It's about time we had this discussion

[NL Newbie]

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.

[Freelancer]

[ 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....

[delta k]

fold pf

[Kilillan]

[ QUOTE ]
fold pf

[/ QUOTE ]

weren't you banned

[RiverFenix]

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

[Grunch]

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.

[delta k]

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.

[mikechops]

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.

[Freelancer]

[ 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)

[delta k]

[ 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.