Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Live Low-stakes NL Discussion of up to 3/5 live no-limit, pot-limit and spread-limit Texas Hold'em poker games, situations and strategies.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2012, 08:46 PM   #51
AcePlayerDeluxe
1st Gear Pinned
 
AcePlayerDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,681
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

I agree that people arent stacking off with TPTK for 100 BB's loke they used to in most places.

Im going to text Garick right now and ask him to respond to this in regards to our game at the Casino here. You know me, I am all about self evaluating myself and now I want a second opinion based off of what Mpethy said about egos. Not that Im taking it the wrong way or anything. I just want to see someone elses opinion.

Here are two factors that my game has that your guy's do not. First its a 2-5 hour round trip drive (Didnt come here to fold) and second the game is only 2.5 years old. Before this they played only 2-5 Limit. Our game isn't necessarily in its infancy, but it probably has not yet passed its toddler stage.
AcePlayerDeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 08:50 PM   #52
AcePlayerDeluxe
1st Gear Pinned
 
AcePlayerDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,681
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Mpethy and venice- What days and hours are you playing?
AcePlayerDeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 08:54 PM   #53
Huff Jenkem
centurion
 
Huff Jenkem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 114
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by chopper5654 View Post
Fundamental Theorem of Poker. If I knew you would call a shove with A5, I open AQ with a shove. Duh.

Applying this example to the AQ vs. A5 hand is flawed because we’re not talking about pf shoving, we’re talking about a hand that will involve multiple decisions over multiple streets.

Those in the thread who say we should always always always “charge the most we can” pf if worse hands will call oversimplify the problem and make a similar error.

As several have said, SPRs and post flop play dynamics are super important here. A top pair hand like AQ can get in some hairy, hairy SPR spots OOP if you don’t manage pot size well. IMO, there are def cases where betting less pre is preferable even when you’re ahead of the in-position villain or villians range(s).
Huff Jenkem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 08:54 PM   #54
Dominic
Tripod
 
Dominic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vegas
Posts: 67,171
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

I really like mpethy's comments, and for the most part agree...but to say the era of stacking off light is over, is wrong.

In the last month, I've had sessions where I've won 3 buy-ins or better a few times, and in all of them, I've gotten tourists to stack off with TPTK or less for 200bbs in every single one of them.

In one hand at Aria 1/3, I was HU against a villain who had AQ against my AK. I had $650 and he had me covered.

The flop was AK6 rainbow. I bet, he raised, I called. Blank turn. I checked. He bombed the turn. Again, I called, knowing i'm shoving a half-pot-sized bet on the river with any card. the river was a J. I pushed, he called.

Insta-stack-off 200+ bb with TPGK.

Last night, I saw two players - both with over 400 bbs - get it all in on a 542 rainbow flop. One player had AA. The other had TT. 400 bbs deep.

One of these players also got it all in with another over 300 bbs deep with QJ on a Jack-high flop.

So while I certainly agree with Mpethey's thoughts on raising, I have to disagree with Venice's claim that Vegas LLHE isn't still quite fishy and quite good.
Dominic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 08:59 PM   #55
quesuerte
Pooh-Bah
 
quesuerte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 4,335
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

There is not really anything to be gained by discussion when my only argument is that games IME play differently from what the greens are telling us. I will just say that is my opinion.

Also that the thread has kind of been derailed. The initial argument was actually about rise sizing when we know these conditions exist It was really about big fat value v post flop manouverability (or however you want to express it.)

Few other points. Agree with Mpethy about losing players to a large extent and with Venice about not stacking off with 1 pair for 100BB. IMO all the more reason to exploit these peoples desperation to see a flop and get lots of money in pre with a strong range if that is when they make their biggest mistakes. The only way for good player to exploit us here is by folding hands they otherwise would have called a smaller raise with. How much EV is that losing us? Are we really bummed that good players are folding to us when we are OOP with a high SPR. I'm not saying we are losing nothing but probably not as much as we gain by playing a much bigger pot against the guy who will put in 8bbs with A5.

Same thing goes for dropping the weakest part of your range because we are sizing big. How much EV are we giving up. Not sure it is more than we gain from stacking donks. Also, in tougher games, getting ALL the donks money before he gives it to somebody else should be an even greater priority.
quesuerte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 09:23 PM   #56
Huff Jenkem
centurion
 
Huff Jenkem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 114
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
I don't want to overstate the degree of difficulty in 1/2 games in Vegas. They are pretty soft. However, I have not sat at a table this year at which I would characterize the majority of players as completely oblivious to variations in bet size.

I have hundreds of hours at the MGM and the v, and I have also played at aria, Wynn, trop, ph, and bellagio. The games are essentially the same all up and down the strip. The average open raise size has come down to 4 or 5 bb, raises bigger than that stick out like a sore thumb and are far more likely to fold around than a smaller size.

It is true that there are usually multiple weak players at the table, and that some of them are loose passive. But I would estimate that all up and down the strip now, the average 1/2 table composition contains at most three loose passive fish who you can routinely take to value town with top pair top kicker. I am 100% certain that at my tables this year, in all hands I have seen played, that top pair top kicker loses money in hands that are played for three streets of value.

To be candid, I think there is a lot of ego involved in this discussion. I don't say that lightly. I say that because in my coaching, I have coached a lot superb players who played mid to high stakes. By the time they got to me, they had mastered the fundamentals and most advanced concepts andvwere looking for comparatively small leaks. In nearly every instance, what I found in their databases was that their biggest remaining leak was underestimating the bad players at the table. They would say, "oh, this guy is a fish, he will call with third pair," or whatever, and then, strangely, the fish in their database actually only ever called with monsters. What I learned from studying the play of all those expert players was that their egos sometimes colored their perceptions of what the weaker players would do.

It is the dame sort of thinking I see in this thread. You think you can raise to $16 with AQ, flop an ace, and take some loose passive to valuetown who called you with A3 and will put his whole stack in. Anybody who thinks this sort of thing happens anywhere on the Vegas strip often enough to be considered anything other than a fluke us completely delusional.

It DOES HAPPEN. I'm not saying it doesn't. What I am saying is that if you come to the games I play in and play a strategy designed to exploit the occasional player whose stack you will get in that circumstance, you're going to be leaving a lot of money on the table.

Now, it could very well be that the games here in Vegas are tougher than elsewhere. You guys COULD be playing in games so soft that you are the only player at the table capable of figuring out that big raise equals big hand and small raise equals medium hand. Our games could be that different. I happen to think, though, that our disagreement is one of perception. That we are playing players of comparable skills and tendencies, and describing them differently.

This is no accident. I have way more respect for most fishy ayers than any other comparably experienced player who has not learned it while going through his database with me. The reason I have this respect for those players is because I have come to understand that most people we call fish are:

A. Smart people;
B. Very often smarter than us;
C. Who KNOW that they are making mistakes, and can usually tell you exactly what mistakes they are making;
D. Who purposely make those mistakes in small pots;
E. Because they have different goals than 2+2ers; and
F. Whose quality of play tends to vary directly in proportion to the size of the pot.

<shrug> I don't expect you guys to believe me, I guess (though I hoped) The only people I have ever been able to convince that their biggest leak is underestimating fish are the players I have been able to show it to in their database.

Mpethy, your points seem very reasonable. So much so that my instinct is examine my thinking and to make sure I’m not making the error of ego that you describe.

Would you agree that the Las Vegas market is unique and that table selection is of additional importance here? I find it interesting that my top two rooms aren’t included in the list of rooms where you play. I wonder if you sit in as tourist-heavy games as I do. It’s my contention that if you table select correctly, then you can get away with playing a style that would be extremely exploitable online. I’ve heard Limon advocate such a live strategy at 5/10 and I think maybe even 10/20. I’m surprised that your estimation of 1/2 play is so high.
Huff Jenkem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 09:25 PM   #57
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 19,535
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

So, I don't know if I count as a "respected member of the forum," but I was already preparing my response when I read APD's post above indicating he was texting me IRT this thread, so I def gotta respond now.

I think most of you arguing against the big raise are arguing "don't do it, it sticks out like a sore thumb." A few, most notably mpethy, are arguing against it because it limits your ability to open medium strength hands, because you either have to bomb them too, in which case you are OOP AND up against a range that is better than your hand, or vary the open sizing wildly and then will find yourself playing with your hand exposed. Fair assessment?

The other side seems to be "raise whatever gets you the number of callers you're looking for and is still getting called by worse." This argument is all about FAT VALUE. Fair assessment?

If I have the arguments down correctly, I am firmly in the camp of "it depends." Given the standard table dynamics at the Midnight Rose in Cripple Creek Colorado, I raise big for fat value all day. Even the regs there probably put you on TT+, AQ+ when you do that, but they still can't resist seeing a flop with any pair, AXs, or any 2 broadway. Then, depending on the player, many will stack off with TPNK+ (even if they put most of your range on hands tha can beat that) and fold to a c-bet with anything below. In these game conditions, there is *SOOO* much value that setting up SPRs for the hand you hold becomes more important than unexploitable sizing and position.

Also, when standard OR sizes (other than pot sweeteners) range from 5xBB-9xBB, with 10-15xBB not being very rare, 8xBB doesn't really stand out. There are still LOTS of regs who make really big raises with small-medium PPs to "protect 'em."


OTOH, every table I've played at a large casino or a California poker room in the last two years has had at least one, and usually two players who will read you like a book if you do that. You pretty much need to have position on them or have a strong read that they're folding PF no matter what you do to get away with that sheet. Since in EP that rarely applies, 8x open in EP is not something I'd do much on those tables, no matter what hand I hold.

In the hand from the original argument, if 8xBB is not an unusual size and is getting flatted by A5s, then I like the sizing very much as long as we're not too deep.

Last edited by venice10; 01-27-2012 at 07:25 AM. Reason: Removed name
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 09:29 PM   #58
Hollywade
Pooh-Bah
 
Hollywade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down in my pluuums
Posts: 4,527
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerDharma View Post
I would generally think to charge more. I have found that 5x + an extra bet for every limper works pretty effectively for me, but there have been times where certain tables dictated a need to charge more.
This is my system when I play 1-2. I stick to it with my entire raising range.
Hollywade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 09:47 PM   #59
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

I see a bunch of comments directed at me since my last post. Unfortunately, I have to go to work. I'll get to replying when I get back.

Last edited by venice10; 01-27-2012 at 07:25 AM. Reason: Done
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 09:50 PM   #60
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 19,535
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Flynn, Mehta, and Miller wrote:
Players who always raise the same amount preflop are making a trade-off. Their fixed raise sizes make it tough for opponents to narrow their range. That's good. But they pay a price, namely not playing near their target SPRs.
We contend that most are paying too much for too little. When you size your preflop raises to achieve your target SPRs, you gain two big advantages...
They mention commitment decisions and maximizing expectation when you get AI. I would add maximized expectation when V folds to a c-bet on a wiffed flop.

They continue:
Quote:
If your opponents were oblivious to raise sizes, you would clearly benefit from sizing your raises to achieve your target SPRs. So the question becomes how much easier are you to read due to mixing up your raise sizes?
If you play to achieve your target SPRs, you will constantly be raising different amounts before the flop. Depending on the hand, the desired pot size, and the opponents, you might have different target SPRs -- and therefore different ideal raise amounts -- each hand for many hands in a row. Remember, other players don't know what you have and what you're doing. They just see you raising to many different amounts. <snip> If your opponents seem to have you "figured out" and seem to know what you have based on your preflop raise size, you can add randomization.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 10:27 PM   #61
BellatorBaby
newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 37
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quick statement here as I'm on my iPhone. I think it is a huge mistake to think that fish make the most mistakes preflop. In fact I think it is by far the street they play best (it's still bad). I'm just saying this because it has been stated or implied a few time in thIs thread. Also, betting large just because someone will call with worse is not enough information. For example, if you know someone will always call if they have A5o then would you always raise large with A6o? Just because "calling with worse" is in someone's calling range does not make it a valid reason for a large preflop raise oop with AQ. I strongly feel that one of the largest leaks in these games is bloating pots preflop and making it harder for fish to make post flop mistakes. Post flop is where money is made.

I will take more time later, good thread.
BellatorBaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 10:40 PM   #62
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 19,535
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Garick or Venice, please edit Garick's post to insert my screen name where he trainwrecks me
Too late for me to edit, so I guess will have to be a mod. Sorry, just cracking, didn't realize it would tilt you.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 11:02 PM   #63
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huff Jenkem View Post
Mpethy, your points seem very reasonable. So much so that my instinct is examine my thinking and to make sure I’m not making the error of ego that you describe.

Would you agree that the Las Vegas market is unique and that table selection is of additional importance here? I find it interesting that my top two rooms aren’t included in the list of rooms where you play. I wonder if you sit in as tourist-heavy games as I do. It’s my contention that if you table select correctly, then you can get away with playing a style that would be extremely exploitable online. I’ve heard Limon advocate such a live strategy at 5/10 and I think maybe even 10/20. I’m surprised that your estimation of 1/2 play is so high.
Wait listed at the MGM, so inane a few moments.

My estimation of Vegas 1/2 is that the games are soft and beatable. That's not a high opinion. But saying they are soft is not the same as saying that they are populated by players who aren't thinking or will call $16 with the same range they will call $8.

I have never played live cash anywhere other than vegas, so I don't have an opinion of other markets. In Vegas, I am of the opinion that it ought to be the softest games available in US casinos, because we have a steady supply of tourists that local casinos elsewhere don't have. But I could be completely off base there; I have zero basis for comparison.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 11:23 PM   #64
au4all
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,872
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

For the people who claim that it's easy to profit against people who vary their raises, maybe you can explain how?

Someone raises UTG in a 1/2 game to 10 dollars and shows pocket QQs.

Later they raise to 8 dollars in middle position and take the pot down after a T84 rainbow flop with a continuation bet.

Later there are two limpers and Hero is on the button and raises to 17.

How do you profit from Hero's play?
au4all is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 11:45 PM   #65
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

I'm pretty sure IP relative to that player I'd be 3 betting his smaller raises.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 05:28 AM   #66
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcePlayerDeluxe View Post
Mpethy and venice- What days and hours are you playing?
I normally play Wednesday through Sunday, and start any time between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., and try to go 8 hours. So, peak time, afaik.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 05:34 AM   #67
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

I kept sort of half-assed track tonight watching people's raise sizes. From what I saw tonight, open raises from $8-12 got called by at least one player the vast majority of the time--like 80%--and open raises to $15 or more got called 3 out of 8.

Obviously I am guesstimating on the smaller raises, as there were just too many to keep an accurate count. Tomorrow, if I remember, I'll keep a count of $12 and $15 or more.

My table tonight was ridiculously tight, anyway.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 06:19 AM   #68
CallMeVernon
COTM Crusher
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Not Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,270
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
I am 100% certain that at my tables this year, in all hands I have seen played, that top pair top kicker loses money in hands that are played for three streets of value.

To be candid, I think there is a lot of ego involved in this discussion. I don't say that lightly. I say that because in my coaching, I have coached a lot superb players who played mid to high stakes. By the time they got to me, they had mastered the fundamentals and most advanced concepts andvwere looking for comparatively small leaks. In nearly every instance, what I found in their databases was that their biggest remaining leak was underestimating the bad players at the table. They would say, "oh, this guy is a fish, he will call with third pair," or whatever, and then, strangely, the fish in their database actually only ever called with monsters. What I learned from studying the play of all those expert players was that their egos sometimes colored their perceptions of what the weaker players would do.

...

I have way more respect for most fishy ayers than any other comparably experienced player who has not learned it while going through his database with me. The reason I have this respect for those players is because I have come to understand that most people we call fish are:

A. Smart people;
B. Very often smarter than us;
C. Who KNOW that they are making mistakes, and can usually tell you exactly what mistakes they are making;
D. Who purposely make those mistakes in small pots;
E. Because they have different goals than 2+2ers; and
F. Whose quality of play tends to vary directly in proportion to the size of the pot.

<shrug> I don't expect you guys to believe me, I guess (though I hoped) The only people I have ever been able to convince that their biggest leak is underestimating fish are the players I have been able to show it to in their database.
I'm not really interested in the rest of this debate, but I strongly agree with everything I quoted, especially the bold. And I play outside of Vegas.
CallMeVernon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 07:31 AM   #69
venice10
Referee
 
venice10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nowhere special
Posts: 23,068
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcePlayerDeluxe View Post
Mpethy and venice- What days and hours are you playing?
I'm not playing pro, so I'm weekends only. I'll do one session mid/late morning to mid/late afternoon and then a night session.

The times I've played during the week are usually populated by regulars, mainly "old man coffee" during the day and an assortment of loose passives at night.
venice10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 11:25 AM   #70
TAOxEaglex
old hand
 
TAOxEaglex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,584
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

I find is so interesting that mpethy and venice disagree with everyone, including myself, when I usually agree with almost 100% of everything they say. What's going on here?

Do you realize how hard it is to realize that someone is raising based off of hand strength? If I'm never showing my cards other than at showdown then you aren't going to have that much of a sample size to work with. Also, there is a sort of pseudo-"inherent randomization" involved when you do this after limpers (especially if someone straddled!). Let's say you raise 7xBB with a premum pair and only 4xBB with a lesser hand. Two different raise sizes, but when you open raise $14 with a premium and raise $14 with a lesser hand after three limpers it looks the same.

Your absolute raise size should be "randomly" all over the map during the course of the game. This makes it super hard for the average player to figure out what you are doing.

Disclaimer: I'm sure mpethy, venice, and all the really good posters on here can deduce that someone is doing this relatively easily. But I bet even the average 2p2er wouldn't be able to do so which makes it unlikely that the average 1/2 player can ever make this observation.

Last edited by TAOxEaglex; 01-27-2012 at 11:30 AM.
TAOxEaglex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 11:41 AM   #71
AcePlayerDeluxe
1st Gear Pinned
 
AcePlayerDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,681
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

I think what is happening is that we are all playing the same game, but not the same table dynamics. Put me in Vegas and Mpethy in CO and both of our thoughts may change.

FWIW... I am completely on the it depends/table dynamics/not at all games bandwagon. Just because where I am at I would make large raises doesn't me where you are at I would do the same thing. I think I have stated that throughout the thread though.
AcePlayerDeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 11:52 AM   #72
PokerDharma
veteran
 
PokerDharma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The 8 Seat
Posts: 2,209
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAOxEaglex View Post
Your absolute raise size should be "randomly" all over the map during the course of the game. This makes it super hard for the average player to figure out what you are doing.
I asked this question to a handful of notable pros once and was told that my thought is incorrect, because whether you think you are or not, you're raising based on the quality of your hand. I tried to argue it based off of using RNG's or situations to vary PF raise sizes, and could never get them to sway.

Since then I have stuck with a specific multiplier (3-5x) and added an extra bet for every limper. Seems to be working for me, but it's still early.

If you do randomize your PF raises, what are you using to create the randomness?
PokerDharma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 12:04 PM   #73
TAOxEaglex
old hand
 
TAOxEaglex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,584
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

I am raising based of the quality of my hand. My argument is that the bet sizes end up looking so random that even though I am following a "formula," it looks so random that it is almost impossible for the average non-pro onlooker to realize it.

Mpethy and venice argue for standardized bet sizing to hide the strength of your hand. I argue for the other extreme, perceived random (that isn't, in reality, random) bet sizing that hides the strength of your hand.

And your "notable pros" aren't going to be relating the argument to low stakes poker. In their games, standardized bet sizing is superior since their opponents are skillfully looking for ways to exploit them.
TAOxEaglex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 12:10 PM   #74
PokerDharma
veteran
 
PokerDharma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The 8 Seat
Posts: 2,209
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAOxEaglex View Post
I am raising based of the quality of my hand. My argument is that the bet sizes end up looking so random that even though I am following a "formula," it looks so random that it is almost impossible for the average non-pro onlooker to realize it.

Mpethy and venice argue for standardized bet sizing to hide the strength of your hand. I argue for the other extreme, perceived random (that isn't, in reality, random) bet sizing that hides the strength of your hand.

And your "notable pros" aren't going to be relating the argument to low stakes poker. In their games, standardized bet sizing is superior since their opponents are skillfully looking for ways to exploit them.
Good point here. I don't think Raymer, Nejad, or Furst are going to be slumming it at the 1/2 very often. Still though, it doesn't take much to narrow down the PF range of a player who varies his bets based on the quality of his hand. He either raises large with weak hands or vice versa, and that becomes a pattern. Right?
PokerDharma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 12:14 PM   #75
Bluegrassplayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bluegrassplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: China
Posts: 36,162
Re: 1/2 - The old argument of why raise so much...

Definitely agree with Tao here. It's the same reason balance isn't necessary in 99% of LLSNL games. There just aren't enough hands being played, and going to show down that anyone will ever catch on. There aren't enough regs, there's enough droolers, and enough people who just don't care that you can absolutely get away with altering your raise size depending on the strength of your hand.


Also your range in a lot of spots for raising preflop is going to be necessarily tight anyways so you might as well make it as big as possible.

The only time I'll not alter my raise size is in an unopened pot from mp or lp as that is the only time that needs any type of balance.
Bluegrassplayer is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online