I think there is argument to say you should raise bigger the earlier the position you are in, to deter villains from calling you who will have position on you. When doing this, I would still tend toward a consistent bet size with all my holdings, so that observant villains cannot easily read my hands. And the variation in sizing would be very small.

An exception might be to raise small in early position with small to medium pocket pairs as you don’t mind multi-way pots so much with these hands even OOP. But I’d only do this against unobservant villains (low stakes villains are generally unobservant so it’s likely to be ok somewhat often).

Any thoughts?

I think this is pretty standard. I play mostly live 2/5 and in mid position I open 4x, in mid or late position with limpers I 4x + x per limper, and opening late position (particularly the button) I often 3x. It depends on the table but in the first two positions I often 5x. If it's a tight table I just stick to 4x in EP and if it's an action table I might bump up to 6x or even higher if there's a particularly bad player calling ATC against me.

I don't vary sizing based on hand strength though.

Makes great sense and I agree it’s likely pretty standard. Thats probably enough discussion for now on that one. Although I do think I recall reading a reliable poker author saying he was ok with varying bet sizes depending on our actual holdings! I find that pretty surprising. Maybe the author was just saying that in small stakes games you don’t need to worry too much about villains being observant enough to exploit you... but I think sizings should almost always be kept constant whatever our holding... I think players in my 1-2 game are mostly good enough to exploit it.

Hmm, I recall this came up recently, and I wound up changing my full ring RFI sizings as a result.

Fwiw, here is my full ring cash sizings. These are very small adjustments. However, preflop is the street you play the most frequently so these add up quickly. Also, varied sizings can be temporarily confusing to observant opponents.

UTG, UTG+1 RFI 3BB

EP1, EP2 RFI 3.5BB

Hijack RFI 4BB

Cutoff RFI 3.5BB

Button RFI 3BB


Theory behind the above is that an open from UTG is beginning the “draw out on me” game. This is multiway poker and raising larger simply increases the potential size of the jackpot that is awarded at the end of “draw out on me”.

We can not force our opponents to choose to play the “isolate raise heads up” game, but that is their option. Ranges are tighter here, but ALL of the nicer drawing combos are here because reasons.

The button is as always, we are attacking blinds with 3x to force a decision from both blinds.

So, this leaves the other seats caught in the middle. On the hijack we need to enforce the “isolation raise heads up” game from CO and BTN. We want to be heads up vs BB or everyone to fold. We raise most here.



Lastly, in 6-max I would just 3.5BB every seat.

Obviously not a huge deal, but interesting.

You can vary your sizing by hand strength, but you have to pair up your combos so strong and weak are equally distributed among the sizings. Also, AA has to be randomly included in every sizing. This is wayyyy to complicated and quite pointless, but feasible.

That’s really interesting, the hump shape...

I think I might actually have (semi-unconsciously) done this too from EP.

I don’t really follow your logic tbh but my logic for your small raise in EP would be: if you raise big then when you ARE called by people behind you, you have bloated the pot when everyone has positional advantage on all streets, generally not a good idea.

So there’s a trade-off there between (1) raising bigger to reduce the number of opponents behind you versus (2) bloating the pot OOP. Tbh I’m not sure exactly where I am on that trade off.

I like the look of your sizes actually but am not really sure why exactly for the sizes in the earliest positions!

But I definitely agree with you about raising bigger in the HJ than the CO, and bigger in the CO than the button... reason being to try to steal the button and having to bet bigger in the HJ to achieve that than in the CO (because you need to do more to force out 2 players behind you from calling etc)

There are arguments out there for raising larger in early position, but there are also arguments out there for raising smaller in early position.

I could make the argument that you should raise larger if you prefer to raise with a tighter preflop range and raise smaller if you prefer to raise with a looser range. I think it should also depend on how your opponents play. At a loose table where raising larger won't earn more folds, I could make a case for raising smaller to build a pot while managing SPR in what is likely to be a multi-way pot.

Smaller early, bigger late.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...43&postcount=3

Why do most writers recommend the opposite? I mean most suggest a constant bet sizing but I haven't read anyone who argued for opening for less in EP and more in LP. Harrington for example recommends the opposite and for some more recent examples Peter Clarke and Alton Hardin IIRC.

Though Clarkes sizing suggestions are actually dependent on player types behind us particularly in the blinds. OTB for instance in general open for less but with stationy villains in the blinds use a narrower range and size larger.

I just generally feel like when UTG with 99 for instance I am perfectly happy with everyone folding or getting one caller. If raise size has no effect on thinning the field then I suppose we should size smaller. I don't want to be playing 99 OOP 4 ways if I can at all help it.

Full ring no limit cash games.

From early position, there are so many players behind that properly exploiting them with bet size to an actual advantage will be dubious at best.

This makes it interesting. Whatever size you open with should really reflect your opinion on the theory of multi-way poker, and the format of the game (sng, mtt, cash) and the venue, which is the larger pool of players that your particular opponents are drawn from.

From theory perspective, what does a player who open raises from UTG/UTG1 communicate with that action?

Traditionally, it means “my range is very strong and you will need a strong hand to beat me, but I also mix in enough combos of PP’s/blocker/connectors so you can’t know my exact holdings.”

So, keeping with the traditional theory, the very next player to choose to play her hand maximizes EV by 3-betting and applying pressure to the EP opener, and any third player wanting to participate really needs a premium hand to cold 4b but also has some squeeze steals often enough to be non-exploitable.

This goes on back and forth as the players squabble with 3b 4b ranges with the goal being:

1. Win the hand preflop if possible.

2. See a flop heads up, eliminate any third player.

3. Be in position on your opponent whenever possible.

4. Do all of this with balance and non-exploitability.

However, the above scenario often fails when one or more players choose to flat call instead of 3-bet. This may be a mistake, and certainly should not happen frequently, from traditional theory perspective.

However, this is just not what happens in small stakes full ring cash games. Players call. It is their option. They are playing the “draw out on you” game.

So, what happened to the EP player? Now that player is first to act and seeing a flop 4 or more ways, often more at small stakes?

What sizing can the EP player use to prevent this altogether, or at least minimize the profit to the players that choose to flat call?

The more the EP player increases the bet size, the more clearly defined and polar the EP players ranges become. Narrow polar ranges are more likely to miss flops and more vulnerable to card removal. A large open size from EP will likely leave the EP player mostly capped on many flops, and mostly transparent/cards-up on favorable flops. Further, larger open sizes almost guarantee larger bets on future streets, which can increase the profit to the opponents who are playing “draw out on you”.

Conversely, the more the EP player reduces the size of the RFI, the more often opponents will call or 3-bet light. This will leave the EP player constantly first to act in 3b pots without initiative, or the alternative is to further bloat a pot with 4b ranges.

Properly balancing 4-bet and 5-bet ranges becomes very difficult because the number of available combos dwindles quickly and it becomes a question of jamming with AK+AAKK and mixing in a few steals to attempt a semblance of balance.

However, there is another option to the EP player. Switch the strategy from the traditional game to the drawing game. Play “draw out on me” from EP.

This means choosing a RFI size and corresponding ranges that are capable of containing AA as well as lots of suited drawing hands. Discard non-suited combos and replace them with suited combos.

Example:

AQo can be eliminated and replaced with AQs plus three other suited hands without increasing your vpip. However, AQs should be regarded as a good multiway hand that plays well post flop more than simply a big ace. A or Q high flops will often only get action from opponents who hold or can draw to a better hand than your single top pair.

Anyway, all of the above is my reasoning for opening the same size UTG that I would use to steal blinds with from the BTN, however the range for the UTG seat is a mixture of big hands and drawing hands, and can connect on a larger portion of flops than a traditional UTG range.

Not to sound arrogant, but I would not put any stock in what those people you listed have to say about poker theory. Their "theory" is just based on things that work against bad players.

Bad players call too much and only 3bet the nuts, so of course you want to raise bigger in EP against them.
Bad players fold too much in the BB, so of course you want to raise smaller in LP.

I don't care much for what you should do against bad players, the exploits are pretty self evident. What I am talking about is what you should do in an optimal environment.

MoP, which is one of the few serious poker theory books ever written comes to the same conclusion and if you ever rail any high stakes games on PS you'll see most every reg does the same thing.