Quote:
Originally Posted by Corto Montez
Sizing
-If we raise smaller, rather than exploiting our opponents, they can actual end up exploiting us by limping. This is because hands which they should open, but will be unprofitable continues against a standard 3B size, are saving money by instead being able to realise their equity for a smaller sizing which is often more profitable for their holding than raising and facing a 3B.-
This doesn't make too much sense. There are a lot of factors you haven't talked about at all. Limping might make it easier to realize equity (I hate this phrase), but it also opts out of any chance to win the pot preflop or at least deny equity to weaker holdings in the BB. It's much more favorable to BB to be able to check with Q2s or whatever than to have to call a small raise, even if it's a slightly profitable defend. Also, you are more likely to face a raise behind when you open limp than you are when you open raise, and I disagree with your later argument that this can be exploited by starting to slowplay strong hands. When strong hands attempt to limp/rr, they may get more value from hands that will raise but wouldn't have 3-bet, but they miss value from hands that will neither raise nor 3-bet. Raising smaller also provides less incentive to slow-play.
There are not even too many hands that can limp/call a small sizing, but not raise/call against the same sizing relative to pot against the same range that would have 3-bet. The only difference in these two scenarios is that SPR will be higher in the l/c scenario, which tends to benefit the IP player. Most of the hands that can would benefit more from the EV you get from steals. I would argue that just folding is often better than limping with the bottom parts of the ranges recommended to open.
Quote:
The fact that our range is going to be essentially an SB 3B range also makes sense given that our sizing will be pretty much the same as an SB 3B sizing. This concept also applies when facing limps from any position, in that we should treat each limp as a min-open and continue against it with a standard 3B range using a standard 3B sizing. This also means that hands which we could call against an open in this position (e.g. mid-small pairs) are over-limps. This over-limping strategy is also validated by simulations.
Using nearly the same range and sizing doesn't make much sense on the surface because we are getting much worse odds on our steals by using the same sizing in a smaller pot. Maybe the fact that limpers ranges are wider and more capped balances this out but I wouldn't say it makes intuitive sense, at least not to me. It's going to be a lot more complicated than same sizing = same range.
HU post-flop solvers have significant limitations since their output relies heavily on the parameters set by the human. It's easy for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to produce garbage results. Add orders upon orders of magnitude more complexity for multi-way preflop solutions, without knowing the parameters used for the solves, and I'm extremely skeptical of any results coming out.
I think there are good arguments for raising larger than is commonly practiced, but I don't this this is a good one.