I currently only play 100nl but just going to ask here since I think you guys would give better insight. I started watching some coaching vids recently which is why I'm starting to question whether or not my preflop strategy is the most +ev vs these opponents. I've been playing profitably for a few years now at low stakes and ik this question seems contradictory to that since its one of the more basic concepts its just I feel as if I may be missing some value due by not fully understanding how to adjust my starting ranges in these spots. So I'll break this question down into 2 parts, first being isolating ip, and second being how to adjust our opening range (and possibly sizing?) when we have high vpip recs ip on us.

Part 1: Isolating calling stations (and stealing blinds from calling stations)

So first lets assume we have a 60/10/2 type of fish who is a calling station postflop as well as preflop (say 38% wtsd, 1.5 total AF), they limp in before us and we're on the btn with 2 regs in the blinds (100bb eff stacks). My standard RFI range on the btn vs 2 regs generally looks like this (note that I use 3x open vs regs in blinds +1x per limper hence the tighter range),



with said rec player who limped in before us my isolating range on the btn would look something like this,



my reasoning being that we have less fold equity postflop so our weaker 'drawy' hands lose value whereas our high card hands go up in value. Though I see an argument to be made that we have more implied odds with our weaker drawy hands so I'm wondering if I should not be omitting the hands which I do? If not then should I keep all those hands as well as open the rest of my range as I did?

I have a similar line of thinking when attempting to steal on btn vs a similar rec player in the BB.

Part 2: Opening range adjustments with calling station ip vs us

So for this part I'll use the same player from the last example. This time we're in the co and he's on the btn, and 2 standard regs in the blinds.

My standard co opening range looks something like this,



whereas given said situation it would look more like this,



Given that I'm tightening my range on the co should I increase my raise sizing a bit? I've heard someone say that they'll be opening wider in this spot since its less likely that we get 3bet, this makes sense also.

So I'm hoping to get some insight from you guys as to what the most +ev preflop strat is vs these sort of players in similar spots. Not to sound like a douche but please only 100nl+ winning players only, I see lower stakes players posting advice which seem to make sense but is -ev in practice and as this is kind of an 'open-for-debate' kind of topic I don't want to be thrown off and led to believe something which would be -ev.

Look forward to hearing your opinions, thanks

Especially with regs in the blinds, you really want to be opening for 2.5x or 2.2x-2.4x. You're going to get 3-bet a lot by good regs in the blinds, and if you 3x it, you're taking away a lot of positional advantage you have postflop since you have a lot less room to maneuver with a lower SPR/bloated pot.

Also, the regs stand to win much more from you by 3-betting preflop, whereas if you use a smaller sizing, they don't.

Not sure why you're isolating a fish with hands as weak as T9o/K3s but tossing 64s/75s?? 64s has a lot more playability. Straights and flushes are big money makers. And I'd much rather have these suited hands because it gives us a lot more opportunities to barrel postflop.

Always raising 22/33/44 with a fish limper from the CO. The value of a set, esp vs a fish, is way too valuable to just be folding. You also need to be isolating with T8s, 97s. Those are just way too strong to be folding.

Think you're on the right track though. Against a passive fish, imo you should be playing hands that are playable postflop (suited connects/gappers/high card broadway hands). Hands like K5o/K6o/K7o/Q8o don't really have any playability, have RIO against fish's flatting range, and esp are not playable if a reg flats in the blinds.

Exactly like this.