What's the appropriate "standard PF raise" for the Foxwoods $1/2?

[AKQJ10]

I'm sorta a newbie to this forum, but I've been playing limit poker including hold 'em for about a year, online and B&M, and I'm trying to learn NL, especially because everyone says the Foxwoods $1/2 $100 max game is so easy.

I've played three sessions and am down a little bit, and aside from just poor short-term luck (it still plays a role in NLHE, right? /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), I'm still very much learning to play a new game optimally.

So on to my question: When I would read NL books* about raising on average 3x the big blind preflop, I would "adjust" this recommendation with the following logic:
<ul type="square">
Everyone says this game is full of bad players
One error bad players tend to make is calling too many raises
On top of that, $6 doesn't seem like much more than $2 to someone at a casino.
Therefore, the optimal raise size to thin the field to one or two opponents must be more than 3xBB -- maybe $10 - $15.
[/list]

Now, I'm not sure which of these assumptions didn't hold in my last session (maybe the opponents were atypically good? Maybe my table image was tighter than I realized?) but I seemed to be taking down a lot of blinds with my raises. I'll certainly learn from this and adjust, but I'm just curious:

Those of you who play in this game, do you find that "standard" $6 (plus a little for each limper) gets people to fold preflop?



*first Daugherty and McEvoy; now Harrington.

[Brewsta]

I thought Harrington advocated 3-5x BB raises. He suggests you randomly mix it up, or alternatively, you can ALWAYS raise the same amount, and if you have a wide variety of raising hands, they'll still be guessing what you have.

[Ghazban]

Generally, preflop raises are larger in live games than internet ones (not just at this level). If I don't have a read on the table yet, I go with $10 or $15 based on my hand, position, and number of other people in the pot. At some tables, $20 and $25 opening raises regularly get multiple callers and, at others, dropping down to $6 or $8 will knock people out.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought Harrington advocated 3-5x BB raises. He suggests you randomly mix it up, or alternatively, you can ALWAYS raise the same amount, and if you have a wide variety of raising hands, they'll still be guessing what you have.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. He gets into some detail in the preflop chapter, giving different %s of hands for limping, raising to 2x, 3x, 4x, and 5x. But in general the mean and median seem to be 3-4x, so to simplify I left it at that.

By the way, I forget to mention that a lot of people at my table were raising to $7, 3.5 BB, which is correct "by the book" but also seems too psychologically "easy" for me to consider a significant raise. It's only one chip more than the blind! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Of course so is $502, but most people play 1/2 NL with nickels, not 500s.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]


Those of you who play in this game, do you find that "standard" $6 (plus a little for each limper) gets people to fold preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably part of the problem right there - the purpose of your preflop raise isn't to get everybody to fold, it's to get weaker hands to call when it would be incorrect for them to do so (which is why putting in the minimum raise in the big blind after everyone at the table limps is futile - everybody will be getting the correct odds to call with just about anything). And the flipside is why it wouldn't be the wisest thing to move all-in before the flop with aces, unless your analysis of the table told you that that was sure to get a call (and more money in the long run - i.e. going all-in for $100 with AA if you knew you'd get one caller would be a worse play than raising to $30 if you somehow knew you'd get four)

So as far as practical advice, I agree with the other respondant who said go to either extreme - either raise a varying amount each time (determined randomly, by the second-hand on your wristwatch or something) or raise the exact same amount each time. But as far as "philosophical" advice, don't see your raise as a way to "thin the field" - you want them to call, so long as you've got the edge, just like a casino doesn't require you double your bet to split a blackjack hand in order to "thin the field" and get you to play only one hand instead of two - they do it because they want you in, (where they have some percentage the best of it, however small it may be). I'm convinced that the bulwark of a player who really understands the game of poker is someone who, if they made a huge raise with AA before the flop and everybody at the table called, would be smiling ear-to-ear. Anyone who would grimace and curse under their breath in that scenario really doesn't know what the game's about.

Of course that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

[kurto]

I think its wrong to say that you don't want to narrow the field when you raise. Similar to limit, certain hands play better with a different amount of people.

If you have pocket jacks, you'd rathar play headsup then at a full table. Your odds of winning diminishes drastically with each player who stays in the pot, particularly if they hold various combinations of overcards.

Postflop, I think it makes more sense that you don't want to thin the field if you have a monster and almost everyone else is drawing dead or has next to no chance of drawing out on you.

I would argue that more good hands are lost because people DON'T raise preflop and allow people in who would never have played to a raise.

Lately, there seems to be a lot of players at my tables limping with aces or kings who then go nuts postflop... they allow me a free flop in the blinds with 4-jos or some other such junk, I flop 2 pair... they call my bets down to the river and give me their stack. I've even done this with minraisers who give me pot odds to call with any 2 cards and then I bust them with junk.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its wrong to say that you don't want to narrow the field when you raise. Similar to limit, certain hands play better with a different amount of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your goal is to thin the field when you raise, then your best possible outcome when you raise with AA before the flop is to have everybody fold, and clearly that's absurd.

If your goal is to win this particular hand at this particular moment, then raise to thin the field and "protect" your Jacks. If your goal is to win the most money, on the other hand, you raise not to get everybody out, but to let them in (with the added stipulation that if they do join you in the hand, they'll be taking the worst of it).

AA plays better heads-up than multiway; but are you honestly saying that if you had aces and made a huge raise you wouldn't want someone to call with 72o?

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that more good hands are lost because people DON'T raise preflop and allow people in who would never have played to a raise.


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you don't raise to thin the field doesn't imply that therefore you mustn't raise at all. If you have aces and you don't raise and allow everyone to get great odds to flop to their junk hands, then that's a mathematical (and long-term financial) catastrophe. Not raising at all would be even more foolish than raising to get people out (assuming you have a good hand; when you're on a bluff of course, your reason for raising is just that, to get people out) making a huge raise still offers the others at the table terrible odds to call with weaker hands; they just won't accept. But not raising at all offers them great odds to continue with weaker hands, which is infinitely worse.

So you want to raise, but you are most certainly not thinking straight if you hope to get people to leave when their hands are weaker than yours; their calling when they have the worst of it means money in your pocket, no matter what the outcome of that particular hand.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If your goal is to thin the field when you raise, then your best possible outcome when you raise with AA before the flop is to have everybody fold, and clearly that's absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being too black and white. If I have aces, I would love to have 2-3 callers call. I don't want to play against 9 people.

If I have jacks and I play against 7 people... I'm most likely playing for set value. If I play heads up, there's a decent chance I can win unimproved.

BOTH factors are important in different situations-
If I have pocket 8s on the button and 6 limpers, I might raise because if I hit, I WANT people to want to fight for the pot if I hit my set.

If I have pocket Queens, I would rathar narrow the field and get out any hands like Axs and KJ who might fold to a raise while keeping people with pocket jacks around. (obviously, this is ideal)

"AA plays better heads-up than multiway; but are you honestly saying that if you had aces and made a huge raise you wouldn't want someone to call with 72o?" Sure, I'd love 2-3 people calling with this junk. But if 9 people called with small pocket pairs and various suited connectors, I would probably have to improve to win.

Its not all one or the other... its a combination of the two.

(we haven't even discussed another reason to raise... to isolate.)

[AKQJ10]

Jordan, your points are well taken and I probably could have been more precise in how I laid this out.

I certainly could be misapplying the books I mentioned, especially Harrington since i just got it in the last week. But my understanding is that kurto's substantially correct: even with aces you'd prefer to play against maybe 2-3 opponents with some dead money in the pot from limpers/blinds, and with jacks or queens you really do want to raise enough to get it to 1-2 opponents, mostly to reduce the risk associated with overcards.

You're correct that just blind-stealing is not usually a good aim for the hand, but that's where my OP may have been imprecise: I didn't mean how much do you raise so that EVERYONE will fold, but how much do you raise so all but a couple will fold and that couple will hang around to pay you off?

Incidentally, my problem was that I was making everyone fold. I must have had queens 4 or 5 times last Saturday, and only once did I make more than $3 on them. But I wouldn't want to raise to, say $4 and play QQ against the field either. It's a question of learning to adjust, but that's why I want to ask those with more experience if my tables (I tried 3 different ones) were unduly tight.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If your goal is to thin the field when you raise, then your best possible outcome when you raise with AA before the flop is to have everybody fold, and clearly that's absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being too black and white. If I have aces, I would love to have 2-3 callers call. I don't want to play against 9 people.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's the difference between someone who wants to win the most money and someone who wants to win this particular pot at this particular moment.

Let's look at two scenarios using the handy-dandy Cardplayer poker caculator:

In scenario 1, you've raised to thin the field and have done so successfully, narrowing the competition down to you with AA, and two others, one holding KK, and the other holding QQ.

In scenario 2, you've raised but nobody has left the building, and you're playing with four competitors - the same KK and QQ, and also a J3o and a 72o (only four because sadly, the poker calculator at cardplayer doesn't allow for more /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Let's further simplify to say that you went all-in before the flop with your aces, and the competing hands in each scenario have all called and gone all-in too, so theres no side pot.

In scenario 1 against 2 others, youll win 67.7% of the time.
In scenario 2, youll win 48% of the time.

But the expectation of each play is where it's at - not the percentage of pots you win.

if you all started out with $100, your expectation in the 3-player scenario would be $169.80 per wager (67.7% of the time youd win $300, and 33.3% of the time youd lose $100)

in the 5-player scenario, your expectation would be $188 per wager (48% of the time you'd win $500, 52% of the time you'd lose $100)

So if you want to win that particular pot right then and there, limit the field. But if you want to make the most money in the long run, raise to offer your competitors terrible odds, but you shouldn't be mad at all if they decide to call.

[ QUOTE ]

If I have pocket Queens, I would rathar narrow the field and get out any hands like Axs and KJ who might fold to a raise while keeping people with pocket jacks around. (obviously, this is ideal)

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that's not your ideal! Axs and KJ would be making a terrible mistake calling a big raise against QQ - you want them to make this mistake, because the more they have the worst of it, the more you have the best of it. Again, if they stay in, provided you've raised enough so that they're taking the worst of it to call, it's money in your pocket.

[ QUOTE ]

"AA plays better heads-up than multiway; but are you honestly saying that if you had aces and made a huge raise you wouldn't want someone to call with 72o?" Sure, I'd love 2-3 people calling with this junk. But if 9 people called with small pocket pairs and various suited connectors, I would probably have to improve to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and? Again, if your goal is to win that particular pot at that particular moment (for whatever reason - maybe you have a side bet going on with a railbird for $1,000,000 that you'll win that particular pot, I dunno), then you'd hate to have people in there fighting for the pot with that junk. But if you want the greatest long-term expectation, offer them odds so bad that it would be incorrect for them to call, then not only should you not worry about their calling , you should encourage them to do so, since they'd be making a mistake in your favor!

[ QUOTE ]
(we haven't even discussed another reason to raise... to isolate.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Raising to isolate is a case where it is genuinely a little from column A, a little from column B, but for a very simple reason - an isolation raise is a kind of semi-bluff. When you raise to isolate a player with AJ when you have 99, you're hoping to get everybody else to fold to the raise (even if they have a stronger hand), but at the same time you're also hoping that the AJ calls, taking the worst of it to continue against you.

The point of any raise is to get stronger hands to fold and weaker hands to call, so long as theyre getting incorrect odds to do so. You should never be afraid, let alone upset, if a whole bunch of players call a big raise from you while taking the worst of it.

[Triumph36]

This is one of the most dangerous poker fallacies. You'd love to be playing against 9 callers with AA. It's only fear of variance that would resist. But against $100 stacks, you will pot commit just about any top pair very quickly.

As for 1/2 casino games, my standard raise is 10. If it's a loose game with deep stacks, 15 is better, or even 20 or 25, but 10 is good, and raising to anything not ending in 5 is just more work for the dealer.

[Jordan Olsommer]

whoops - I forgot to mention something; in the "scenario 2" bit, the hands that I included in the calculation were AA (you), and your competitors with KK, QQ, J3o, and 72o. Sorry about that.

[kurto]

If I could go all in preflop, I would gladly play my aces against 9 others random hand. Aces is perhaps the worst example.

I like Jacks as an example. They're great heads up. Against a full table, they're almost worthless unless you hit a set.

Raising usually reduces callers to certain kinds of hands which makes it easier to put people on hands. With all players playing any cards, you'll never know where you're at.

I find it weird that people would argue that it isn't beneficial and +EV to raise to narrow the field. It doesn't matter if you're the favorite before the flop.. you want to increase your chances that you will retain the advantage postflop and that you will have some idea where people are likely to be.

If you raise with AK preflop and only 2-3 people call, and the flop comes A33... you can feel fairly certain you are ahead. The chances that someone played a 3 is reduced by your raise. If 8 people limped in and the blinds see a free flop... the chances are decent that there could be a three. Are you glad you didn't narrow the field?

I get the impression people are implying that you either want everyone to call or you want to take pot immediately preflop. That's ludicrious. I would rathar raise to increase the size of the pot while simultaneously getting called by a limited number of players.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

I like Jacks as an example. They're great heads up. Against a full table, they're almost worthless unless you hit a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same applies to aces as well; if you go up against 9 different hands, good luck winning with AA unimproved. But when you do improve with aces, you will win the pot most of the time, even if one or several of the other 9 hands improve as well. It makes no difference whatsoever whether you need to hit a set or not to win that particular pot; all that matters is your expectation is positive over the long run, and beyond that, that you're squeezing every extra dollar of extra expectation that you can out of your plays.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it weird that people would argue that it isn't beneficial and +EV to raise to narrow the field. It doesn't matter if you're the favorite before the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

It most certainly does matter if you're the favorite before the flop; to argue that it does not would mean throwing all starting hand requirements out the window. After all, everything can change once the flop hits, right? So what would be the point in worrying about whether you have the best hand before then?

Let's say a casino decided that lots of people buying cheap keno tickets meant bad news, since it was therefore that much more likely that one of them would hit the jackpot and cost the casino lots of money, so they decide to make the minimum keno ticket price $100 to "thin the field". Now their business at the keno ticket counter falls off because nobody wants to pay $100 to lose it all within 30 seconds.
There are a few people who still pay the $100 to play a keno ticket, but overall the ticket counter's profits are down.

Do you see the fallacy in the casino's line of reasoning in this example? They incorrectly reasoned that since many people were buying keno tickets, that they would essentially join together and collectively break the bank. It's true that it's more likely to have a keno jackpot winner in a field of 1,000 rather than 100, but every single player has the worst of it to begin with! And as every casino executive knows, every single player having the worst of it is what keeps the lights on in Vegas.

The sum of all expectations in any wager must equal zero - once you figure out whose laying what odds to whom, it's a zero-sum game: money doesn't magically appear or disappear from out of nowhere when neither of the bettors are looking.

Therefore it follows that if every one of your opponents in a hand has a negative expectation, then you must have an equal and opposite positive expectation! The worse of a negative expectation your opponents have, the better of a positive expectation you will have. So long as all your callers are taking the worst of it, the more the merrier.