PFRing based on hand strength?
 

I see a lot of FRer's posting that they would have raised bigger with a such and such hand in order to protect it. I know this is an over-talked about subject that should have been taken care of before we came out of the basics forums, but it appears to be prevalent.

The concensus at FR is that a pfr should be 4x BB plus 1x for every limper that has acted ahead of you. A pfr should not be based on your hand strength as this will tip villains off. By making the same pfr regardless of your hand's strength, you deny your enemies critical information that they can use against you. Some vary the size of their pfr by position, but once again, this has nothing to do with their hand strength.

What are some other adjustments that are made to your pfr size that are not dependent on your hand strength?

Also, in tournament NLH, a standard reraise is 4-7x your opponents original raise. This raise size is intended to shut your opponent out by making them fold. In cash games, we're looking to make money with our big hands so we don't necessarily want to shut our opponents out preflop before any big money goes into the pot. What is a standard size for a reraise in FR cash?

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

I really don't like "standard raises." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I will often make a HUGE raise/reraise if I know the opponent will call too much(and I assume that it will be a mistake against my hand). I will sometimes sweeten the pot with PP's. I know this is dependent on hand strength, but if you randomize then you are going to get the best of both worlds.

I think it really boils down to what you want to do with the raise. The only reason for a standard raise is if things are standard. That sounds like I am being a smart-ass, but I think that words it best.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, in tournament NLH, a standard reraise is a shove as stacks are usually around 15BB deep

[/ QUOTE ]fyp

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, in tournament NLH, a standard reraise is a shove as stacks are usually around 15BB deep

[/ QUOTE ]fyp

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't like "standard raises." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I will often make a HUGE raise/reraise if I know the opponent will call too much(and I assume that it will be a mistake against my hand). I will sometimes sweeten the pot with PP's. I know this is dependent on hand strength, but if you randomize then you are going to get the best of both worlds.

I think it really boils down to what you want to do with the raise. The only reason for a standard raise is if things are standard. That sounds like I am being a smart-ass, but I think that words it best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please list some further randomizers that prevent you from being predictable. I mean, as stated, even a nit will figure out that pot sweeteners are small PP and big raises are the goods. Fundamental Theory of Poker is now in effect and you will be in trouble. I'm not saying that you are wrong or that your play is bad, I guess I'm asking you to enlighten us.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

like threads said its obviously good to bet more if opponent is prone to overcalling.
another consideration is that if they are sort of weak/passive i don't want to necessarily have them fold preflop. I make a lot of money getting people to call raises preflop OOP, then check/folding when they don't hit the flop. People get stubborn after awhile and start looking you up preflop light but will still usually fold if they don't improve, when obviously if they don't believe you the proper thing to do would be to either fold or play back.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

I think if you are raising like 4-7bb with big pp and 3-4bb with stuff like a-q k-q suited ect.. and 2bb or limping with sc's and pp's you are very very predictable and I want you at my table. I think it is better to standard raise(4bb+1 per limper) than to vary your raises in this manner.

However I do vary my raises. I will raise 3bb up front (utg-utg+2) with any thing AA all the way down suited one gappers it doesn;t matter I like to be called and play poker after the flop because I feel most players I can play with after the flop.

From mid pos. on I raise to 4bb+1bb per limper with what ever I am playing. I like to raise 3bb when folded to on the button especially if I have a good hand and some times I will raise to 2.5bb or 4bb if I have been doing this to the same opponent allot just throw them off and make the m suspisious.

I think if you notice more times than not people who say you should have raised more is because of situations like this. Utg limps guy in mid pos. raises to 5bb you make 12bb on the button the donktard in utg smooth calls the guy in mid pos. that raised has a-q suited he knows that you probably have him beat but he is getting a good price to crack your kings and/or stack donkey boy from utg so he calls 7bb into a 29bb pot and flops a str8 stacks you and donkey boy whom had k-10.

Now if you raise to say 15-18bb donktard goes out and a-qs either folds or incorrectly calls which is what you want.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't like "standard raises." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I will often make a HUGE raise/reraise if I know the opponent will call too much(and I assume that it will be a mistake against my hand). I will sometimes sweeten the pot with PP's. I know this is dependent on hand strength, but if you randomize then you are going to get the best of both worlds.

I think it really boils down to what you want to do with the raise. The only reason for a standard raise is if things are standard. That sounds like I am being a smart-ass, but I think that words it best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please list some further randomizers that prevent you from being predictable. I mean, as stated, even a nit will figure out that pot sweeteners are small PP and big raises are the goods. Fundamental Theory of Poker is now in effect and you will be in trouble. I'm not saying that you are wrong or that your play is bad, I guess I'm asking you to enlighten us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I know what you are asking. If this is not what you are asking then can you restate for me?

If you are going to make a pot sweetening raise with 22, then you also need to do occasionally do it with AA. I generally simply look for the same situation where I would make a sweetener raise with a worse hand, and then do it with a big hand a small percentage of the time.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
like threads said its obviously good to bet more if opponent is prone to overcalling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you need to raise more than 4bb+1bb per limper against people whom over call. Thats what you want them to do not try to fold them. If they are over calling you should have no problem building the pot after the flop.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like threads said its obviously good to bet more if opponent is prone to overcalling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you need to raise more than 4bb+1bb per limper against people whom over call. Thats what you want them to do not try to fold them. If they are over calling you should have no problem building the pot after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a mix up in the language. I never said anything about players overcalling.

I said I will make a huge raise if they tend to call too much(aka they are loose). I will raise >5x the BB if I have a loose player that is likely to call the raise. It is just about exploiting his tendencies.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like threads said its obviously good to bet more if opponent is prone to overcalling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you need to raise more than 4bb+1bb per limper against people whom over call. Thats what you want them to do not try to fold them. If they are over calling you should have no problem building the pot after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a mix up in the language. I never said anything about players overcalling.

I said I will make a huge raise if they tend to call too much(aka they are loose). I will raise >5x the BB if I have a loose player that is likely to call the raise. It is just about exploiting his tendencies.

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess this is ok but remember if there are players behind you to act and they are any good they now know what your hand is and/or your keeping other wanted customers from comming in but I don't think raising a calling station 5bb is out of the norm as 4bb+1bb is standard if he has limped and if he hasn't what if he doesn't call but mr. 14/7 or 18/6 has a hand like a-q or k-q suited? I would want him calling too but I doubt he is if you suddlenly open for 5bb.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

This might have some relevance: PFR Sizing

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like threads said its obviously good to bet more if opponent is prone to overcalling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you need to raise more than 4bb+1bb per limper against people whom over call. Thats what you want them to do not try to fold them. If they are over calling you should have no problem building the pot after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a mix up in the language. I never said anything about players overcalling.

I said I will make a huge raise if they tend to call too much(aka they are loose). I will raise >5x the BB if I have a loose player that is likely to call the raise. It is just about exploiting his tendencies.

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess this is ok but remember if there are players behind you to act and they are any good they now know what your hand is and/or your keeping other wanted customers from comming in but I don't think raising a calling station 5bb is out of the norm as 4bb+1bb is standard if he has limped and if he hasn't what if he doesn't call but mr. 14/7 or 18/6 has a hand like a-q or k-q suited? I would want him calling too but I doubt he is if you suddlenly open for 5bb.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not to give unwarranted attitude...I agree with everything you said. However, I gave the specific criteria.

Was there something unclear in my original post?

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you need to raise more than 4bb+1bb per limper against people whom over call. Thats what you want them to do not try to fold them. If they are over calling you should have no problem building the pot after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because an extra bb means the pot is 20% bigger than it would be otherwise, and hence your edge is 20% bigger. If you are the better post flop player, why wouldn't you want to maximise your edge?


I always find it strange that people want to pidgeonhole themselves as a post flop player, and therefore ignore preflop play as much as they can. Actually, its not that strange - its exactly the same as people ignoring the math behind plays. "My play is all about feel. I don't need the math - I'm a winning player, so that proves I don't need it". (Translation: "It's hard....")

(And before someone gets on my back, it's also equivilent to someone overfocusing on preflop play or on the math. The phrase "do such and such so you won't have a difficult decision later" always annoys me - don't give up value because you can't be bothered to learn to play post flop).

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you need to raise more than 4bb+1bb per limper against people whom over call. Thats what you want them to do not try to fold them. If they are over calling you should have no problem building the pot after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because an extra bb means the pot is 20% bigger than it would be otherwise, and hence your edge is 20% bigger. If you are the better post flop player, why wouldn't you want to maximise your edge?


I always find it strange that people want to pidgeonhole themselves as a post flop player, and therefore ignore preflop play as much as they can. Actually, its not that strange - its exactly the same as people ignoring the math behind plays. "My play is all about feel. I don't need the math - I'm a winning player, so that proves I don't need it". (Translation: "It's hard....")

(And before someone gets on my back, it's also equivilent to someone overfocusing on preflop play or on the math. The phrase "do such and such so you won't have a difficult decision later" always annoys me - don't give up value because you can't be bothered to learn to play post flop).

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I couldn't play pre flop just that most non 2+2er's at my limit don't play very good post flop. I can play 99 post flop allot better than a calling station.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

What about reraise sizing? It was joked about but never probed.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

FWIW, I make smaller raises PF than most and I do all right. Perhaps I have more of a "small ball" strategy, but I usually raise 3x when I open a pot. This seems to work well for me, but I think I'm going to explore varying opening raises soon just to see how that goes. I will say, however, that most players I see who vary their raise sizes based on hand strength are exploitable and I take pleasure in exploiting them.

With regards to raising over limpers, I pretty much stick to the 4x+limpers forumal because meets the needs for what I'm trying to accomplish. People don't often call these raises, I find, so I don't want to raise more; neither do I want to raise less because most often if I'm raising I don't want multiple callers.

The exception to this is on the button with small pps and suited connectors, which I've begun minraising just to make the pot play twice as big. I KNOW this is exploitable, and I'm going to have to figure out a way to mix up my play there, but it IS fun to do and I get a lot of weired reactions from players when I do it.

When 3betting I usually do 3x whatever the initial raise was whether I am 3betting a strong hand or 3betting light. I do this because I find people fold too much, but I know I'm letting low PPs in light and have to be careful with my overpairss. Still, I seem to be getting value.

Now when there is a raise and a coldcaller in and I have something like aces I generally put in something really big, usually big enough to deny set odds because at that point I'm not planning on folding at any point in the hand. Basically, I feel like with a raise and a call the pot is big enough to take down immediately and I don't care how transparent my hand is if they can't profitably call me.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

NH, Jeff.

I've been getting called a lot lately pf and I feel like I am leaking chips to missed flops with multiple callers.

Is AJo from MP an opening raise hand, what about raising with it behind limpers?

I've been raising 2.5x BB UTG, Pot (3.5x BB +1) in MPs and LPs, I think I like Jeff's 3x for a opening and 4x+1/limper for raising over limpers.

Also, I think I might experiment with raising big from early and less from late, just to feel it out. I do think my current style is right as far as position goes, but how can I make an informed decision w/o having tried both?

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
NH, Jeff.

I've been getting called a lot lately pf and I feel like I am leaking chips to missed flops with multiple callers.

Is AJo from MP an opening raise hand, what about raising with it behind limpers?

I've been raising 2.5x BB UTG, Pot (3.5x BB +1) in MPs and LPs, I think I like Jeff's 3x for a opening and 4x+1/limper for raising over limpers.

Also, I think I might experiment with raising big from early and less from late, just to feel it out. I do think my current style is right as far as position goes, but how can I make an informed decision w/o having tried both?

[/ QUOTE ]

It probably is a good idea to experiment. It sounds like you just need to focus on what you want your raise to accomplish. Just take into account your hand, your stack, the players styles already in the pot and the players styles who have yet to act, and all their stacks. Then using your "faders" to come to a decision on what your hand is "worth."

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

I am a fan of the pot sized opening of 3.5x BB + 1BB/limper in all positions. As to reraising, that is somewhat positional. If I'm 3-betting in position I will go slightly under the size of the pot since I'll have position on future rounds. If I'm 3-betting out of a blind, I like to make it slightly more than pot sized and shut more people out since I'll be OOP the rest of the hand.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

Oh yeah, my 3 bet out of the blinds is always a shut out bet, I hate to play out of position with my hand face up. I have a very tight range that I raise and/or 3 bet w/ from the blinds. I guess my hand would be less face up if my range were bigger here, but I really hate playing OOP.

Any thoughts?

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, my 3 bet out of the blinds is always a shut out bet, I hate to play out of position with my hand face up. I have a very tight range that I raise and/or 3 bet w/ from the blinds. I guess my hand would be less face up if my range were bigger here, but I really hate playing OOP.

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to throw in some squeeze-semi-bluff raises so that you aren't transparent.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, my 3 bet out of the blinds is always a shut out bet, I hate to play out of position with my hand face up. I have a very tight range that I raise and/or 3 bet w/ from the blinds. I guess my hand would be less face up if my range were bigger here, but I really hate playing OOP.

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to throw in some squeeze-semi-bluff raises so that you aren't transparent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean out of the blinds? Sounds like a good strategy for higher limits, but at 10NL I think tight OOP is best.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, my 3 bet out of the blinds is always a shut out bet, I hate to play out of position with my hand face up. I have a very tight range that I raise and/or 3 bet w/ from the blinds. I guess my hand would be less face up if my range were bigger here, but I really hate playing OOP.

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to throw in some squeeze-semi-bluff raises so that you aren't transparent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean out of the blinds? Sounds like a good strategy for higher limits, but at 10NL I think tight OOP is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I thought you were asking what to do about being transparent though.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, my 3 bet out of the blinds is always a shut out bet, I hate to play out of position with my hand face up. I have a very tight range that I raise and/or 3 bet w/ from the blinds. I guess my hand would be less face up if my range were bigger here, but I really hate playing OOP.

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to throw in some squeeze-semi-bluff raises so that you aren't transparent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean out of the blinds? Sounds like a good strategy for higher limits, but at 10NL I think tight OOP is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

True for nl10. But works from nl25-nl100 and some games of nl200.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, my 3 bet out of the blinds is always a shut out bet, I hate to play out of position with my hand face up. I have a very tight range that I raise and/or 3 bet w/ from the blinds. I guess my hand would be less face up if my range were bigger here, but I really hate playing OOP.

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to throw in some squeeze-semi-bluff raises so that you aren't transparent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean out of the blinds? Sounds like a good strategy for higher limits, but at 10NL I think tight OOP is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

True for nl10. But works from nl25-nl100 and some games of nl200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that at 200NL+ that it too becomes transparent? If so, is it still a good idea?

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I never said I couldn't play pre flop just that most non 2+2er's at my limit don't play very good post flop. I can play 99 post flop allot better than a calling station.

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, I wasn't saying YOU couldn't play preflop, that part was a general comment.

The point still remains though - if you are a far better than average post flop player (and you are), then you should still be playing preflop to the best of your ability to get the maximum value out of your edge.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, my 3 bet out of the blinds is always a shut out bet, I hate to play out of position with my hand face up. I have a very tight range that I raise and/or 3 bet w/ from the blinds. I guess my hand would be less face up if my range were bigger here, but I really hate playing OOP.

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to throw in some squeeze-semi-bluff raises so that you aren't transparent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean out of the blinds? Sounds like a good strategy for higher limits, but at 10NL I think tight OOP is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

True for nl10. But works from nl25-nl100 and some games of nl200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that at 200NL+ that it too becomes transparent? If so, is it still a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

It will rapidly become transparent if it's a play you overuse. Someone watchful will see you overuse it, and you'll suddenly get a 4-bet. Just make sure you do it with strong hands. This is one of those times (and I rarely advocate this) showing a strong hand that folded everyone is good.

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, my 3 bet out of the blinds is always a shut out bet, I hate to play out of position with my hand face up. I have a very tight range that I raise and/or 3 bet w/ from the blinds. I guess my hand would be less face up if my range were bigger here, but I really hate playing OOP.

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to throw in some squeeze-semi-bluff raises so that you aren't transparent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean out of the blinds? Sounds like a good strategy for higher limits, but at 10NL I think tight OOP is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

True for nl10. But works from nl25-nl100 and some games of nl200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that at 200NL+ that it too becomes transparent? If so, is it still a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

It will rapidly become transparent if it's a play you overuse. Someone watchful will see you overuse it, and you'll suddenly get a 4-bet. Just make sure you do it with strong hands.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't quite get what you are saying here? How can you squeeze semi-bluff pre-flop with only strong hands? That is surely a 3bet for value. Doesn't NLTAP recommend squeezing with trash and simply calling with decent hands which have value in themselves?

I play $200 and I squeeze a lot and also see it a lot from others. I do so because it is so profitable and difficult to counter. It's easy to say "simply start 4 betting light", but how many have the guts to bluff re-re-raise, as it costs at least a third of a stack to do so? The answer is, not many.

Put it this way. You raise first in from the button to 4bb with Ajo, I 3bet to 14bb from BB, what do you do? What about if you raised with T9s, 77? With 100BB stacks, you can't call a 3bet for value unless you are prepared to back your read that I am squeezing and risk a decent proportion of your stack (I always 3bet monsters too).

Re: PFRing based on hand strength?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Put it this way. You raise first in from the button to 4bb with Ajo, I 3bet to 14bb from BB, what do you do? What about if you raised with T9s, 77? With 100BB stacks, you can't call a 3bet for value unless you are prepared to back your read that I am squeezing and risk a decent proportion of your stack (I always 3bet monsters too).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah thats why 3betting pf is soo good (fun/profitable)