Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I've thought a lot about it... How about betting 1.50 instead of $2. This is more likely to get multiway, and 99 will do very well vs 2-3 callers on a low flop or if I flop trips. Thoughts on this?

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I always raise 4xbb+1bb/limper.

I think sticking to 3xbb is not good at all. Because if you do it here I guess you "have to" do that with other hands as well where 4xbb is a better sum to raise.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've thought a lot about it... How about betting 1.50 instead of $2. This is more likely to get multiway, and 99 will do very well vs 2-3 callers on a low flop or if I flop trips. Thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you scale your raises according to hand quality, your cards will become completely transparent to a thinking opponent.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've thought a lot about it... How about betting 1.50 instead of $2. This is more likely to get multiway, and 99 will do very well vs 2-3 callers on a low flop or if I flop trips. Thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Very important post, I think all serious NL-players will always raise the same ammount (depending of number of limpers, not depending on the hands).

I more often see people stick to this at higher levels than at lower levels. The downside to mix up the raiseammount is just much bigger than the upside.

Of course, for players playing VERY high stakes as 25/50 and above I it's a different story.

If you scale your raises according to hand quality, your cards will become completely transparent to a thinking opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I don't think this is true. My bets range from 3-5bb and I bet very few hands consistently the same way. 4bb is the norm for me, but I think that sometimes situations call for a different bet. This may be an example, bet here's another: 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on the button with 3 limpers, 6-handed. Here I'm going to raise more than my standard, because 78s does very well multiway and people are going to expect something more conventional (TT-AA, AK, AQ) if I raise this way. Furthermore, I raise a lot more often preflop than other people do (I am pretty LAG). So if I'm making a mistake here it's a big one. Can I get more discussion on this?

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

Ive tried to start a thread about exactly this but without responses, I will try to bump it again.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've thought a lot about it... How about betting 1.50 instead of $2. This is more likely to get multiway, and 99 will do very well vs 2-3 callers on a low flop or if I flop trips. Thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that I want 99 in a multiway pot unless you are set farming. It is a good hand to play heads up and I think a 'normal' sized is appropriate.

99 is not really a drawing hand and as such I usually like to try to price out drawing hands.

I will caveat that how I play 88-JJ is totally table and level dependent. This is the type of hand that can be profitable unimproved, if you are playing against thinking players who respect your raises. Against a table full of LAGs or maniacs I like limping and playing for set value better.

I would love to hear what TWP, Ghaz, xorbie and Bobbo think as they play at the higher end of the SSHE spectrum.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

Well, I am LAG and my raises don't get that much respect.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I am LAG and my raises don't get that much respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you tried to switch things up and play tight for a session or two. At the $50 level I think you will notice a huge different. Don't get me wrong, I've seen plenty of LAGs do quite well in NL $100 and especially NL $200, but being able to play multiple styles is a very useful tool (that is probably worthy of its own thread---I will start one.)

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I have a lot of trouble playing well, TAG. I get impatient and I'm not sure how to play a tight game properly preflop. I would very much appreciate a discussion of good TAG strategy.