It should be simple. We want to win at showdown with hands that have value at showdown, and we want to "take it down" with hands that don't have showdown value. If we're making a play at this pot pre-flop with the intention of winning the pot without being called (IRTM illustrated that this is profitable), then we shouldn't waste our great hands on the play.

I'd make the bigger bet with A2s, pocket 7's, maybe some stuff that can flop ok sometimes like J9/JTs. But inviting everyone to fold with a hand that can either A) play for stacks post flop or B) profitably call the $10 in position, is not the way to make money at this game.

Also, people suggesting that we vary our raise sizing based on the strength of our hand are missing the point, imo. Why would we split our range like that? Especially the suggestion that we raise our premiums smaller and our weaker hands larger. When we do this, we A) give our opponents an opportunity to adjust by correlating our raise size to the strength of our hand and B) we make the pot much larger with lower equity hands that will be difficult to fold when facing action (whether preflop or post). IF we wanted to split our range based on sizing (we shouldn't want to do that), we should raise larger with the strongest portion of our range as its equity holds up more frequently against all Vs' calling ranges.

PS- I failed to add QJs into the range I provided in my first post.

PPS-SpexDome, I disagree with your thoughts about straddles. They absolutely SHOULD effect our range and they DO change the bb for that hand. With a $10 straddle in a 1-3 game, we are now playing a pot in relation to a $10 minimum bet preflop vs. a $3 minimum bet. The straddle changes the minimum amount we can raise preflop and commits a larger percentage of our stack when we take any action. Straddles change EVERYTHING! Now an open raise will likely be between $25-$35 whereas in a 1-3 structure, the standard open is between $10-$15. The game is effectivly 2.5x bigger now with the straddle in effect. That's huge. Dismissing it is a mistake.

Comments in red

Never said Flatting is the way to make money. What the point of my post it was that villains will often still call a larger amount with a dominated range. You strategy really depends on the straddler as well as he limpets range(if they are ever limp reraising you will be setting them up perfectly). More often than not your are going to be in a low SPR pot with no show down value. Not to mention I don't consider 77 or J10s as being a 35% hand.

Ug, I hate this idea. One, it opens up the betting for someone limping in with a big hand to trap and now we'll have to throw our potential monster making hand away. Two, there's no reason for a pot builder; if we just overlimp, the SPR will be ~6 (trivially easy to play for stacks). If stacks are such that they can be trivially played for postflop, we actually decimate our implied odds by raising.

GimoG

You're suggesting that villains will call 20-30BB's pre-flop with easily dominated hands. Would you raise to $90 in a non-straddled pot? If what you're saying is true, you should be.

I think if you raise to $21 in an unstraddle pot (7x) you'll get an entirely different calling range than if you raised to $70 in a straddled pot (still 7x). I don't think anyone is using the logic of "well it's only 7x the blind" and calling off 1/3 of their stack with AT. It's just not happening. I think there is a threshold where villains stop thinking about bets in relation to the pot, and more in terms of absolute dollars. You probably wont' see a lot of $70 open raises at a 1/3 table, so I'd expect just about everyone to notice it, and adjust immediately by tightening up their calling ranges to just stuff that has us crushed.

At $50, I think it's more likely that guys with dominate-able hands will be able to see the money that's already in the pot, and make a loose call for $40 more.

There's a big gap between a $70 raise and a $90 raise. Also, I think you're overemphasizing the average 1-3 player's $$ threshold when calling preflop. A monumental amount of the time, the sizing matters the least to your opponents. They will be making their decision based almost solely on whether or not they "like" their hand. Sure, a larger bet will get a few extra folds, but not so many that we need to risk $20-$30 extra to accomplish that. Also, when you size your entire range similarly, you lose less (profit more) when you get limp/3b by a premium range. $60/fold to 3b with J2 is preferable to $90/fold to 3b with J2, no?

It likely is +EV to bomb $80+ with bluffs at 1-3 in a spot like this, but is it the most +EV? I'd argue no. Assuming the larger raise shrinks our opponents calling ranges a certain % (it will a lot of the time, sometimes it won't), when they do call us, we have almost no way to win the pot without "coolering" our opponent i.e we raise $80 with J2s and get called by KJ and the flop is J26. But then you have the drawback of having to show your J2s that raised to $80 pre. V's will be a lot less shocked to see T9s than J2.

You're saying that the value in raising super wide is to win a lot preflop, but you have absolutely no backup plan when called bc the spr is so bad for the vast majority of your range. The hands our opponents have that call us, will be less likely to fold after putting in $80-$90 than the hands they have when they call $60. We have more (albeit a small amount) maneuverability postflop when we make a smaller raise and we get the added advantage of our opponent's range being even weaker than if we'd made it $90 and have just over 1 psb left. When making it $60 with the range I proposed, you still have an spr of ~2 when called by one opponent, but your range flops better and has significantly more equity when called postflop. That matters.

You seem to neglect the big picture in order to satisfy your thoughts about a specific street. I don't hate the way you think. In fact, I like it a lot. But we don't have to go maniac ape s*** just because there is $40 in the pot. $40 in the middle doesn't mean it's $40 of dead money.

It's profitable to raise any two, but it's likely not the MOST profitable play. And that detail is important, especially for LLSNL.

One more point: I'd rather not have "easily foldable stuff" in my range in such a highly profitable situation. You don't need to be so bluff-heavy to churn out a sexy amount of money.

I'll admit that the games in which I play are slightly looser than others, so perhaps my perception is skewed, but in a tighter game we can still exploit a smaller (c'mon we are still potting it!) raise size with our entire range due to our opponents' propensity for folding.

So maybe we can agree that: Loose game=larger raise size, tight game=smaller raise size

I think IRTM already illustrated that making the larger bet and getting villains to fold 90% of their range is profitable, by itself. We can fold to a 3b, or fold post flop, and still have made a +EV play.

His illustration also showed that with a smaller bet, and looser calling ranges we need to win post-flop sometimes for EV's to be in equilibrium.

So it follows that as the EV of raising decreases, your hand strength should increase.

People view straddled pots differently and their callin ranges are far different than in regular pots. The person straddling is for sure going to continue with a wider range then they normally would. They are gambling and putting money in blind. As for your comment you see plenty of 70 dollar raises pre flop if there is a 10 dollar straddle. You are saying something isn't possible when I have seen it plenty of times. "I THINK" is an opinion not a fact. People wi call larger raises pre flop when there are large straddles. I've seen it first hand plenty of times. Villans adjust poorly to straddled lots whether it's calling too wide, or limp folding to wide or what ever.

Again this is all table dynamic and villan dependent. My answer changes based on what villans are doing. Your strategy gets you in tons of trouble is some games and makes you money in others. Vs people who are there to gamble and straddle 10 dollars aren't there to fold. They are there to toss chips around. Whether you agree or not I've seen it in plenty of games where someone will call a large preflop raise with KJ etc.

As for raising 1/3 of our stack to fold if re raised that is terrible advice. You would have to know for sure that villans are folding x% of their range x% of the time which is information we don't have.

Mr Doomed makes a solid point. No game I play in allows anything but 2x bb straddle. So I can't comment on experience in games that allow larger straddles other than the way people respond to blind raises in my games .... That is they rarely attack wide enough and limp fold their "$10 hands".

What you're advocating encourages villains to exercise better hand selection, and see a flop with an SPR that makes it difficult for villains to make a mistake. Making the pot huge pre-flop negates your positional and skill advantages. Those are only sacrifices I'm willing to make if my hand is awesome.

If you can raise to $90 with just your awesome hands, and still get called by crapola, go ahead and do it. But there is a limit to the inelasticity of v's calling ranges. For the most part, folks will call, even big raises, with the same trash they limp with. But everybody has a number where they start to get nervous and actually force their brain to burn a few calories. Straddle or not, I sincerely believe that $90 is beyond that threshold.

Furthermore, if you're only making the raise with your awesome hands, I think that you're going to be folding pre-flop way too often in spots where you can use medium/playable hands to attack the limpers skill, positional, and hand range disadvantages.

People are idiots. If they see a big bet, they think big hand. If they see a smaller bet they think it's safe to play. You will need to SHOW them something different before they change their mind. Until then, playing the opposite should be extremely advantageous. Small raises with big hands will get action from weaker hands, and large raises with weak hands will fold out all but the tightest ranges.

PS: J2 was hyperbole, I don't advocate playing that hand. But, as IRTM illustrated, it would still be profitable.

This is the original post. Just to be clear we have no villan tendencies at all. Meaning that we don't have complete information to make the correct adjustment. The bottom line is we can't make a concrete decision on what is optimal.


This is going no where and it's obvious that you aren't understanding what I'm saying. why do you keep saying that I'm advocating open raising to 70 dollars when it's 1/3. That is far different from raising to 70 with a 10 dollar straddle than raising to 70 at a 1/3 blind structure with no straddle. Players will gamble more when there is a straddle meaning you get looked up lighter. The raise size depends on what in the pot and how many raisers there are. MY RAISE SIZE IS BASED ON HOW MUCH IS IN THE POT. My value heavy range is going to be best here in a vacuum with no info. People don't just limp fold in straddled pots. If you raised a 35% range you'd be swallowed up very quickly after being in multi way bloated pots with hands that don't stack off well in low SPR pots. Also position is only an advantage of the SPR is high. If I'm raising a strong tight range I'm stacking off on all but the worst flops. That's kind of the point, we get villans to make a huge mistake preflop that can never be made up post flop.

The fact that you think putting in 3.3 bb blind is an advantage is amusing. Straddling from any position is bad, it just happens to be less bad when you can do it on the button. The bottom line is IMO the way to win money readless is play a stronger value range than my opponents. They will call because in your words they are bad.

You've made this point in other threads, and it's simply incorrect. SPR relates to stacks and pot size on the flop-- it doesn't matter how we get to the sizes we get and the subsequent SPR ratio.

In addition, villains who will call x7 PF will still call 4-5x the amount of a straddled bb (since people don't usually raise x7 in a straddled pot).

I feel like we're not far apart. Where we differ is whether or not villains will call $70+ with hands we are likely to dominate. I feel like they won't, you seem to think they will.

Furthermore, in those spots, I feel villains will be less likely to make a mistake post-flop.

I think we agree that the error our opponents will make is simply playing too many hands. The straddle only magnifies that error because villains will not properly adjust their ranges for the larger pot size and lower SPR's.

Where we disagree is whether or not this has limitations. It's my belief that villain's ranges do not tighten up linearly. It's not like they will play 60% hands to a $20 raise, 50% hands to a $30 raise, and 40% hands to a $40 raise, etc etc. In reality they'll play the entire 60% hands against any reasonable raise, and when a raise is big enough to get their attention, they will drop all but the strongest 5-10%.

If you bet an amount above that threshold, you had better bring the goods because your opponent will have a really good hand pretty much every time they call. When they don't call you win a small pot with a good hand. Which seems like a waste. The larger you bet, the less likely they are to call. You're going to be scooping limps pre-flop with KK way too often for my taste. I'd rather be able to get stacks in when I have goods. An SPR of .9 and an SPR of 1.6 are both no-sweat stack off situations if our opponents make a second best hand. C'mon, do you really have a strong preference for one over the other?

With either SPR, it's really hard to make a mistake (cause we're playing a strong/tight range right?). So if they are substantially equal, then wouldn't you rather do more to encourage a call?

Surely you must admit that villain's calling ranges are wider against a $50 raise than they are against a $90 raise? Are you really asserting that they are EXACTLY equal?

C'mon man, don't be a hater

My raise size is designed based on the pot size. When there is 44 dollars in a he pot raising to only 50 is a mistake IMO. We give everyone very good direct odds to continue. Once one person calls everyone gets better odds. My sizing of 70-80 is designed to be me heads up or 3 way with an equity advantage. I don't see how raising smaller than 70 can be correct. The best part is people will call with their limping range which is worse than my raising range.

Playing straddle pots like this is very, very dependent on the table dynamics. I play in several home games w Mississippi straddle rule and it is common to see button straddles up to 5x or more of the BB. The first question is the straddler's tendencies. Some frequently raise if no one else has. Others play very straight forward. Some defend wide, others not so wide. OP was in CO seat, so my ability to have position on any and all callers post-flop is a big consideration.

Also the limpers... Are they the type that limp with monsters? If limpers and straddler are all regs and have lots of history with each other, straddle pots can get crazy for no apparent reason.

It's true the straddle lowers SPR, also true most players don't adjust properly to this.

Bottom line is just play poker! At some tables, CO can raise to $50 here with any two and it's very profitable. At other tables, only premium hands should get involved. In answering the original question, the raising range is entirely dependent on player tendencies, as to how they do or don't adjust to the lower SPR and how the button does or doesn't defend (or attack) when straddling.

A $10 button straddle at $1/3 is unusual enough that many players will make mistakes. Some will make calling mistakes, others will make folding mistakes. If I don't have a good enough idea who is making which mistake, ima make a folding mistake myself, since I signed up for $1/3 not for $1/3/10.

@KKingDavid - THat was a really really long post to simply say "I don't know, it depends"

To be honest, I don't hate the $70 play, and I'm still not sure how that became an issue. When this discussion started, it was a question of $50 vs $90

@MrDoomed - You're still demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the button straddle. There are not 44 dollars in the pot. And a raise to $50 is exactly a pot-size raise, enough to get value and be considered strong at pretty much any table you'll ever play at in LLSNL.

Poker is a game of incomplete information, so everyone in this thread saying "it depends" and "we need more info about tendencies...." should refrain from posting. All you're really saying is "All I know how to do is play ABC poker". The OP gave us some useful information, not much, but some.

We know that three players just called the straddle rather than raise, from early position. This is really one of three things. A) A plan to limp/re-raise B) Complete idiocy or C) Confidence that the button will not be making loose raises. The can't all be planning to limp/re-raise. So at least two of them are idiots. And if there can be two idiots, there can certainly be 3.

We also know that five players chose to fold when facing an opportunity to raise against 3 EP straddle limpers. That tells me that the table has not been playing very loose overall. They don't expect the button to make a mistake by raising too wide. It could also mean that the table is adjusting to the straddle by playing tighter. Something to consider if you are going to be making a bet that you want to get called.

So here we are against three idiots and one guy who probably won't do anything too stupid. A pot size raise with a value hand is entirely appropriate here. If you think that V's will respond to a $70 raise with an inelastic range, go ahead and do it. But I believe that there is a line where bets are perceived in terms of their absolute dollar value rather than their relation to the size of the pot. A $70 raise preflop should be rare enough to get attention. I think you'll lose some of the hands you're targeting for value.

No offense taken. I actually like your analysis very much Spex.

I if there were no limpers is raise to 30-40. With 3 limpers I'm raising to 70-80. My range of 99+ and AQ+ KQs most of that range I am ok if I don't get any callers. If I raised to 50 with 99-JJ and say a 5 way flop I'm not happy. We will see an over card or 2 more often that not and we will have no idea how to react with a 1 SPR. Not to mention if we auto stack off with those hands we are actually the ones making mistakes as villans will be getting correct odds to call and stack us. A raise of 40 more isn't even a pot sized raise once your 10 is in the pot as well.

Maybe I should of been more clear that my raise size depends and I make it larger depending on the how many limpers. Which is what I'd do if there was no straddle. The difference is I'm far more ok with winning the 15bb immediately than I am 1.5 bb. The ultimate goal is to be heads up or 3 way and I just don't know if 50. 70-90 gets the job done.

As for the op I don't recall hearing anything from him so he likely doesn't care enough to contribute his thoughts. It would be nice if we could get some details and table dynamics. Who are the sick gamblers and who are the lose passive players. Otherwise we will just be talking in circles.

There are only four people left in the hand, so the chance of a raise only getting called by 1 or 2 players is pretty good, at any raise size. And yeah, it would be nice to get some more details, but as you know, poker doesn't always serve up the information you need on a silver platter. You've got to use your judgement, instincts, and common sense. I've already explained how we can deduce useful information from the OP, so we're not totally blind here.

The question I have for you Mr Doomed, is do you believe that there is a limit to the inelasticity of villain's ranges.

It is my contention that villains will not narrow their range proportionally according to bet size. I believe that they will call bet they deem reasonable with the entire range of hands that they would limp with. And once the bet is perceived as unreasonable, or scary, or whatever.....their calling range instantly becomes very narrow. If you were to graph calling ranges vs bet size, you would not see a linear progression. You'd see a plateau and then a cliff.

Do you agree? And if so, what bet size do you think represents the edge of that cliff in a 1/3 game?

I think any time we are talking ranges it's subjective to our own personal opinion. I believe villans that are bad enough to flat straddles are also equally bad enough to call a large bet. Believe it or not people will view a large bet as bluffs or someone trying to steal the straddles. So based on that logic I think 55+ and all Broadway combos including A10 AJ are likely to continue. One player is likely to be bad enough to call with that range and that is the person I want to be heads up against with an SPR of 1ish. Then I can comfortably stack off on most flops and villan has made a huge mistake calling pre that can't be made up.

What you have failed to address is that your smaller sizing is actually not pot sized. The sizing also gives the straddled 2.5/1 immediate odds to call. Then all the limpers are not making an immediately unprofitable decision by calling. So what do we do with are 10% value range when we don't flop well in a 5 way pot with a 1 SPR?

We can argue ranges but we can't argue math. When villans have money in the middle they don't fold easily especially if they think this young guys is trying to steal the pot.

As for a 1/3 players calling range based on what is reasonable really depends. Plenty of people don't care about the sizing and will gamble. Obviously we would have more info if we are sitting at the table(physical description of the villans at minimum). If it's a bunch of old guys sitting around the table I'm going to be stealing a lot more. I'd imagine they deem a reasonable bet to be smaller than 70-90. At that table you strategy is better long as you tighten your value range. It's a bunch of degen gambler looking types of Asians or what ever then I'm raising larger with a value range.

I'm done discussing this until we get at least a generic description of the villans. Otherwise we are just wasting our finger strength typing away pointless arguments.

So why not bet $150? Or open shove?

As stated I have been in a similar spots and limp reraised shoved and been called by worse. The difference is I was at the table for a few hours had a few reads and knew it was likely I'd get called by worse. Our villans ranges

Once again you haven't addressed that your be sizing is bad for the above stated reason. Button calls 40 more they are all calling.

Certain villans calling ranges in straddled pots really don't have a limit to there calling range how ever others do. Again arguing ranges is pointless.