In the beginning of my "poker career" (lol) it was standard to raise 4xbb pre-flop. Then 3.5xbb (pot) became standard... then 3 bb... and now we are at 2-2.5xbb.

But what was the actual thinking behind the 4xbb and 3.5xbb standard?
I mean, the same pros who would be laughing at 4xbb pre now did it back then, so what was it that made them/us change their/our thinking?

Because people called and it got more money in the pot. I'd say while it might be laughed at online, if you were at a table full of fish it's probably better.

Ranges have gotten wider and people have statistics that show most hands aren't worth 4bb worth of risk to steal the blinds.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

Agreed. Even if the meta wasn't as wide, preflop is a long way to showdown and your better hand is not worth 4x against a caller. 3x is still appropriate to induce a shove if that is what you want, but varying from 2.3 to 3x gives away information. Smaller raise pre allows normal 3b 4b ranges, where 3x gets out of hand quickly.

But as to why it was 4x way back when, probably because it was what everyone was doing. It is still recommended for novices with tight ranges early in MTT, for instance in Negreanu's book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah its pretty much that simple. People were worse, you got a lot more calls preflop (or any street I guess), so you could just extract more for value on a regular basis. And yes, there are plenty of spots today where you'll have enough loose fish at the table (especially live) where 4x is still probably best.

No a big deal, in the poker rooms of my country you can raise preflop 10x
and everybody calls, specially at colones tables 500 1000 (would like $1 $2)

I'm still raising 4BB ...
Is this bad?

Where can I read up on this?

Not bad per se, it depends on the ranges that will call you. If the BB is still gonna call you with a wide range then you are getting value with 4x. If the table is not so loose, then you only get called by upper ranges which actually should call or 3-bet and you lose value from the lower ranges that would have called 3x, but folded instead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's fine if you're playing tighter than the average for the table, since you'll naturally be able to value-bet more often post-flop. If you want to (or need to) play a wider and more balanced range (because your opponents aren't mouthbreathers), then a smaller size would typically be appropriate, because you don't want to play bloated pots with 7-high.

I mean, in the old days (and still in some of the softest games), you could apparently sit around and wait for TT+/AQ+, open for 4x and get two callers and then get three streets of value with top pair vs bottom pair. In contemporary games, you have more fold equity pre-flop (there aren't so many calling stations), so you don't need to risk so much on blind steals, and you'll get more action with your value hands if you start with a smaller open. Since players are better today, you also need to be more balanced post-flop (and bluff more often), as you can't just play like a nit and expect to get paid.

From early position it's atill a viable option, because your range is tighter and you want to deny against callers having position.

Any opinions on this in online full ring 2NL cash games?
What about higher limits?

Depending on the skill level and stack size I raise 4x-6x in cash games. The reason is to build a pot before the flop so you can stack someone who isn't as strong post flop.

Also I play 5/5+ so might be different strategy, but I doubt it.

The reasoning is valid in vacuum, but in reality the dynamics of the game usually changes, and people start copying frisky behavior.

But, say, if you steal blinds, usually your hand is poor. So, if your hand plays worse than the average hand postflop, wouldn't folding out all but top range be good? Then, more often than not, when you decide to steal, bb will fold. And the few times it fails, you will know by the opponents decision that you are behind. And then you can play from there.

I dont really understand what you mean.

I am saying that 4x at a tight table will get more value callers and more folds from dominated hands.

On the button you can do whatever you want, you are in control. But blind stealing and defense is not really what this thread is about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't trying to argue against your point, since I trust that you are correct. So, since I figured that blindstealing at a tight table (defined as a table that tightens callrange considerably at a 4x raise) is more succesfull with a 4x, the sizing appeared to have merit. Haven't done the math, I just had a gutfeeling and hoped you had done the reasoning and could set me straight. Anyways, my gutfeel just suck and I get that, overall, you lose equity by folding out weak and retaining strong opposing hands. And I see now that I also switched topic, and you were talking generally. Don't know why I fixated on stealing...

Your gut feelings have merit, and all opinions are welcome in the forum. Thank you for clarifying your opinion.

If you sense a loose passive table, then 4x may not even be enough to accomplish what you want with an open raise. Or, a table full of dusty rocks (do those tables exist anymore?) then 2.2x might be perfect.

I just want better players to fold and worse players to call, as do we all.

Rob


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk