People in poker get confused and think that the way to win is to trick the other players. Yes - you don't want them to know what you have.

But they cannot at any time SEE any of your cards, so why not SHOW them your hand when you bet.

I really don't know how to explain this any better but, i can tell you the truth 4 times and lie like hell and burn you on the fifth. You will remember the fifth time exclusively, and never be sure again whether or not I am telling you the truth

This is poker. It is a game about maximizing your ev. You want to pay (and have villains pay) EXACTLY what your hand is worth. I will say this a better way -- you want villain to pay exactly what your hand is worth -- you want to pay villain less than his hand is worth.

There is an optimum amount, mathematically, that your hand is worth vs. a random deal. The closer you are to that number, the more +ev you will be.

Again...some of you guys are good players...i missed this whole discussion and to be honest, I don't want to many other players to wake up...so hopefully only the good ones are still reading this thread...

Forget about raising to disguise your hand. That shouldn't be a part of the discussion - yet. It's not important to the fundamentals.

There are two types of raises: value and isolation. When you have a hand that plays well in multiway pots - raise for value. When you have a hand that plays well one-on-one - raise to isolate.

Enough said.

This should have been the title of the thread...you answered some of it above.

bump ba da bump

ba da bing!

I 3x until 75/150, then I raise 2.5x + 5 chips (quirky but something I've always done).

I raise 3x+1bb for every limper. And I always raise 3x bvb or from the button in unopened pots.

I never minraise, and I typically don't limp much when the antes kick in. I never vary my raise amounts in the same level. If I raise 655 at 125/250, I stick with it the whole level. I do sometimes vary it slightly depending on table dynamic from one tournament to the next, buy I never change within a tournament.

Playing 4.40s I do sometimes raise 4x pre in the first 2 levels depending on my mood and the looseness of the table in a whole. I don't want my UTG AA up against 7 callers so on these tables I try to raise it up a bit more. I only do this in 4.40s though.

and if you are this guy, raise ATC and double/triple barrell until they cry mercy!

Nice second BTW!

Early stages of SSMTT. You want to iso with AA-QQ from early position. You're deciding between 3-5x. How much more iso value do you get from 5x? In other words, vs. typical unknown, how much tighter is their 5x calling range than their 3x calling range?

If it's only a couple hands tighter, 5x it is.

My point is that you want to raise as much as your hand is worth, while overpricing your opponents hands.

AA is the nuts pf, so it is worth all of your chips. Therefore, shoving with it at any level is not wrong. The reason we raise less is to extract value. We want people to call, so we raise less. I will open as much as I think I can get a call with, and at some points in the tourney (low levels), that number is 5x. I don't raise more than that because I do not want to shut everyone out of the hand. When it's a really really tight table, I will raise even less, all the way down to 2.5x (value).

In order to see why 3x is standard, we have realize who we are raising. The only person fully invested in the hand is the BB - so that is who we are raising (always note stack size and play type of the BB BEFORE raising).

Without antes, a 3x raise offers the BB 2.5x on a call, which is just above the odds for a random hand. For example, if the BB has Q7 (the computer hand) he has roughly a 1:2.25 chance of winning a random deal. The 3x raise overprices his hand to make him -ev to play. (Do you see why I hate min-raises?)

This is just wrong. I'm going to class in just a minute, so I'll make a real response when I get back. If anyone wants to explain why this is wrong for me, I would be obliged, all you have to do is quote Sklansky's chapter on raising in Theory of Poker.

My bad. Raising 3x offers 2.25x on a call to the BB, which he has to play OOP. This is the advantage of raising. All things being equal, it is -ev to play OOP. There are different ways to model it mathematically, but a random hand generally has a 2.25:1 chance of winning.

This is why it is considered standard.

Knew I said something wrong.

bump

This seems odds to me on a few levels.

1. Is Q7- really the range we're worried about pricing out? If so, wouldn't that mean that I should be calling 3x from the BB with Q8+?

2. Is Q7 really 2.25:1 against a random hand? I thought Q7 was the theoretical 50% hand.

3. Even if 3x prices out Q7 at 2.25:1, Q7 is really only 2.25:1 (or whatever) against a random hand. Surely the BB with Q7 doesn't assume we're raising with a random hand? Q7 obv plays a lot worse against any reasonable opening range than it does against random, which means a full 3x isn't necessary to price out Q7 (or, conversely, 3x is meant to price out a lot more than Q7).

I think there must be some mathematical basis to 3x, I just need to start stoving and try to figure it out. I really think implied odds have to factor in here, too.

3x is not math magic. The "optimal" raise size changes with your hand, your opponents ranges, your image, your opponents images, and the effective stack sizes. The reason why one would raise 3x consistently, is to diguise our hand, while not making the odds too tempting...

What I do is vary my raise size based on the strength of my hand and position (add 85% of the pot if there's a limper, subtract 25% when there's ante) and then once I know my opponents catch on I reverse it at the opportune moment. I take advantage of what they know.

It works.

Here's an example:

I always raise to 2.68x with AA UTG+1, whether I win or lose the pot (assuming I didn't bust), I show the aces.

At this point I can steal from UTG+1 for the next 3 orbits (on average, this depends on other factors so I wont go into that).

On the third orbit, I raise to 2.68x with 89s, they will now be suspicious that I don't have aces but they would still fold and wait for the 4th time i'm UTG+1 before they trap me, so I show my 89s to engrave it in their minds.


Now , and this is the fun part, the next time I get AA UTG+1, I go back to 2.68x and stack everyone at the table at the same time.



FWIW my lowest raise is 2.05x and that's with KQ of hearts from the CO, my highest is 7.38x with any red 77 from the SB. Of course don't think that you could read me based on that (not to mention I only divulged 3 hands here), because I will do the exact opposite of what you know you think I'm doing.

Also on Wednesedays and non-days I reverse my strategy to confuse the regulars even further, but I try to do that only on odd months.


Disclaimer: This is based on mathematics.



cliffnotes: don't quote this

Wow, I can write a 500 page book on how this is extremely exploitable.

Even when you do the opposite...

Cool thread and lol @ jontsef.

Also, I must be the only tard here who min-raises from all positions and at all levels in small-stakes tourneys when it's folded to me. This is probably due to my inexperience.

And yet I love inviting the vast majority of tourney players at these levels to see flops with me (in position or not) -- especially at the later levels, when it's mostly the BB who decides to come along with K7o.

And I can open so many hands during the middle and final stages, and witness various scandalized low-stakes tourney players berate me in chat and adjust not very well by re-raising me much too infrequently, or sometimes even telegraphing a light re-raise I can shove over (for value) with (say) >= Qxs.

But I sense that my method, while fun for me, has many flaws and is definitely not max +EV (if +EV at all), and I should re-read some of the helpful discussions in this thread, were I not a recreational tourney player.

You could but if I were you I wouldn't bother because I already wrote a 500 page book refuting the book you would write.

I challenge the number of pages in your book. Hoping for discovery of infinity

You write your book first, then I'll write one with 3x as many pages.

Unless your book is over 1,000 pages, in which case my book will be 2.3-2.7x as many pages.

On the other hand, if you write a 500 page book, and then 1 or 2 other people also write 500 page books of their own, I'm going to write like 4K pages just to blow you all out of the water.

For all you 2.3-2.7x'ers, two new questions:

1. +1 for limpers? Or something else?

2. Do you change your bet sizing after the flop once antes kick in, too? If so, how?

1. i 3x+1 for every limpers. (+/- some broken money)

2. in late stages when blinds and antes are higher i change my betsizing from ~3/4 pot to 1/2-2/3 pot.

From a post I made in another thread.

Non-made hand - is that a fancy word for a drawing hand?

Let's oversimplify for a moment and assume that there won't be any more betting action after the flop and both players see all five cards. Q-Q is about 70% against all dominated ace-x hands (suited & unsuited), and all suited connectors from Q-Js to 5-4s. This only assumes one caller - if we get two callers, we're only 66% to win and we're in even worse shape.

Let's look at each case, one caller with no money invested, and if each of the blinds call.

A caller with no money invested is getting 2:1. This makes the 2.5x BB raise barely correct with one caller. With two callers (which is not uncommon at all) it makes it a losing play.

If the small blind calls getting 2.5:1, it's a losing play, as they only need about 29% to call, and their calling range is 30%.

If the big blind calls at 3.3:1, then that makes it a very losing play.

Like I said, grossly oversimplified. A really good post-flop player might be able to turn those slight edges into solid winning numbers, but there isn't a good way to mathematically model that.

No problem playing poker post-flop. But if someone's going to enter a pot with me and I have Q-Q, they are going to pay to draw out. And yes, I will make the same 3x to 4x BB raise with Q-10 suited (although not very often UTG).

I admit I haven't read all the posts in this forum. I read almost all of them on the first page and a few of them here.

I saw a lot of players saying that they raise 2.2x to 2.5x with antes, 3x with no antes, but I didn't see many at all saying WHY they chose those raise sizes.

If everyone does the same thing, great - but that doesn't make it correct. WHY is it correct is what I want to know.

I have a really good convo from two highly respected players arguing both points I just have to ask for their permission to post it. It def will present sides for both and you can decide which is better.