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]

I'm not the first person to dismiss the advice given in that book . Daniel Negreanu is another player who disagreed with that advice . I read an article by him in a local newspaper, since we grew up in the same town , which mentions how varying your raises should be more about your opponent's tendencies than your actual hole cards . If I find that article which was written in the Toronto Sun , then I will post it here .

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not the first person to dismiss the advice given in that book . Daniel Negreanu is another player who disagreed with that advice . I read an article by him in a local newspaper, since we grew up in the same town , which mentions how varying your raises should be more about your opponent's tendencies than your actual hole cards . If I find that article which was written in the Toronto Sun , then I will post it here .

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be good. I'd really like to read it. And any other links, too.

Thanks.

Also, to summarize the longer reply above, "hole cards" is only one factor, not the only one, that the books advocate using to vary your pfr's.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not the first person to dismiss the advice given in that book . Daniel Negreanu is another player who disagreed with that advice . I read an article by him in a local newspaper, since we grew up in the same town , which mentions how varying your raises should be more about your opponent's tendencies than your actual hole cards . If I find that article which was written in the Toronto Sun , then I will post it here .

[/ QUOTE ]
This may be similar: http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/ne...6-c37f98b63956

By the way, Leafs Suck... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[jay_shark]

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