Adjusting pre-flop raise sizes based on table image

[student_of_game]

This is a somewhat generic question. There are many factors that people often consider when sizing a pre-flop raise, including:

- # people in the hand
- Position
- effective stack sizes of people remaining
- The amount it seems necessary to raise to accomplish the point of the raise (seems to apply in live games where six people might call a 3.5BB raise, but only 1 or 2 will call a 5BB raies -- and one point of a prelop raise might be to avoid playing a large multi-way pot).

(Feel free to mention other factors you consider important...)

I was wondering if table image is also worth considering. For example, if my opponents perceive me as playing tight, I find that many of the pots I win come from raising pre-flop, and, if called, winning with a continuation bet or second barrel. In these cases, my opponents seem to give me more credit based on my tight pre-flop appearance. I don't always have a hand and my raising range can be pretty wide (e.g., I may raise with a wide range on the button if I have not been playing many hands and thus have a tight image in the eyes of my opponents).

If I slightly increase my preflop raise sizes (e.g., from 3.5BBs to 4BBs if first to enter) then I stand to gain an extra half bet or a little more if win the pot after the flop. These extra half bets can definitely add up over time.

Curious to know your thoughts...

Note: I know that pre-flop raise sizes are typically discussed in the SSNL forum. However, I think perceived table image is a topic that becomes much more important in MSNL, which is why I am posting this here. Mods - feel free to move if you think this post belongs elsewhere.

[student_of_game]

Bumping since there were no replies - and only 21 views. I would still be interested in peoples' thoughts. I might post this in SSNL if there isn't sufficient interest in this topic.

[DJ Sensei]

dont change your pfr size if it gives anything away, i.e. no short-term changes without a good reason usually involving a fish in the hand.

and in general, if you're tight you should raise larger, and if you're loose you should raise smaller, but thats pretty obvious and standard for any serious player (i hope)

i dont think theres really too much more to it that's all that interesting, choose your pfr size to fit into the rest of your gameplan and the players you're against.

[tcorbin16]

POT BUTTON

[student_of_game]

Thanks for the response DJ Sensei.

I agree that a pre-flop raise size shouldn't give away any information that isn't already public (i.e., you can base it on position, number of players in the hand, effective stack sizes, etc., but you shouldn't base it on your hole cards).

There are several factors that go into one's table image, but one that can be observed is VPIP for that session. So, would you think it's OK to make your raise size a function of VPIP (within reason)? If so, is there any merit to it?

I also have definitely come to realize that looser players should make smaller raises than tighter players. One striking example I saw was Samoleus always open raising $56 in the Party 10/20 game.

Here are some reasons I can see for why:

Looser players have a much wider preflop range and are coming in with weaker hands. They are counting on their ability to make +EV decisions post flop (and hoping that the potential additional post flop EV gain can offset what they lost preflop) and looser players are also banking on implied odds. Therefore, they should be betting smaller preflop since they are more likely to be betting with the worst of it, and also to keep their implied odds higher.

Looser players are effectively bluffing pre-flop and therefore having everyone fold preflop is a great outcome for them. Intuitively, when bluffing, you want to bet the smallest amount that will do the trick -- and this suggests a smaller preflop raise size.

For tighter players, the opposite tends to be true. They are usually raising preflop for value and they figure to have the best hand and would like to cut down their opponent's implied odds, etc.

Am I missing anything?

[wpr101]

[ QUOTE ]


and in general, if you're tight you should raise larger, and if you're loose you should raise smaller, but thats pretty obvious and standard for any serious player (i hope)


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. When I'm playing laggier I raise 3x and if I'm just multitabling and grinding usually 4. The problem with playing real lag and 4xbb raise is that we are going to get reraised more frequently and we'd rather lose less when this occurs.

[stigmata]

An extension of the above ideas, which I haven't seen previously discussed, is to raise 4x in EP at a full table, 3.5x in MP (or at 6 max), and raise 3x in a steal position. Phil Gordon actually discusses something similar but the klutz gets it entirely backward if I remember.

It should work nicely in theory: You cut down on others implied odds when your hand is very well defined and vice versa. However, I struggled to incoporate it into my game plan. The main problem I found was that people didn't seem to be aware that I was changing the raise size based purely on position, which leads to a lot of unnecessary second guessing. For instance, people seemed to be 3-betting over the top of my small/steal raises more - e.g. I was encouraging re-steals, which would require further strategic changes (such as tightening up on steals and increasing the raise size.... doh [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]).

In the end I deemed it not worthwhile, especially given the all the hassle whilst multitableing.

[soah]

I recently decided to try opening for 2.5bb on the button (standard is 3.5 for me) and to my surprise I found that players didn't seem to be reacting to the change much at all

[student_of_game]

[ QUOTE ]
An extension of the above ideas, which I haven't seen previously discussed, is to raise 4x in EP at a full table, 3.5x in MP (or at 6 max), and raise 3x in a steal position. Phil Gordon actually discusses something similar but the klutz gets it entirely backward if I remember.

[/ QUOTE ]

His rationale is that if you want to be playing smaller pots out of position and bigger pots in position. While it's generally good to play smaller pots OOP, I don't think that Phil's approach really works for more solid tags. A solid tag will have a narrower range (when weighted appropriately) out of position and therefore is raising for value and to cut down his opponents implied odds. This suggests a larger raise sise. Now, if one were playing laggy and raising a wide range in EP, then perhaps you can argue for betting smaller up front (however, I think even most lags tighten up in EP, so this is a moot point).