My table of 6 handed open raising standards

[King Yao]

There have been some threads about open raising standards in shorthanded games, so I thought I'd share my personal table of opening raising standards in 3 to 6 handed games. If I list a hand like T9s, it means any hand of that category that is higher than T9s would be open-raise hands as well, such as QJs and KQs. Hands in () are hands that I may add if the game is full of passive, predictable players. As a side note, I almost never open limp. Maybe once I a while I'll limp with KQo/JTs UTG, but I'll pare that off with limping with AA/KK UTG once in a while too, but I do it so seldom, its probably not even worth mentioning. If the game is 4 handed then the UTG and UTG +1 columns do not exist, the first player will be from the Cutoff column. In a 5 handed game, the UTG +1 would be first to act. For the Cutoff and the Button, I have 2 columns for each, A and B. A is for games that are a bit tougher/aggressive where the Small Blind will reraise often when he comes in, and the Button will reraise willingly. B is for a game where the players are more passive and predictable, less semi-bluffing. This table says nothing about what to do if a player in front of you limps or raises...it is only intended when you are first in.

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>Min open-raisers UTG UTG+1 Cutoff A Cutoff B Button A Button B
Pair . 77(66) 66(55) 55 22 33 22
Offsuit Connectors AKo KQo QJo QJo T9o 98o
Offsuit One Gap AQo KJo QTo QTo J9o T8o
Offsuit Two Gap AJo AJo KTo KTo Q9o Q9o
Offsuit High Card ATo A9o(A8o) A7o A5o A2o/K7o A2o/K5o/Q8o

Suited Connectors KQs KQs(QJs) JTs JTs T9s 65s
Suited One Gap KJs KJs QTs QTs T8s 86s
Suited Two Gap AJs KTs KTs Q9s J8s T7s
Suited High Card A9s(A8s) A7s(A5s) A4s/K9s A2s/K8s A2s/K2s/Q7s A2s/K2s/Q4s/J7s

</pre><hr />

note: I may be putting this table (or something close to it if I make adjustments) in a text in the future, if that bothers you (i hope it won't, but who knows), keep that in mind when you comment.

[stripsqueez]

its an interesting topic but ultimately there are lots of marginal positions or decisions based on the sort of game your in - i guess i just dont like reducing it to a list because it doesnt mirror the reality of what your doing - i'm confident that we wouldnt disagree too much on that point

consider shania - if you only raised AA KK QQ AKs and 72o UTG and your opponents were good enough to notice you could probably turn 72o into a winner

i took a look at open raising UTG in my 60,000+ hand 6 max pokertracker data base recently - i think i should play more hands UTG because they were all big winners (except 1 or 2 which i would ascribe to statistical abberation as they werent the obvious marginal hands) - to talk specifically Q10s and QJs were doing great raising UTG 6 handed

UTG your hands are generally very close to my default choices - on the button your hands are looser than mine - i might suggest that the positional advantage of being folded to on the button and trying to steal the blinds is over rated - its over rated because even the poor players are very sensitive to it

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
i guess i just dont like reducing it to a list because it doesnt mirror the reality of what your doing - i'm confident that we wouldnt disagree too much on that point

[/ QUOTE ]
we don't disagree...in fact, I don't actually use the list when I play (nor do I memorize it), I play it by feel but my "feel" should be close to this list anyway. I feel the list serves two purposes: 1. for me to clarify my own play to myself....2. for others who have been asking.


[ QUOTE ]
consider shania - if you only raised AA KK QQ AKs and 72o UTG and your opponents were good enough to notice you could probably turn 72o into a winner

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what "shania" means (72o? or some other terminology?) ... anyway, that's only if all 5 of your opponents are all very aware, and that would be a very atypical online game...if you just had 1 or 2 opponents who weren't aware, it wouldn't be very fun for you. Let me know the next time you feel you are in a game where you could turn 72o UTG into a winner, and I'll let you know that you probably already left that game 15 minutes earlier /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
i took a look at open raising UTG in my 60,000+ hand 6 max pokertracker data base recently - i think i should play more hands UTG because they were all big winners

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement. You said you were a big winner with all the hands you played UTG...this doesn't mean that if you played worse hands that those hands would be winners too. It might be true, but it could be false, I don't see a causation here. I believe if you open raised in 6 handed UTG with hands that I recommend in the Cutoff A situation, you'd find those to at best zero expectancy, but that's only because you can play well postflop and take less of a beating than other players.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
on the button your hands are looser than mine - i might suggest that the positional advantage of being folded to on the button and trying to steal the blinds is over rated - its over rated because even the poor players are very sensitive to it

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure which Button column you are referring to or if it makes a difference to you. Do you think both Button A column and Button B columns are too loose/aggressive or just the Button B column?

Thanks for your intelligent responses as usual, I appreciate it.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what "shania" means (72o? or some other terminology?) ... anyway, that's only if all 5 of your opponents are all very aware, and that would be a very atypical online game...if you just had 1 or 2 opponents who weren't aware, it wouldn't be very fun for you. Let me know the next time you feel you are in a game where you could turn 72o UTG into a winner, and I'll let you know that you probably already left that game 15 minutes earlier /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Shania means a lot of things, but in this case I think strips is referring to the practice of playing certain hands in certain positions which, while not +EV in and of themselves, become profitable plays because of the way in which they interact with your other starters.

For example, I might raise with 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif UTG. If I always raised with mid-suited connectors from this position (and always folded high cards), and my opponents knew this, this would surely be a losing proposition. However, if I raise with a hand like 75s occasionally, it can be a profitable play for a couple of reasons:

1a) Because my opponents expect me to be raising with high-rank cards, I often get paid off very well when I hit my hand on a board that's something like 855 or 86J4.

1b) Conversely, I can frequently win the hand on the flop if the board comes with an A or a K.

2a) By showing down the hand, I can frequently generate more action on high-card boards when I do in fact have high cards, which most of the time I will.

2b) Conversely, by showing down, I can protect against the blinds attempting to steal every time that I raise from EP and the flop comes low or middle cards.

Basically, Shania is an offshoot of the Fundamental Theorem of Poker - you don't want your opponents to play as if they knew what you held, and by mixing your preflop play in the right ratios, you make it more difficult for them to put you on a hand. As much as it might please to say that our shorthanded opponents are unobservant and unthinking, I do think that varying your play is an essential strategy in these games, and it all begins before the flop.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what "shania" means

[/ QUOTE ]

it comes from a post by some ferret obsessed guy called something like shredni ?? - do a search in the general or mid/high stakes forum using "shania twain" - i dont mean to suggest that i will be raising 72o UTG anytime soon - i am thinking of adding specifically 6c5c and 6d5d to my UTG raising hands but havent developed the guts for it just yet - it is meant to serve as a dramatic example of how a dogmatic approach to starting hands UTG isnt best

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure which Button column you are referring to or if it makes a difference to you. Do you think both Button A column and Button B columns are too loose/aggressive or just the Button B column?

[/ QUOTE ]

both - to clarify my original statement - open raising on the button is a universally known tactic for stealing the blinds - its a bit like isolating the loose maniac pre-flop - often when i 3 bet a maniac pre-flop the next guy who is semi solid caps with AJo because he knows that i might be attempting to isolate - because everyone knows that i am stealing when i open raise on the button i prefer to have a stronger hand than your advocating - thats not to say i am a rock on the button - i am after all the founding member of the always open raise on the button with A2o club - i am happy for my opponents to make the mistake of defending too much but if thats the mistake they are making then isnt it right for me to play stronger hands and drop off some of the more marginal hands ?

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
Shania means a lot of things............ As much as it might please to say that our shorthanded opponents are unobservant and unthinking, I do think that varying your play is an essential strategy in these games, and it all begins before the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks for the meaning of Shania, pretty cool that this board can use one word to describe a nice concept. I don't know how often you guys think a play like this should be made, but I don't think it should be anymore than once in a 40 hour playing week. anymore than that and I suspect the play itself will cost more than the possible positive expectancy gained in other hands.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how often you guys think a play like this should be made, but I don't think it should be anymore than once in a 40 hour playing week.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to do it about once a session or two when I'm seated with my 'frequent targets.'

I also like to do it when a 2+2er is seated and try to give them a hand to post about so it enhances my reckless image amongst the players and lurkers of this board. One of these days I'll be exposed for the weak-tight fraud I am. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[James282]

Weak-tight? Like when you called my button PFR heads up with J6 and check-raised a 268 board and then capped it? /images/graemlins/smile.gif Weak tight, you aren't!
-James

[Ulysses]

You play way more hands than me. I think your chart is pretty much in line w/ the way a lot of players play in the 6-max games. I like it that way and hope your text becomes very popular.

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
You play way more hands than me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested to know which hands that I open raise with that you would play differently.

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]

both - to clarify my original statement - open raising on the button is a universally known tactic for stealing the blinds - its a bit like isolating the loose maniac pre-flop - often when i 3 bet a maniac pre-flop the next guy who is semi solid caps with AJo because he knows that i might be attempting to isolate

[/ QUOTE ]

on AJo four-betting when you three-bet to isolate a maniac - I don't think this is a necessarily a winning play. If you three-bet a maniac with hands such as K9s, KTo, he's just getting himself into a zero expectancy spot, because if you three bet with hands from AA down to K9s/KTo, then your average hand would be AJo. But if your minimum to three bet is with ATo, KTs, 66, then your average hand is going to be better than his AJo, making his play on your move negatve.

[ QUOTE ]
i am after all the founding member of the always open raise on the button with A2o club

[/ QUOTE ]

my opinion is that all those hands in Button A are very close to A2o, some a shade above, some a shade below. A2o would rank a bit higher than those average hands, but its still representative of the whole. So I open-raise with A2o as well as those other hands.

[naphand]

I am wondering what you mean by:

"A bit tougher/aggressive" and "More passive/predictable"

Compared to which yardstick? The games that you typically find yourself in, or the games typical for $10/$20 (which could be different as you presumably are selective).

I think the numbers of players seeing the flop, and how a PF raise affects this, makes a significant difference. For example, hands like low-med PP are a favourite to win HU (22 only just so) and the raise makes a lot of cards on the board hard for opponents to play. But if the flops are frequently 3 way, you still raise with these (as they are looser)?

A PF raise with, for example 33, for a 3-way flop against a player who is predictable (as he always calls with any A or any part of the flop) and another passive player, is going to struggle to show a long-term profit. Against players who fold to a missed flop, or to a card like an A to a PF raisor, then you can win a lot of pots without showdown. Playing these hands well post-flop requires a predictable response from a player; if the player never raises without 2-pair it gets tough to know where you stand. HU not so tough, but 3-way?

If the blinds over-defend a lot of the time, I think your raising standards from OTB and CO will need to be higher surely? Getting dead-money into the pot turns a lot of slightly -EV hands into +EV hands, but if you are regularly facing blinds who won't fold, and will call any part of the flop this is not the case, and those raises could become expensive.

I think looser, more predictable games are very much post-flop games; it is difficult to get dead money into the pot, difficult to get HU and it's often 3 or 4 way, and with many more chances that at least one opponent has paired the flop, low-med. pairs become much harder to play. I'm not sure how looser games (as I see it) make lower pairs easier to play? If I can count on at least one blind folding to a raise, then 22-33 are playable (to an open-raise) OTB. From the CO I think I am chucking anything under 55, and OTB as well if they are not folding. Though my stats show 44 wins more than its share from any position... /images/graemlins/confused.gif so maybe I need to reconsider.

I think for the lower pairs to be +EV you need one of three situations: either a lot of limpers (full ring games mostly, for a flopped set), in the blinds for a cheap ride to the flop, or a raise to get it HU on the flop. I think for the weakest Aces A2-5o) this applies too as well (without the limper bit). Marginal hands need folds and few opponents.

I am most interested in your CO and Button plays, as it is here I see the differences between your raises and mine (UTG and UTG+1, standard), not every hand type but some of the offsuit connectors in "B" games, and pretty much all the suited connectors in "B" games OTB. Again, without folds and getting it HU with dead money a lot of these hands are struggling. I would think that you would need to be either winning PF or on the flop a lot, or showing down some decent cards to a PF raise from here to make this sustainable. A sequence of lower-value (cards-wise) raises like this, could be costly, particularly against more tenacious players.

Thoughts/comments on looseness, folding-to-raises and dead-money hands?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested to know which hands that I open raise with that you would play differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure a lot of people would be interested, but that's a little too much detail to go into about my play. I might not be playing in these games in a couple of months. If so, I'll be happy to post a lot more detail then.

I'll say a little, though. UTG is probably the position closest to my play. Sometimes I fold 66/77, but I almost always raise 88. ATo sometimes I fold, sometimes I raise, depending on the game. A9s, same thing.

[Schneids]

You raise a lot more hands than me.

Particularly UTG+1 and CO, with regards to aces and gappers.

[King Yao]

do you limp with those hands or do you fold?

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
Weak-tight? Like when you called my button PFR heads up with J6 and check-raised a 268 board and then capped it? /images/graemlins/smile.gif Weak tight, you aren't!
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall this hand. This didn't happen to occur on a Thursday night, did it? I think you are confusing me with someone else. That must be it. I usually require at least mid pair, queen kicker to cap on the flop in any situation, regardless of number of opponents and who else is raising.

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
I am wondering what you mean by:
"A bit tougher/aggressive" and "More passive/predictable"
Compared to which yardstick? The games that you typically find yourself in, or the games typical for $10/$20 (which could be different as you presumably are selective).

[/ QUOTE ]

that's a good question, of course its all relative to the SH games that I play in particular, which would be in the 10/20 thru 30/60 online. when I talk about passive/predictable players, I don't necessarilly mean players that will call with anything pre-flop. ... what i mean is that when these players bet or raise, I am much more sure when I have the worst hand than when an aggressive player raises me. When the predictable players raise, its much less likely to be a semi-bluff...it could be a bluff, but with hands that aggressive players may semi-bluff with, the predictable players would likely just call with. That makes them easier targets, and when I'm the underdog, its easier for me to get out of the way. Another issue, there are some players who will three bet with any playable hand against a button open raiser, and then bet out on the Flop...these players are tougher to play against than the guys who will flat out call in the SB with hands that they would also call in the BB.

[ QUOTE ]
I think looser, more predictable games are very much post-flop games

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement, and that's why I don't mind getting involved in these games against passive/predictable players with position.

But also note that when I open raise on the button with a hand like Q9o, these passive, loose, predictable players are going to be calling in the small blind with hands like 98, J9 and Q8, which I am perfectly fine with. They'll also call with hands like A2, A7 (as opposed to reraising or folding them), which I'm fine with too.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Another issue, there are some players who will three bet with any playable hand against a button open raiser, and then bet out on the Flop...these players are tougher to play against than the guys who will flat out call in the SB with hands that they would also call in the BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

My strategy against those guys is to tighten up my preflop standards a bit but cap with any hand that I'd raise with. If they want to spew chips against me whilst out of position, that's fine.

[James282]

Nah it was the first time we played, you did this to me after I check-raised someone on the turn with no pair on the turn in my first orbit at the table /images/graemlins/smile.gif Just pushing your buttons Schneids! But seriously, I would never consider you weak-tight.
-James

I concur that the poster plays more hands than I do as well, specifically from the CO.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
on AJo four-betting when you three-bet to isolate a maniac - I don't think this is a necessarily a winning play. If you three-bet a maniac with hands such as K9s, KTo, he's just getting himself into a zero expectancy spot, because if you three bet with hands from AA down to K9s/KTo, then your average hand would be AJo. But if your minimum to three bet is with ATo, KTs, 66, then your average hand is going to be better than his AJo, making his play on your move negatve

[/ QUOTE ]

in a big picture sense this is typical of the thinking behind this post and several of your other posts king - i'm talking about a position where a player makes a decision based on a subjective view of his opponents - the guy with AJo knows that the initial raiser is a maniac who will routinely raise garbage hands - he also knows that i know that the maniac will routinely raise with garbage and he knows that i will therefore 3 bet with "marginal" hands - using all that knowledge he makes a strategic decision to cap with AJo which would otherwise be a very dangerous position - he probably also knows that i am likely to "respect" that cap unless i actually had a legitimate 3 bet or i hit the flop

you cant sensibly analyse the merits of this play by reference to the strength of the hands involved - the guy holding AJo is playing the man not his cards - ultimately you can drag every play back to the range of hands that should take specific actions and that knowledge is valuable to play the game well - but - in my view it has little meaning in this scenario

i like your posts - your analysis is always thorough and accurate in my view and i have learnt from several things you have posted about - i just feel better for saying this rather than continuing to merely think it...

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
i just feel better for saying this rather than continuing to merely think it...

[/ QUOTE ]

that's great, that's what this forum is for! whether I agree or disagree, I always appreciate hearing thought-out opinions.

[ZeeJustin]

Edit: NM