Back to Basics : PF Raise Sizes

[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.