It's about time we had this discussion

[orange]

The only real time that I vary my PF raise is really due to stack sizes. ie. I'm btn, all fold to me, I notice that both SB/BB each have 50bbs >. I typically raise smaller so I can control pot size a bit better and have a bit more room so to speak to maneuver.

[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
Might depend on whether you're playing in a 19/6 or 45/12 game too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it's interesting you said that, since on face value alone I'd consider both of those players to be pretty exploitable. If you're playing as tight as 19%, you should be raising almost everything, closer to 19/16. Similarly if you're playing loose you have to be relying on a lot of FE to make it work, which means you have to be selective about when you strike, and you have to strike. A LAG style would be closer to 32/25 or so.

If I see a 45/12 in fact, they go on my buddylist immediatly without even seeing thier play. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Dan Bitel]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

why would you be raising more with 7 high vs a calling station?

[Dan Bitel]

[ 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 ]

I'm strictly on carrotsnake's side here.

OOP, by raising more, we charge our opponents with what is usually a big hand, we make it less likely to get a multiway pot (which SUCK OOP) and we make it less likely CO/BTN (and MP if we are UTG) call, so we are more likely to have position, lastly, by building a bigger pot, we slightly negate the positional advantage.

As for raising smaller in position, this is something that caught my eye when samo used to say it in HSNL. He said he used to raise smaller, just b/c he was playing a lot more hands, so it gave him more room for manuvour

[Dan Bitel]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

why?

why is this for some reason true preflop but not on the flop/turn/river?

[Dan Bitel]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

why were you raising less with your marginal hands? Do you think these were hands that favoured callers or folders?

[Claunchy]

[ QUOTE ]
As for raising smaller in position, this is something that caught my eye when samo used to say it in HSNL. He said he used to raise smaller, just b/c he was playing a lot more hands, so it gave him more room for manuvour.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the Cardrunners guys was talking about this too (I think Taylor, but maybe Andrew), that he started raising to 3 BBs + 1/limper as his standard raise because he was playing laggy, and therefore didn't want to be involved in as many big pots.

[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for raising smaller in position, this is something that caught my eye when samo used to say it in HSNL. He said he used to raise smaller, just b/c he was playing a lot more hands, so it gave him more room for manuvour.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the Cardrunners guys was talking about this too (I think Taylor, but maybe Andrew), that he started raising to 3 BBs + 1/limper as his standard raise because he was playing laggy, and therefore didn't want to be involved in as many big pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do this sometimes too, and it seems to work pretty well when my image is getting "burned out."

[goofyballer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize how retarded that is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good example of the counterproductive hostility that we're talking about. This is the kind of thing that I think warrants a 1-day ban.

It's possible to have vigorous & empassioned debate without insulting people. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My god, what I said was not an insult. Please calm down FFS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely unnecessary components of your response that directly serve to make your demeanor more hostile as a whole without contributing a single thing to your point. This is what people are talking about.

[Dan Bitel]

[ QUOTE ]



Ok, so when stacks are 500bbs deep you should be open raising to 20xbb? Do you realize how retarded that is? Risking 20bbs to win 1.5? Also, rarely will everybody be 200bbs deep. If you have two guys other than yourself 200bbs deep, and two other guys with < 100 bbs then your strategy is not only unreasonable but is very exploitable, particularly if say somebody at the table has 50bbs and can play perfectly against you.

There was a thread in msnl debating whether stack sizes or blinds dictated raise sizes. In reality they both do to a degree but blinds are more significant.

Also wtf raising to 4x with 200bb stacks is not the same thing as minraising in a 100bb stack game. That is beyond retarded. Just because the default buyin for an online NL cash game is 100bbs doesn't mean the goal is to always have everything in relation to it at all times. That's the biggest BS I've ever heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

AP, pretty obviously, the deeper every1 is, the bigger your preflop raise should be, they shouldn't be in a 1 to 1 ration for sure, but to say that if every1 is 500BBs deep that a 4xBB+1 open is optimal is IMO pretty wrong