Quote:
Originally Posted by MadScientist
It's been a while since I read Chen's book, but isn't his argument for pf raise sizes based on some toy game or on some approximation? For shorthanded PLO, I think larger up front is correct.
I don't play much full ring 100 bb PLO, but there things may be different as at a loose table you don't want to bloat the pot and run into AAxx or good KKxx. I think at a loose full ring table min raising or limping in EP can be right (but it makes me feel gross to say it).
It is probably derived from a toy game, I can't remember, but I don't see why a more complex game would yield a different result.
FWIW I open the same size all positions in both 6-max PLO and 6-max NL, so it's not like I'm a big fan of the idea.
However I think it makes a lot of sense. One of the reasons is opening big in a full ring game against solid players really constrains your range in early positions.
For example if you full pot open UTG in 9-handed PLO with 100 BB, you really need a ridiculously narrow range of hands (AA + very good looking wraps more or less). If you standardly min-rz or limp here you should be able to play quite a bit wider.
I actually have a different strategy than that which I don't want to describe, but basically in 6-max I open the same size every position but then in 4-off through 6-off the button I make a progressively larger deviation from this that lets me play more hands.
In general I don't like talking about anything specific because I think there's a lot of value in exploitive stuff, and though I'm not a great player or anything I think I am frankly better at picking up on that stuff than many people.