NLHE preflop variable raise sizing vs. 4xbb + 1bb/limper

[Albert Moulton]

NLHETAP as well as PNLHE Vol 1 make some convincing arguments for variable preflop raise sizing.

Many in the 2+2 strategy forums prefer to stick to fairly fixed preflop raise sizes to "disguise" the strength of their hands. For example, many very good players will often raise 4xbb + 1bb/limper (+/- a bb or two) with AA in EP, as well as 88 in MP, or even AQs from the BB whether they have 70bb stacks, 100bb stacks, and even 200bb stacks.

Who can point me to convincing arguments in favor of fairly fixed preflop raise sizes where those arguments make more sense than the arguments for variable preflop raise sizing in NLHETAP and PNLHE Vol 1?

The variable approach makes sense to me, including games and situations in which a min-raise is better than both a "standard" raise or a limp.

Where are the most intelligent arguments for playing otherwise?

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop raise sizing is important. Don't listen to pundits that tell you to keep your raises a constant size. Don't get lazy and just raise the "table standard." Controlling your raise sizes intelligently will help you control your opponents, the pot sizes, and many other factors...And always mix up your play enough to stay unreadable. Seemingly random raise sizes are just as unreadable as constant ones, but they allow you more freedom, control, and profit. --NLHETAP p. 121


[/ QUOTE ]

[holdem2000]

For me the reason I rarely mix up my PFR size is because I'm playing so many tables, it's a lot easier to just go with a standard amount. This not only helps speed up my preflop decisions but more importantly allows me to very quickly decide how much to continuation bet after I've decided that I want to.

Varying your raises, if executed well, is certainly a better strategy, but when playing more than 4 or 6 tables it becomes difficult to actually execute well (even if playing one table, the strategy still requires the dedication of a significant amount of objective thought to make sure that indeed your play is sufficiently mixed up to still disguise your hand).

One other objection to variable raises that is probably similar to the first: when your raises are constant sizes you can better estimate what ranges your opponents put you on. Players cannot read false patterns into your betting patterns when it is obvious that the only pattern is you bet constant amounts. Humans are extraordinarily gifted at discovering patterns in completely random sequences of data. If you play with a variable raising pattern many opponents (especially weaker ones) will be under various mistaken impressions that different sized bets have exclusively different meanings (while this is true in some sense, they will take it far too far, believing, say, that all your min-raises are AA/KK). This is generally a good thing, we want our opponents to miscalculate. However, denying your opponent the chance to make this sort of mistake allows you to better estimate the range/hand which they put you on. This is only of much use if you're being lazy as the author puts it, or if you're playing enough tables that you don't have the time to analyze each hand in full detail.

By betting a constant amount we can better stereotype our opponents' thought processes. We eliminate a whole dimension from the possible situations we experience... we repeat the same scenarios more, and as a result are able to vastly improve our intuitions in these limited scenarios (thereby reacting to hands quicker and being able to play more tables). We limit our options, but we become very proficient at maximizing our wins with the style we adopt.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

I am only semi-convinced by the bet variation argument to begin with. It has merit with respect to demonstrating fake patterns to opponents, but you often don't go to showdown, so, its harder to inject fake patterns than first glance.

When multi-tabling I find that its simply not worth the effort. I raise a pretty fixed amount and do it with too wide of a range of hands PROVIDED that no one is three betting me. I find that blind stealing in this fashion gets me almost back to even, and then when I hit a big hand I often get paid because of my wide range. Without the wide range I see a stronger argument for mixing up the bets; but I jack up something like 22+ (anywhere) 54s+ (MP position +), Ax, Broadway (in position) almost everything on the button and some random junk if I'm not getting cards. (6 max) I feel like the range is my protection. I'd like to hear others thoughts, though.

[holdem2000]

I agree with your post. To me the benefit of variability is pretty well demonstrated in one of the toy games that's solved in Mathematics of Poker (the no limit 0 to 1 game). Since actual poker is so much more complicated than 0 to 1, I think it's likely that little is lost by generally using constant bet sizes, especially since nobody is playing anywhere close to perfectly.

The biggest gains from varying your bet size is probably when you're playing a long heads up session... anyone with more heads up experience than me care to comment?

[jay_shark]

First and foremost , it is wrong to vary your raises predicated on the value of your hole cards . I always get a laugh when I hear players suggest that they would raise more when they have a medium pocket pair because it doesn't fair too well otf . Some may even suggest to raise less with pocket aces because they believe their hands are worth more than the blinds . In fact , they way you should be thinking is to raise more than 3x the BB if you believe your hands are getting called with many inferior hands . That is , if you raise with your typical range utg , and expect to get called by loose players , then why not increase the size of your raises to 4 or 5 x the bb ?

In fact , this is the only reason why you would vary your raises . It shouldn't have anything to do with your cards as you give away too much information and it should have everything to do with the table dynamics .

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
First and foremost , it is wrong to vary your raises predicated on the value of your hole cards . ...In fact , this is the only reason why you would vary your raises . It shouldn't have anything to do with your cards as you give away too much information and it should have everything to do with the table dynamics .

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you disagree with this statement from NLHETAP.

[ QUOTE ]
And always mix up your play enough to stay unreadable. Seemingly random raise sizes are just as unreadable as constant ones, but they allow you more freedom, control, and profit. --NLHETAP p. 121


[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you think that no matter how you may try to "mix up" your play, variable raise sizes are always going to give away too much information?

For example, in a game where stack sizes, number of players, my hand, and preflop player tendencies lead me to decide that it's good to open min-raise with my hand UTG. What do I have? Well, I most likely have a small pair hoping to flop a set, but sometimes I have AA/KK/AK looking to get a bunch of callers and then a big reraise that I can then 3-bet for a nice pot. What exploitable information did I give away?

Similarly, let's say after assessing those factors I have the same hand in UTG but open raise to 10bb at a table with effective stacks of 100bb. What do I have? Well, I most likely have a big pair QQ-AA. But I might also have AK. Guys with TT are in a spot. They have position, but they are at the upper edge of the 10/20 rule to call, and can't be certain they'll get paid off if they hit their set. Many opponents will incorrectly call, and some will incorrectly push a hand like QQ/AK. So in this case, I narrow my range a little more, but it's tough for others to easily exploit.

Now, in a 100bb game, if I have AA UTG and sometimes I min-raise (planning to play a big pot if I get rr'ed and small pot otherwise), and sometimes I overbet (looking to play a big pot) and very occasionally I limp (looking to play a very small pot post flop unless I get rr'ed), then how do they know I have AA based on my raise sizes? All I know for sure is that if I open raise 4bb with effective stack of 100bb, and that if I get one caller behind me, that I've created an SPR of 12, given excellent implied odds to my opponent, and made my post flop decisions as difficult as possible for myself on the turn and river.

Also, hand strength is only one factor, albeit an important factor, in varying raise sizes as described in these books. But it is also stack size, position and hand strength together, plus some table dynamics and player tendencies lead you to vary your raise sizes. I have never seeing "variable raise sizing" advocated as "fix your raise sizes to your hand strength." Variable raise sizing is not "AA always = 10bb, AK always = 7bb, and 44 always = limp." Instead, varying your raise sizes preflop means sometimes "AA = 20bb," other times "AA=10bb," other times "AA=5bb," other times "AA=min-raise," and sometimes "AA=limp."

So, in answer to your question ...

[ QUOTE ]
Some may even suggest to raise less with pocket aces because they believe their hands are worth more than the blinds . In fact , they way you should be thinking is to raise more than 3x the BB if you believe your hands are getting called with many inferior hands . That is , if you raise with your typical range utg , and expect to get called by loose players , then why not increase the size of your raises to 4 or 5 x the bb ?


[/ QUOTE ]

... I would say that you don't include enough information to come up with an answer. What are the effective stacks - short, medium, deep, or widely mixed? Is it short handed or full ring? Is it generally very aggressive/tricky or loose/passive? Who is in the blinds and will they frequently steal with giant overbets if the table limps to them? What is your table image? Etc.

You are missing too many variables to make an assessment on raise size with aces. In some cases, you might raise "less." In others, more.

The point in these books is that once you assess all the variables, a variable size raise preflop will maximize EV for you post flop over a standard sized raise. As PNLHE Vol 1 puts it, "Plan your hand" starting with whether and how much you raise preflop.

So why is that not true? The "give away information" objection just doesn't seem to be sufficient because if you mix up your raise sizes with the same hands, then you really don't give away enough information (if any) for opponents to exploit it profitably. Meanwhile, the benefits of creating a pot-size preflop to support a plan to maximize your EV post-flop seem to be terrific.

[jay_shark]

lol Pantsonfire , I'm a leaf fan but I agree with you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Who can point me to convincing arguments in favor of fairly fixed preflop raise sizes where those arguments make more sense than the arguments for variable preflop raise sizing in NLHETAP and PNLHE Vol 1?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not really a fair question. A "standard" preflop raise size is a viable and good strategy. Your arguement of whether it's the best strategy can only be answered by the old standby, "it depends".

As you know, the effective stacks sizes are a major consideration. But if the effective stack size is very deep, then building a certain size pf pot is not really that important. Defining your opponents hands is more important. So in this deep stack scenario, you may revert to a standard raise size if it defines your opponent's hands adequately.

What I am saying is you may find yourself both in the situation where a standard pf raise is best for the current conditions or another situation where variable pf raises are going to earn you more.

As a final note, the term "standard pf raise" doesn't necessarily mean exactly 3xBB or 3xBB+1xBB per limper every single time. It could mean 4xBB in early position, 3xBB in middle/late position, YxBB for certain players in the blinds, 4xBB+1xBB per limper in early/mid, 2xBB+1xBB per limper in late pos, 5xBB+1xBB per limper out of the blinds, etc. In this case, you would have a "standard" pf raise for each situation.

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who can point me to convincing arguments in favor of fairly fixed preflop raise sizes where those arguments make more sense than the arguments for variable preflop raise sizing in NLHETAP and PNLHE Vol 1?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not really a fair question. A "standard" preflop raise size is a viable and good strategy. Your arguement of whether it's the best strategy can only be answered by the old standby, "it depends".

As you know, the effective stacks sizes are a major consideration. But if the effective stack size is very deep, then building a certain size pf pot is not really that important. Defining your opponents hands is more important. So in this deep stack scenario, you may revert to a standard raise size if it defines your opponent's hands adequately.

What I am saying is you may find yourself both in the situation where a standard pf raise is best for the current conditions or another situation where variable pf raises are going to earn you more.

As a final note, the term "standard pf raise" doesn't necessarily mean exactly 3xBB or 3xBB+1xBB per limper every single time. It could mean 4xBB in early position, 3xBB in middle/late position, YxBB for certain players in the blinds, 4xBB+1xBB per limper in early/mid, 2xBB+1xBB per limper in late pos, 5xBB+1xBB per limper out of the blinds, etc. In this case, you would have a "standard" pf raise for each situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, varying raise size in some standard fashion based on position independent of hand strength is advocated here Varying Your Opening Bet Size by Bob Ciaffone:


[ QUOTE ]
A player has two main goals when raising preflop. One is to get more money into the pot because he has a good hand. The other is to capture the blind money by having everyone fold. The latter goal is far more important in tournament play than in a money game, because capturing those big tournament blinds often results in a sizable increase in your stack. So, it should be obvious that you need to alter your play for tournaments by raising a greater amount. Even so, I do not stick to the pot-size raise in either setting.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The quality of my hand seldom enters into my decision of how much to raise. In fact, with rare exceptions, whether I have pocket aces or pocket fives, the amount will be the same. One of the biggest no-limit hold'em mistakes is to raise a smaller amount (looking to get action) with your strong hands or, as some rookies do, use a formula that the bigger your hand, the bigger your bet size. Don't determine your wager amount by the strength of your hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

But that makes less sense to me than the decription of variable raising in NLHETAP that includes position and hand strength as two of many factors in determining pf raise size. Specifically, NLHETAP that goes directly against much of Ciaffone's argument when it says on page 111,

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of no limit teachers give rather peculiar advice. They recommend that you always make the same size raises, no matter what hand you hold. Whether you have

K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

or

8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

raise the same amount every time.

They may tell you to alter your raise size based on your position. Or to alter it based on the number of limpers. But never to alter it based on what's in your hand.

Their rationale is that you betray information about the quality of holding by raising different amounts. So, to keep your opponents guessing, always raise the same amount.

This advice strikes us like cutting off your leg to cure your athlete's foot. Sure, you don't want to give away extra information through your raise sizes. And sure, some players do manage to do just that. But ... you can raise preflop for a variety of reasons, and some of those reasons prefer differently-sized raises. If you artificially limit your options to avoid giving away information, you soften up your entire preflop strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well Sklansky/Miller are at odds with Ciaffone here, it seems. And Sklansky/Miller's reasoning makes more sense to me in what I've read. But thinking more like Ciaffone's and/or the formulaic 4xbb+1/limper seem to dominate most of the NL strat forums.

Why?

And who is more right?

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Well Sklansky/Miller are at odds with Ciaffone here, it seems. And Sklansky/Miller's reasoning makes more sense to me in what I've read. But thinking more like Ciaffone's and/or the formulaic 4xbb+1/limper seem to dominate most of the NL strat forums.

Why?

And who is more right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am fairly sure your question will be too difficult to answer.

Say that using a standard raise methodolgy has an effectiveness of E. Now say that varying this strategy will cause a difference in effectiveness which is Ed.

A player who varies his pf raise size might now have a range of effectiveness from E-Ed to E+Ed. So I feel a player who does actually vary his pf raise sizes has a chance of being more effective than a standard pf raiser. On the other hand, he may make some mistakes with his strategy and drop lower than E.

FWIW, I follow both standard methodolgy and also a varying pf raise methodology depending on the factor of the game I am playing in.

I realize I didn't actually answer or address your question adequately but that's the best I can analyze this problem.