Sklansky vs 2+2 on Sizing your NLHE pre-flop raises... confusion!

[cubase]

On 2+2, and various card runners videos, the accepted "standard" I've seen for sizing your pre-flop raises is 4xBB + 1 per limper, changing simply for the dynamic of the table. If 4xBB as an opener isn't getting respect, switch to 5xBB+1 per limper, etc.

In NLHETAP (pg. 111), Sklansky writes...

"Lots of no limit teachers give a rather peculiar piece of advice. They recommend that you always make the same size raises, no matter what hand you hold. <skip> 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."

He goes on to discuss that yes indeed, you don't want to give information away about your hand, but that "different hands in different situations call for differently-sized raises".

I'd really like to hear some feedback on the differing viewpoints here. In the SSNL forums, you will rarely see someone asking you to raise pre-flop with anything other than the usual 4xBB + 1BB/limper.

I would love to raise big with AA without giving away the fact that I indeed have AA. Instead, following my 4xBB rule, I end up raising to 4XBB in EP, and if i get a few limpers, maybe 7-9BB on the button. I'd prefer to be raising it as big as I can get away with without revealing what my hand is from any position!

[Mhoram]

Always raising the same amount is a simple method to disguise your hand strength, it gives the players against you no clue as to what you have.

Sklansky says that there are certain reasons to raise a specific amount and choosing a universal size means that you'll often be raising either more or less than optimal for the situation. He recommends you raise the amount you think best to do what you want most of the time. The problem is that an attentive player will pick up on different sized raises for different hands and use that information against you. To counter this Sklansky suggests you add a bit of varience into your raises, a smaller percentage of the time (something like 20%) you raise a little more or a little less at random to keep from becoming predictable to your opponents.

That's a very rough explanation, but the point you need to take note on is that this is all in the framework of player's that are attentive and observant. If you are playing good players that pay attention you must choose one of these forms to keep them from picking up on what your raise size means. BUT if you are playing low stakes players that don't think about things like this, don't pay attention to anything but their cards, it's no longer a good idea to adjust your raise size for the sake of deception. Against players like this you should raise whatever you think will take to do the job. If an EP 4xbb raise gets three callers, raise 5 or 6xbb. By the same token, if you are at table with little preflop raising and they will let you limp in with 78s or 44, go ahead and limp.

If the players at your table aren't going to change their play based on your raise sizes and what they mean, figure out how much you want to raise for a specific result and go for it.

[SplawnDarts]

I think Slansky is wrong here, although what he says has some merit.

Specifically, I believe he's underestimating the degree to which his opponents pay attention to the game. All but the worst or drunkest of fish are TRYING to play good poker. They lack the skills, knowledge, and lines of thinking that would allow them to do so but they usually really are making an effort. If you vary your preflop raise size, they WILL notice. In fact, anything other than the table standard gets noticed.

NOW, they may lack the intelligence and/or theoretic knowledge to correlate your raise size to your hand, but they will think "I wonder what he has that made him mix it up?" and the very fact that they're asking that question is -EV because now they're using their brains instead of playing roboticly bad poker. When that happens, you lose some of your edge as a thinking player. Worse, when you do something different, THEY often decide to do something different themselves (Caro's lose wiring in action) and that something different is often a correct fold for them, which is -EV again for you.

Of coure, against thinking players, allowing them a window into your hand contents is suicide. They will take you apart after the flop if you do that.

In other words, Slansky's opinion is math perfect, and real-world silly. Not the first time that happened, and won't be the last I'm sure.

[snider-BE]

just mix it up and your opponont probably still be guessing

[Sean Fraley]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Slansky is wrong here, although what he says has some merit.

Specifically, I believe he's underestimating the degree to which his opponents pay attention to the game. All but the worst or drunkest of fish are TRYING to play good poker. They lack the skills, knowledge, and lines of thinking that would allow them to do so but they usually really are making an effort. If you vary your preflop raise size, they WILL notice. In fact, anything other than the table standard gets noticed.

NOW, they may lack the intelligence and/or theoretic knowledge to correlate your raise size to your hand, but they will think "I wonder what he has that made him mix it up?" and the very fact that they're asking that question is -EV because now they're using their brains instead of playing roboticly bad poker. When that happens, you lose some of your edge as a thinking player. Worse, when you do something different, THEY often decide to do something different themselves (Caro's lose wiring in action) and that something different is often a correct fold for them, which is -EV again for you.

Of coure, against thinking players, allowing them a window into your hand contents is suicide. They will take you apart after the flop if you do that.

In other words, Slansky's opinion is math perfect, and real-world silly. Not the first time that happened, and won't be the last I'm sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I see where this response is coming from, this points to an issue that I have had with a number of various posts on this forum: How do you quantify the value of any edge in a poker game? In this response to the post, we are trying to answer the following question: Is the value gained by altering our raise size to maximize earnings of a particular holding greater than or less than the value gained by sizing our raises so as to give as little information as possible about our hand. Unless we can quantify this in some fashion, we can only guess as to which of the two is better.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]

While I see where this response is coming from, this points to an issue that I have had with a number of various posts on this forum: How do you quantify the value of any edge in a poker game? In this response to the post, we are trying to answer the following question: Is the value gained by altering our raise size to maximize earnings of a particular holding greater than or less than the value gained by sizing our raises so as to give as little information as possible about our hand. Unless we can quantify this in some fashion, we can only guess as to which of the two is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not too hard to figure it out in this case. The advantages you can gain or lose before the flop are on the order of a few BB at max, and in this particular case less than that because the standard raise isn't too far from being right most of the time. SO we're probably talking fractional BB.

If you reveal your hand to your opponent, you're potentially losing yourself entire pots on the turn and river that could run in the 10s to 100s of BB.

Since there's 2-3 orders of magnitude difference between the two, this one isn't close enough for specific arguments as to exactly how frequently various things happen to matter. Revealing info about your hand in NL is disastrous because if the way the implied odds work.

[jonny quest]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd prefer to be raising it as big as I can get away with without revealing what my hand is from any position!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'd add raising it as big as you can to get 1-2 callers (but no more.)

[gwhiz_612]

Some of this depends on the texture of the game. If you have a lot of loose aggro's and the standard PF raise is 4/5xBB and there are still 4 or so seeing the flop then you need to raise a higher amount obviously when you have stronger hands. As long as you will still get some callers, prefably not more than a few, with big pocket pairs. If you are in a weak tight game then you may want to play them a little softer so you can get some action. Knowing you opponents is key because every game is different. Good players are always sizing up the table and trying to maximize EV. I believe that alot of what sklansky writes are 'in generals' or fundamental theories of the game. He states over and over that what he teaches is in no way the only way to always look at something or to act but instead he gives the player a base to build on and a reference for correct type thinking. Raising 4xBB is useless with AA if you will get 4 or 5 callers. Raising 6xBB might get you 1 or 2 callers which is not bad. If you are reraised you might even get the opportunity to squeeze out a player and play HU with an all in reraise. At a lot of home games the players don't usually consider what position you are raising from as much as how much your raising. This compared with your image at the table and their hand strengh is usually the furthest they go in the thought process.

[Cheech3398]

I agree. I think this question requires much more table info, and betting strategy should be altered depending on that particular table. In general, however, I understand where the standard raise method comes from in withholding information from the other players, but this technique will hurt more than help because there will constantly be more/less than the optimal number of players seeing the flop.

This is discussed somewhat thoroughly in HOHI. (Your watch can be used as a random number generator).