises.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

Bet sizing based on your hand
I think you are giving away too much information for not much gain by varying your bet sizes due to your hand. For example UTG, a lot of people have a narrow hand range. If you then split this hand range into sub-categories then you are giving too much information away to an observant villain.

I think raising just to build the pot isn't a great idea, so I don't like small bets just to juice up the pot (especially considering we're not normally deep and there are often short stacks at the table.) I think we should either raise for value or for fold equity (future and present) or deception.

Bet sizing based on the table.
This sounds fine. But figuring out the right table for the right bet might not be too easy and the table dynamic can suddenly change with one of two opponents.

Raising based on your position.
This is an interesting idea. If your UTG range is narrower you could bet more to get more value from your good hands. The only problem is the whole value versus fold equity conflicit which might tend to make the bet sizes the same.

Raising based on your stats.
This was mentioned above. The only thing is that loose players may have worse cards but they want more fold equity.
So you get the same conflicit between value and fold equity which may tend to make bet sizes converge.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

I dunno if its worth it, theres also a point to raising in position(Far less readable as it has no relevance to your hand) although this obviously has leaks too.


I guess people would get a read evcentually, i.e. you building pots with 44 and 56s and you making bigger raises with AT and AQo.


So if your with regs its prob not amazingly decieving, and if your not then your prob SSNL and its not worth the time or hassle.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

I like the idea of raising less against fish who call too much both preflop and postflop, however i would do this based on the player and not on my hand. for example if i usually raise a late position limper when i have the button to 5xbb i would raise 4xbb if the said limper was a calling station post flop and i would do this whether i had AA or 67cc.

I tend to bet more against players who fold too much and less against players who call too much. At first glance betting less against players who call too much doesnt seem to make sense however since most of the time i wont have a hand it allows me to keep the pots small and chips away at him.

As far as raising differant amounts based specifically on our hand i disagree as anyone paying attention can put you on a range easily. Much of the value in playing a laggy style comes from the preflop decpetion we gain by opening alot of hands and i think we would be giving away too much information by changing things up based on our hand.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

Theoritically, I'd rather just raise more oop and less in position and not worry at all about my hand but rather my hand range

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Theoritically, I'd rather just raise more oop and less in position and not worry at all about my hand but rather my hand range

[/ QUOTE ]


opposite way round bro.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

No, I said it quite correctly ... why would you do it the other way around ?

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

i agree with carrotsnake and i always raise a little more out of the blinds if i am re popping or raising limpers although that amount will not change, it will be consistently the same amount for that particular play in that particular position and is never related to what i hold.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theoritically, I'd rather just raise more oop and less in position and not worry at all about my hand but rather my hand range

[/ QUOTE ]


opposite way round bro.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually he's right. You want to play bigger pots OOP than in position.
When it comes to reraised pots anyway.

The larger the pot is, especially reraised, the less skill and position are involved. It's basically allin or fold.

In position you want to take more flops with marginal holdings so you can outplay the fishies with position

but that's an entirely another thread

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

Many can and have made a good argument for changing our preflop raises depending on a certain number of variables. However, the bottom line is that the SSNL current method of 3bb + 1bb for every limper or PSR & raising a slightly larger amount out of the blinds works. It just works. The results that plenty of players have had, myself included prove this. The time and effort required to prove this with real data (i.e. 100s of thousands of hands) will not be done by any of us or any of the theorists who claim the changing of sizes is for lack of a different term "better."

If I had to guess, I would say it most likely has a very small influence in either direction. Frankly, worrying about this or discussing doesn't do us much good unless some of the winning players are willing to compile enough real game statistics to prove this one way or another. Just my 2 cents.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

tbh kil, I just meant raised pots, not even reraised

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
tbh kil, I just meant raised pots, not even reraised

[/ QUOTE ]

oh well then I think you're wrong too.

haha.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

i'm totally confused, and everyone is saying different stuff on aim. this could be a whole ruse just to level me

screw u all, $8 opener FTW

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

meh, gimme a reason I'm wrong. And I do agree with you on the 3 bet thing for sure <3

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I had to guess, I would say it most likely has a very small influence in either direction. Frankly, worrying about this or discussing doesn't do us much good unless some of the winning players are willing to compile enough real game statistics to prove this one way or another. Just my 2 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree... You don't need a ton of stats. Preflop is just another street. If someone posts a hand and asks how much to bet on the turn of a particular, do you go to your stats to find the optimal bet? or do you use logic and reasoning to determine the correct bet? Preflop is no different.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

What i touched on and carrotsnake also has said correctly.

The idea is your folding opponents more OOP/winning the button but then using your position with more marginal hands in a smaller pot.

The idea is your just involved in less pots OOP than in position, however it can backfire and you can of course have bigger pots OOP than in position.

See "Little Green Book" he talks about it.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tbh kil, I just meant raised pots, not even reraised

[/ QUOTE ]

oh well then I think you're wrong too.

haha.

[/ QUOTE ]
The exact same goes for raised pots, when there's less money behind there's less space manouver and less advantage for the player in position....

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

fold pf

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
fold pf

[/ QUOTE ]

weren't you banned

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

Your position should be the only reason you change raise sizes. Especially out of the blinds for a riase or 3b

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

I believe that the standard advice to raise 4x+1 is good advice, and nobody would be far from right to follow it. But of course there's no always in poker, and I also belive that raise sizes do not always have to be the same. We can employ a balancing strategy to remain unreadable, and leverage opportunities to get what we want in different situations.

For example, if we want to minraise 76s OTB for some reason, we can balance this by occasionally minraising AA OTB as well.

Developing a good balanacing strategy can be very difficult however, and I wouldn't blame anyonme for not wanting to bother. In those cases, just sticking to 4x+1 all the time is OK. I do that myself more often than not.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

I mix it up a little, too. it's also really dependent on stack sizes and villains.

if you know villains will cal 7BB w/ their marginal hands that makes more sense than raising to 4. And if we have 200BB stacks raising to 4BB w/ your AA is begging him to play 2 cards and stack us, IMO.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

I tried varying my bets depending upon the strength of my hand after NLHET+P came out. I quickly got the impression my small bets were correctly perceived as marginal/drawy holdings and big bets got significantly less action. I gave up after a while and went back to a standard pot bet - with exceptions against short stacks and from the blinds. To be honest, if I were to try it again I might try betting big with marginal holdings and small with stronger hands.

Varying bet sizes might be a good idea if you are playing against people too dumb to realize what's going on. However, those games are pretty rare at even the $100NL level. Against tougher opposition you give away too much information. Mixing it up gives away less, but then you get less benefit.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I mix it up a little, too. it's also really dependent on stack sizes and villains.

if you know villains will cal 7BB w/ their marginal hands that makes more sense than raising to 4. And if we have 200BB stacks raising to 4BB w/ your AA is begging him to play 2 cards and stack us, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Try not stacking of postflop with AA...(you know occasionally fold it)

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mix it up a little, too. it's also really dependent on stack sizes and villains.

if you know villains will cal 7BB w/ their marginal hands that makes more sense than raising to 4. And if we have 200BB stacks raising to 4BB w/ your AA is begging him to play 2 cards and stack us, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Try not stacking of postflop with AA...(you know occasionally fold it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Go read the post about flaming. Seriously. I'm hurt and offended. I try to teach you how to be a better player and I'm mocked. Nice.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I had to guess, I would say it most likely has a very small influence in either direction. Frankly, worrying about this or discussing doesn't do us much good unless some of the winning players are willing to compile enough real game statistics to prove this one way or another. Just my 2 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree... You don't need a ton of stats. Preflop is just another street. If someone posts a hand and asks how much to bet on the turn of a particular, do you go to your stats to find the optimal bet? or do you use logic and reasoning to determine the correct bet? Preflop is no different.

[/ QUOTE ]

prove it

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theoritically, I'd rather just raise more oop and less in position and not worry at all about my hand but rather my hand range

[/ QUOTE ]


opposite way round bro.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a tricky one, even with just a couple of bets left been in position is a huge advantage and been out of position is a dissadvantage, raising more out of position is increasing the stakes when your at a dissadvantage and keeping them small when your have an advantage.

But on the flip side like other posters have mentioned the less streets of betting there is the less use you get to make use of positional advantage so if you can get a significant chunk of your stack in out of position it might be better, but the deeper the money the more you want to keep the pot small when out of position, this is probably part of the reason why a limp-re-raise can be quiet effective out off position with hands such as aces, even if you dont get it all in you can often end up with just 1 street of play oop where a simple raise would leave you with several streets of play at a significant dissadvantage.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mix it up a little, too. it's also really dependent on stack sizes and villains.

if you know villains will cal 7BB w/ their marginal hands that makes more sense than raising to 4. And if we have 200BB stacks raising to 4BB w/ your AA is begging him to play 2 cards and stack us, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Try not stacking of postflop with AA...(you know occasionally fold it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Go read the post about flaming. Seriously. I'm hurt and offended. I try to teach you how to be a better player and I'm mocked. Nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a valid point succinctly put, not a flame. Or was I just leveled?

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theoritically, I'd rather just raise more oop and less in position and not worry at all about my hand but rather my hand range

[/ QUOTE ]


opposite way round bro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

Isura,

I just had this discussion with a MSNL guy yesterday. He propounds that overpotting OOP and potting or slightly less IP when 3betting is the correct play. Thoughts? Play him HU fer rollz? LOLz?

Example: Button is insane and raising top 40% when folded to you. You are calling some, folding most, and reraising top 10% + 5% of your more speculative holdings. At a 100BB deep If he opens for 3.50 at NL100, what do you bomb it too and why?

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

I somewhat vary the bet sizes sometimes, but I do it more because of the situation than my hand. So if I want FE, I might raise more, if I know the table is full of loose callers, I'll probably raise more with hands like bigger pairs etc and a bit less with smaller pairs and vice versa, depending on how the game is going.

I think it can be a good tool as long as you don't do the same things with same hands every time, rather in the situations. Then again, I think what we're talking about here is changing our preflop bet sizes by a BB or two, sometimes a tad more, but I don't know if this has significant impact on the winrate.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

I'd rather play larger pots in position than OOP

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

...which is why you raise more OOP and tighen up.

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather play larger pots in position than OOP

[/ QUOTE ]

again that's a concept that well misunderstood

you're trying to play many small pots in position, not out of position. You're trying to play big pots with the big hands, not with the best position.

OOP you want to eliminate the toll being OOP takes on you every round of betting. Therefore you want to play bigger pots to eliminate any sort of skill/trying to get the cards to run hot/cold

In position you want to take more flops to give yourself a chance to outplay the people and take advantage of the overwhelming advantage position is

holy crap my english is getting bad. I can't even word a paragraph correctly

Re: It\'s about time we had this discussion
 

hmmmm

I also raise less OOP and more from late position in just raised pots. In reraised pots, it is much different.