Back to Basics : PF Raise Sizes

[Unarmed]

Ok,

I have a confession to make. I don't raise 3BB + 1BB for each limper. *GASP* No wait, let me explain, and please point out any errors in my thoughts here as I'm completely open to suggestions.

I'm not a big c-bettor. YMMV, but I honestly don't think c-betting is more profitable than checking whiffed flops and re-evaluating on the turn. Given this, getting HU with AK isn't something I find ultra-appealing. I prefer to get 2-3 callers, giving me odds to hit TPTK. An example:

I have AK on the BB. There are 2 MP limpers and the SB in the hand. It's level 1. Should I really pump this to 90? I think if I do so, I'll typically get 1 caller, and potentially be OOP in a raised pot which I will miss 2/3 of the time. In that "exact" situation, I'd probably make it 50. Is that awful? Should I jsut be pumping the best hand PF and hope I get nice implied odds against some donk when I hit?

Same situation. Give me AA/KK. I want action. I think I'd make it 60. Give me an UTG limper, and I'll make it 90. Ooops, now I'm varying my raises sizes by hand, which is supposed to be bad. I don't think anyone notices, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I'm sort of rambling, mostly because I don't have a system for sizing my raises PF. I evaluate the situation and decide on whatever raise amount I think suits the way I'm planning to play the hand. As I'm actually looking for advice here, I'm going to leave it at that and hope this post generates some interesting discussion.

Thanks! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Funny, I have been struggling with this very question regarding AK. Lately I have been pushing if there is any significant money in already to pick up or the blinds have gone up to make them tasty to pick up. So, say we are in Level 2 and there are 3 limpers and I am SB. I'll push and take the t135 most of the time. Occasionally a jackass will call with AQ or 78s or something and I'll usually double up. Is this a bad strategy?

When there's not enough to push, the big raise followed by c-bet has been working really well for me. If the flop missed me it most likely missed villain and they are afraid I have a high pair. I think it is very positive EV to play it this way.

Then again, I'm playing at $11s, so there you go.

[Chaostracize]

Check AK in the BB with multiple limpers in the first level

I disagree with you on the c-bet issue, especially with AK.

My philosophy on AK against good players (I think from your posts that this category includes the typical 109er.) is to play it like I have AA or KK unless I expect to go to a showdown. I actually keep wanting to write a comp program to mess around with this further, and I'll definitely post the results once I do.

Basically, the idea is that there are 24 combos of AA/KK and 16 combos of AK, and AK has either 6 or 3 outs against a 1-pair hand.

Given that you don't c-bet, I understand why you'd want to bet smaller.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with you on the c-bet issue, especially with AK.

My philosophy on AK against good players (I think from your posts that this category includes the typical 109er.) is to play it like I have AA or KK unless I expect to go to a showdown. I actually keep wanting to write a comp program to mess around with this further, and I'll definitely post the results once I do.

Basically, the idea is that there are 24 combos of AA/KK and 16 combos of AK, and AK has either 6 or 3 outs against a 1-pair hand.

Given that you don't c-bet, I understand why you'd want to bet smaller.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you play the turn when you c-bet (out of position) and get called?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with you on the c-bet issue, especially with AK.

My philosophy on AK against good players (I think from your posts that this category includes the typical 109er.) is to play it like I have AA or KK unless I expect to go to a showdown. I actually keep wanting to write a comp program to mess around with this further, and I'll definitely post the results once I do.

Basically, the idea is that there are 24 combos of AA/KK and 16 combos of AK, and AK has either 6 or 3 outs against a 1-pair hand.

Given that you don't c-bet, I understand why you'd want to bet smaller.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you play the turn when you c-bet (out of position) and get called?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I always check unless I think I'm ahead. I have no idea if this is correct.

[durron597]

I don't see why you don't think c-bets are profitable. Say you have AQ in LP after MP1 limps, and you raise and the limper calls with 77. The flop comes K9xrb and he checks you bet half the pot. Suddenly the limper is in a tough spot where he doesn't know whether he is ahead or behind and to find out he pretty much has to commit most or all of his stack. If you get a fold from 77 this way one time in 3 you make money.

Now, as far as preflop raises go, the idea behind limiting the field is reverse implied odds. Say you have a bunch of limpers and you have AK in the BB. So you make a small raise and 2 limpers call. The flop comes K56. Pretty decent flop for AK, except for the times you gave 56 the right price to call you preflop and now he gets a decent chunk of your chips. By raising more preflop in general you can narrow the range of your opponents hands more and you can be more confident you didn't just get bottom two flopped on you.

At least that's the idea, you also make valid points about trying to extract more value out of your TPTK, but I would image at the the 109s you won't be stacking AT every time when you have AK on an Axx board. Plus those times are relatively rare because there are only 4 aces in the deck, and even when they do occur the guys who let themselves get stacked with TP4K are going to call bigger raises with AT anyway.

[Unarmed]

Durron,

I didn't say I *never* c-bet. I just don't automatically fire into 1 opponent when my AK/AQ whiffs. However, on a K high flop with AQ, I will c-bet nearly 100% of this time. Anyway, I don't want this to get into a c-bet discussion. I don't do it often, and it works quite well for me. I'm sure others c-bet with great success, its just not my style.

Your concern with giving speculative hands a chance to stack is valid. However, I don't think its a massive issue in SNGs given our downside is capped at the buy-in.

[The once and future king]

What is a c-bet?

Continuation bet. Ie, you raise preflop, with AK, don't hit, and bet anyway.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a big c-bettor. YMMV, but I honestly don't think c-betting is more profitable than checking whiffed flops and re-evaluating on the turn. Given this, getting HU with AK isn't something I find ultra-appealing. I prefer to get 2-3 callers, giving me odds to hit TPTK. An example:

I have AK on the BB. There are 2 MP limpers and the SB in the hand. It's level 1. Should I really pump this to 90? I think if I do so, I'll typically get 1 caller, and potentially be OOP in a raised pot which I will miss 2/3 of the time. In that "exact" situation, I'd probably make it 50. Is that awful? Should I jsut be pumping the best hand PF and hope I get nice implied odds against some donk when I hit?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this completely, possibly because I am not a big C better either. I like to either play AK very strongly pre flop (pushing pre-flop late game or with the right overlay after many limpers / mini-raisers) or I like to control the pot size and go up against 2 or 3 opponents as in your example.

[ QUOTE ]
Same situation. Give me AA/KK. I want action. I think I'd make it 60. Give me an UTG limper, and I'll make it 90. Ooops, now I'm varying my raises sizes by hand, which is supposed to be bad. I don't think anyone notices, but I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree here as well. Even with QQ, if I'm in level two in the BB with QQ, 3 people limp, why should I do them the favor of getting out cheap by popping it to 180? I have no problem in this spot raising to like 130 or so. I want a caller, if the flop comes with overs, well, I'll deal with it. But raising 3 BB +1 BB for each limper lets these idiots off too easy IMO. I'll put in a real raise, but I don't want to chase them all away. Following the 3 BB + 1 BB per limper rule lets chronic limpers off easy.

I also agree that your opponents really don't notice these things as much as we sometimes give them credit for.

[bennies]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you play the turn when you c-bet (out of position) and get called?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this rough guideline:
Push the turn when our remaining stack is smaller than the pot or about the size of the pot.
Check/fold the turn if the stack is (a lot) bigger.

??

[bluefeet]

In your first example, I COMPLETELY agree. I very rarely raise from the blinds, in early levels, following a couple limpers. "Raising to make the fold" is obviously not advantageous when the pot is so small. And "Raising to build a pot" is just not often profitable enough with the positional disadvantages coming from the blinds on a whiffed flop.

Secondly, a blind complete/check presents GREAT opportunity to check/raise a 3-4handed hit flop, with a hand like AK. More times than not, you'll get paid hansomely from the Ax holders, meeting resistance from a well disguised blind hand.

Outside of the blinds, I'm closer to "45s"'s line. I DO want callers when it is likely I'll have position on the flop. While I don't abide by the +1 for EACH limper rule...I do raise a SINGLE 1-1.5 additional "x". Not so much as a pot building move, but to help ensure I maintain position.

A limp, followed by a limp, followed by a 3-4x from MP-late position?? Too often the pot is looking a little too juicy for the stragler or two behind me. If my standard raise unopened would be 3.5x, i'd make it 4.5x following a limper or two. Generally, I find the subtle increase in raise enough to keep suspect draws hands from jumping on behind -- while small enough to get the limp calls & give you room to jump ship when the flop/turn doesn't go your way.

[Freudian]

My basic thinking about raises preflop is this: If a good player can put me on a range of 4-5 hands just from the size of my preflop raise, I am way too obvious and need to decrease the size of my raises.

[fnord_too]

I haven't read others comments yet, but here are my thoughts on the ways to go with pfr:

Straight standard: One formula for raising raising regardless of cards or position. This gives next to no information other than you have a raising hand. If you throw in the occasional odd raise (like with middle suited connectors) it makes you very hard to read.

Standard by position: You have a standard formula but it has a position based component. Some people advoacte raising more from MP that EP, and more still from LP. Some people just like to raise more out of their blinds to better define the hand. This also leaks next to no information.

Mixed Standard: Two or three formulas (that may have component basis) that you switch between randomly, but in a weighted manner. (Like Harrington talks about in his book). This leaks some information, since by conditional probability one can get a non uniform distribution of your raising hands. Also, the random part is hard for humans, and you may end up revealing a lot more information than you intend to.

Pure situational: This can be great or terrible. The great is when you really have a good feel for the table pre flop, and know who you can manipulate post flop. This is very hard when playing a lot of tables. The terrible is when you leak too much information, and good players start picking you apart. A lot of the terrible comes down to humans inherant inability to effectively randomize.

I pretty much play straight standard right now, but I think mixed standard is better. Also, position based standards may be better, too. That is a theoretical concept I have not really explored yet, though I think some big NL thinkers like it.