Why not 5 or 3?

My standard open is 3.5bb at 6max, 3bb at HU and usually around 2.5bb in tournaments.

Where do you get 4 from?

I agree.

How much merit is there to varying your raise sizes? I'm speaking specifically of the micro limits, where guys will tend to call a 5x open just as much as they'll call a 3.5x. I don't telegraph my hand strength since I do it pretty randomly and I really don't think people are paying that much attention (ie. had a dude stack off with K6o after I'd raised 5x pre last night with AK on an K9x flop)

Mine is pot, but I've seen 4x on 2+2 and CR videos as well.

POT FTW imo.

Preflop I click on the pot button, which is 3.5x +1 for every limper. I do it because it's convenient.

Because it's just over pot size

Exactly.

IMO, all low stakes players aren't paying enough attention, or multi-tabling so I generally open between 3 and 5 and I favor the high end with my big pairs because if villains are calling regardless... let's start building a pot!

Min raise heads up or 3 handed?

does that ever work?, when?

Sorry, i don't click pot buttons I type every bet i make... so excuse me for not pressing "BET POT" or "Aggro Donk", however that button reads


But, regardless of this forum, the average of most standard preflop raises (disregarding HU which is in a league of its own) is 4x BB + 1 for every limper.


I ask simply for this reason... what are you accomplishing with your open raise size?


Me for example, I open raise because I play at levels where people tend to call too much, and I want to get stacks in (assuming 100BB's). I was considering opening to 5 BB + 1 rule for this reason.


If I am called preflop the pot is a minimum of 10BB (10.5 but bare with me).

I usually bet postflop somewhere around 3/4ths of the pot. so on the flop I'd bet around 7.5 BB's, and a call would leave the pot at 25BB's, with a 100BB stack sitting at 88BB's.

On the turn, I'd bet somewhere around 20BB's and if called the pot would be close to 65BB's with stacks left at about 68BB's.

This make shoving the river simply a pot sized bet (a little over, little under... w/e it's pretty much on the mark for our smallest possible pot)... I can get stacks in without ever overbetting the pot or needing a raise.

Do the math with 4 BB's and you'll see you'll need to mash the pot button the entire way and be called to get stacks in... it makes a big difference post flop imo... So i'm just wondering... why do you bet how much you do, exactly? Or is it just a force of habit?

I bet pot on FTP and 4X on Stars. On stars I use the scroll wheel to size my preflop bets. Just habit.

I will min raise on the B when playing HU.

I've seen some interesting arguments in training vids for varying your opening raise with position.

One said: bet smaller UTG and MP because you're OOP and your bets will get more respect regardless of the size.

Another said: bet smaller in CO and B because you're opening much lighter in position and you won't build too big of a pot with a marginal holding.

Both theories make sense to me. I generally bet pot or 4X because it's easy. But you're right that sometimes bigger bets will work better. With a horrid calling station on my left I'll often open to 5X or more for value and to make it easier to get stacks in.

I think Harrington says to make it a smaller UTG raise too, hmm...I know I've read it a few places can't figure out where. I'm not really a fan of that at all but I haven't moved up to where they respect my raises so I guess that's a me problem.


bet pot is a great button and play 8 tables or more I'm not going to type bets if I can avoid it. min's too small, 4 or 5 w/ only large holdings is an easy tell to note and 4 to 5 all the time is a little too much IMO.


Bet pot is good.

So does Phil Gordon, so it must be right.

Some thoughts -

There's probably an amount for every single hand and every single situation/position/table/BB that is the perfectly optimal amount to raise too. This could be 2.782 X the BB, or it could be 10 X the big blind, but obviously there are so many factors to take into account such figures are impossible to calculate. The 'standard' raise is standard because it's the point at which people believe it is the most optimal raise size for all the situations on average, and in general it is easier to play by the 4X+1BB per limper idea than to try and calculate when it is more profitable to raise to an excessively large/small amount.

I start with 3.5x as my standard raise. If I bring it in for a raise two times and get called both times, I add one more BB to my standard raise. So first up from that would be 4.5x, then 5.5x, then 6.5 (but it's rarely gotten this high for me). If i bring it in for a raise two times and induce folds all around both times, i take one BB off my standard raise amt. But I don't go below 3.5x.

This is something I've made up on my own, does anyone else follow this procedure?

The smaller raise UTG may work in tourneys but in cash games with deeper stacks it gives the other players too good of implied odds to call with lots of speculative hands imo.

My standard is pot and then mostly 3x in lp and I may decide to go to 3x all the time and 2.5x in lp because I think that may work better for me.

Alot of the regs that play 2/4 FR on Stars minraise from every position and it seems to work for them. I think most of them are just copying Kelisitaan, who is probably the biggest winner in 400nl to 1000nl FR on Stars.

There are probably better ways than this too accomplish what you want. For example open for a smaller amount with nits behind you and open for larger with loose guys behind you. The way you have been doing it will lead to issues with small sample size where people either just didnt pick up any hands a couple times around or you ran into hands a couple times in a row. Also your way just gives you more stuff to have to remember and that probably takes away from your focus and hurts your multi tabling ability as well.

This makes it sound like you're always hoping everyone folds to your pre-flop raise which is a truly horrible way to play NL cash.

Or maybe he raises more for value because people will call him.

it depends on your table. sometimes you sit at a table, raise 4xBB and get 3 callers everytime. sometimes you raise 3xBB and they keep folding.

Also picking up 1.5bb per hand is huge. People often forget this, but there arent too many hands that will average over 1.5bb/hand.

Blind stealaments are the nuts.

1) Doesnt my method help to gauge whether or not the people behind me are nits or loose? Also, how loose or nitty someone is can change over time with their mood; so wouldn't my method stay right along side with them as their mood fluctuates?

2) I realize this, but I hope that there is some type of long-term reasoning to offset the short-term small sample size problems.

3) I don't really multi-table at all.

I am . I'd obviously prefer if everyone folded pre-flop to me all the time so I could just blind-steal for stacks, but I'm not naive enough to believe for a second that this is gonna happen.

The reason for it is a combination of narrowing their range so it makes post-flop play easier for me (it takes different PF raise amts to narrow ranges the same amount for different people *i realize that this might be hard to understand, not because of how difficult the concept is, but because I suck at writing. I'll try to make it clearer if anyone asks*, as well as hoping to induce a fold pre-flop.

In a tournament blind to stack ratios get so big that winning the blinds is vital. Specially with antes involved.

In a cash game with deep stacks stealing blinds is pretty insignificant. At least it's insignificant enough that your primary motivation for raising must be for value. Though position is so important in NLHE that often most of the value of your hand comes from your position and your ability to win the hand at a later point.

I always view winning the blinds as a consolation prize. Regardless of my holdings the only "bad" response to a raise is a re-raise. If they fold I take the consolation prize. If they call I see the flop and look to win the big prize.

This is equivalent to me writing "making post-flop play easier" IMO. But agreed, raising exclusively to steal blinds in a cash game is stupid.

When you take the blinds you win 1.5BB/ per hand, look in your PT database and see how many hands average more than 1.5BB/hand, I think you'd be very surprised that in fact winning the 1.5BB of blinds is often the most profitable outcome when raising a high% of your raising range.

O Rly?

Every time you go allin preflop and win against one opponent you make 100BB/hand.

I like this.

Why on earth would you not pursue maximum value considering table texture?
Why on earth would you not maximize profit vs. players who make bad PF calls?
Why on earth would you not minimize your exposure to good players and tight tables?

See. Evaluate. Adjust. See. Evaluate. Adjust. See. Evaluate. Adjust. See. Evaluate. Adjust.

Especially online players, where you can accumulate incredibly accurate statistical information on the opponents play. Utilize that information to its fullest.

I must admit I have fallen in love with the Bet Pot Button too, because I am too lazy to type.

Other than that I just read sth. about stack to pot rations in a book called "Professional No Limit Holdem" where the idea is to size your preflop raise in a way to create a favourable stacking off ration related to the strenght of your most likely hand post-flop.

I either didn't understand it or the theory does have some holes. For example it would recomment raising big pocket pairs to 5 + BB (assuming effective stacks of 100) and then commiting to the hand and stack off because the pot to stack ratio is below 1 : 10. Whereas for small pocket pairs and suited connectors higher ratios are recommended (so the guideline would be to raise less preflop with these hands). If this strategy is allpied too obviously, it seems highly exploitable.

Of course you may try to confuse thinking players by varying preflop raise sizes. But then again, what did you achieve? You either did get too little value for your strong hands. Or you might get lost in unfavourable spots with KQo :-I

Half of the online players (me included) are already confused enough anyway.
So to me "Bet pot" seems reasonable. It say's you have a hand and want to poker. Or at least it says you want to poker.

Under a very certain set of conditions I would think of minraising AA and KK but before I get bashed for doing that I want to stress that these are very very very rare and depening on observed patterns of other players.

Is that meant to be some kind of counter-argument?

I believe the reason for preflop raising is to thin the field.... That price is different for each table you may sit at, so our jobs as players is to find the lowest price we can pay to do the job, the job in this instance being to thin the field. 4x or 3x is a generic guideline which can work at some tables, but their are table where it will cost considerably more, and some where 2x to 2.5x will work.... it typically relys heavily on the depth of stacks.

You'll notice that the book does mention the caveat that you're playing unobservant opponents who won't discover and exploit your varied pre-flop raises.

That said I find it next to impossible to work in real life because:
1) it's next to impossible to predict the number of callers and
2) the villains have different stack sizes.



No, it's for value.

Sure raising pre-flop and taking down the pot is not a bad outcome.
Sure raising and reducing the number of opponents when you have a vulnerable made hand (JJ,QQ, etc) is not a bad thing.
Sure raising and constricting your opponents range to simplify post flop play is not a bad thing.

But the reason you raise is for value. You raise because based on your hand, your position and the tendencies of your opponents you stand to win the pot more than your fair share of the time and therefor you'd like your opponents to put more money into the pot that you'll be winning.

This one.