AA raising pre flop ????

[Webster]

Any general rules for different positions?

I seem to always be a little high with 3 blinds plus 1 blind for each limper.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]

I seem to always be a little high with 3 blinds plus 1 blind for each limper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im confused, what do you mean?

[Webster]

I've been doing the AK thing.

Bet three blinds PLUS 1 blind for every limper. Standard so I do not show this raising hand is any different then the next!

I've been trying to get ONE player to see the flop with AA but it's as if my AA are face up and no one plays. I have a 9% PFR so it's not like I ALWAYS raise with Pockets or anything.

[diebitter]

The standard is 4xBB + 1 per limper, unless you get to nl200 and above, then it's a little lower (3.5BB+1).


This is a fine raise, and you should get calls from anyone with anything decent from MP, and calls from anyone holding a hand with decent implied odds in late (such as mid-low pocket pairs, suited connectors, Axs).

You can limp AA if there's a lag at your table who will likely raise (especially if he's in the cutoff or button), with the intention of reraising.

You bet anything less with AA you're liable to get a big multiway, which tends to kill AA postflop (no one bets into multiways unless they have a good made hand or a good draw).

[diebitter]

Also there are different views about how much to raise from different positions, or for different table conditions.

Positions:
Some players argue you should reduce your bets in EP, and gradually increase them as you move around. For example, Phil Gordon in the Little Green Book argues for 2.5BB in early, 3 in middle, 4 in late. His reasoning is you want some action on your good hands, but less action as you widen your range (which you do as you move around position, usually). Other players argue the opposite, that you want only action from good but not superior hands when you're playing OOP, but like action more when you have position.

Table conditions:
In NLHTAP, there's other reasons for changing bet size, for example if you expect a call from a loose player, you can bet more, as he'll bite and his range will be typically be behind yours. (I'm doing this from memory)


The one overriding thing most commentators say is you should never ever bet according to hand strength. Or more correctly, you should never bet predictably based on your hand strength. This can include having mixup strategies to determine bet size (for example raise AA in EP 80% of the time, call 20% of the time, but raise 88 in EP 20% of the time, call 80% of the time).


Most players just use 4xBB + 1 per limper as their opening raise with any raising hand, in any position. It's nice and easy to remember, and betrays nothing.

[Webster]

I've been using the Phil Gordon technique for the most part unless there is some big reason to deviate.

Just bad luck with AA and callers EXCEPT when I'm against ATo and lose . . . but that is a different story.

[Chicago Twister]

Do not vary your preflop bet sizing according to the strength of your hand. This is one of the worst things you can do.

Also, if you PFR 9% of your hands, chances are very good that you are much too passive preflop. Sounds like you play fit or fold poker, or are possibly a calling station.

[Webster]

17/9/3 after 1000 hands - I play short stacked because I have an advantage over the big stacks (according to Malmuth and Miller) so fit and fold is typically how it is played - correct.

And I don't vary my bet size according to hand. At least not in a way that can become tellable. More random tryign to figure out what I'm doing LOL

[Chicago Twister]

Webster -

When first learning the game, it's usually best to not try to master everything at once. Build a foundation of tried & true fundamental strategies and rely on them while you focus on the most important individual aspects of your game.

I'd recommend you just stick with the 4+n rule for now in all positions. The game is complex enough without introducing a complex preflop game, which makes the postflop game even more complex.

[diebitter]

fwiw, I think the Phil Gordon approach is intrinsically bad for full ring online, because it favours giving late position players even better implied odds than they'd get with 4+1, and also gets you less calls from OOP players when you're in position in the CO or button. Position is very important in NL, and is routinely underestimated by newish players to NL.