It's about time we had this discussion

[Dan Bitel]

Now I get the feeling that Matt's book coming out will cover this, but I think it would be cool to get a discussion going ourselves first:

Should we bet different amounts preflop depending on what hand we have?

The arguement for it seems pretty obvious: if we want value, why not bet an amount we will get on average x callers. If we want FE, why not raise a bit more? If we want to build the pot, why not raise a bit less?

The thing is, that we will still be pretty unreadable, just because villain will not know WHY we are raising bigger. At some tables we migt raise bigger with AA, b/c thats how we think we get value. At others, we will raise bigger with 67s, b/c thats how we think we get FE etc.

Now obviously I accept that one of the biggest problems with this is that for the 12 tabling meow chows (of which I admit I am one), this requires a lot more thought than pressing the pot button or using the bet pot script, but what do people think of the theoretical concept of it? And what do people think are some good ranges/hand groups?

[grando]

PF raising amounts should be different - DS has eluded to this on a couple different occasions

I tend to raise hands like small/medium pocket pairs from early position less than I would high PPs/high cards due to how well they play multiway

I'll also raise less to isolate a station that doesn't fold to c-bets relative to an average player that folds some of the time

[SABR42]

I always raise the same amount regardless of what I have.

Although I think that different types of players can benefit from raising to different amounts pre-flop.

I think that people who are tighter pre-flop (say, 16/13) should be raising more, because their average starting hand value will be pretty high, so they should want more value from the few hands that they play.

Looser players who raise 65s from UTG (27/22 and such) should be raising slightly less pre-flop, because they will miss a higher % of flops, and keeping pots more manageable when you have no pair or a crap pair is a good thing.

[Kilillan]

yeah.

Basically you're sacrificing some value from not changing the betting amounts in cash games, due to being unreadable, and ease of use.

Ideally you'd change your preflop raise amount.

And I do change preflop raise amounts depending on position and hand in tournaments, it's a leak not to

[Nielsio]

It's a style issue. You can vary them if it suits the table and if you can adjust to it; because it changes villains' calling range and also the range you're put on (mixing that up is a form of deception you need to handle as well).

My own style is to avoid marginal situations. So I'm much tighter than you guys oop, which is why I need to raise my sc's/pp's the same amount as I do my good hands. Sometimes I'll only raise to 3bb though because it accomplishes the same and I can decide postflop to play a bigger or smaller pot.

[Ben K]

I'm not sure I like the theory of this. I think I disagree with you saying that you'd be pretty unreadable...

Varying bet sizes would stand out in the current environment so people would notice you more and start to read into what you mean by a certain raise much much more quickly than if it were constant. Then you've got to start varying your varying bets to throw off the reads and then you spent a lot of effort screwing around at the point of the hand where you only have 2 cards instead 5/6/7. There's enough intricacy in post-flop play to not worry about this especially if, as you say, you're playing 12 tables. The current situation is such that, once you know your players and hand, you can decide in an instant whether to raise/call/fold. If you went to this you'd need post-flop style analysis pre-flop on 12 tables simultaneously.

There may be a decent set up described but the requirement to not be read, imo, makes it neccessarily worse in overall effect than constant raises.

[ValarMorghulis]

Bet sizing based on your hand
I think you are giving away too much information for not much gain by varying your bet sizes due to your hand. For example UTG, a lot of people have a narrow hand range. If you then split this hand range into sub-categories then you are giving too much information away to an observant villain.

I think raising just to build the pot isn't a great idea, so I don't like small bets just to juice up the pot (especially considering we're not normally deep and there are often short stacks at the table.) I think we should either raise for value or for fold equity (future and present) or deception.

Bet sizing based on the table.
This sounds fine. But figuring out the right table for the right bet might not be too easy and the table dynamic can suddenly change with one of two opponents.

Raising based on your position.
This is an interesting idea. If your UTG range is narrower you could bet more to get more value from your good hands. The only problem is the whole value versus fold equity conflicit which might tend to make the bet sizes the same.

Raising based on your stats.
This was mentioned above. The only thing is that loose players may have worse cards but they want more fold equity.
So you get the same conflicit between value and fold equity which may tend to make bet sizes converge.

[NL Newbie]

I dunno if its worth it, theres also a point to raising in position(Far less readable as it has no relevance to your hand) although this obviously has leaks too.


I guess people would get a read evcentually, i.e. you building pots with 44 and 56s and you making bigger raises with AT and AQo.


So if your with regs its prob not amazingly decieving, and if your not then your prob SSNL and its not worth the time or hassle.

[poppingit]

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.

I tend to bet more against players who fold too much and less against players who call too much. At first glance betting less against players who call too much doesnt seem to make sense however since most of the time i wont have a hand it allows me to keep the pots small and chips away at him.

As far as raising differant amounts based specifically on our hand i disagree as anyone paying attention can put you on a range easily. Much of the value in playing a laggy style comes from the preflop decpetion we gain by opening alot of hands and i think we would be giving away too much information by changing things up based on our hand.

[carrotsnake]

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