2.5xBB as standard PFR?

[Reel Deal]

I used the remaining Party points I had to get a year subscription to Bluff magazine... in this months edition there's an article by Brandon Adams where he's advocating 2.5xBB as a better standard PFR over 3 or 4xBB. He points to Negreanu as a player that frequently raises 2.5BBs. His argument is that the lower PFR works because (a) you're not putting in more than you need to achieve your objective preflop, (b) your decisions will not be as tough since you aren't building a bigger pot, and (c) you can get weaker players to come along when they don't view your smaller PFR as indicating strength (and when done properly you'll have position on them throughout the hand making it easier to out play them).

Obviously I think this works for a guy like Negreanu because he is all-world at outplaying people after the flop and his opening range is very wide, but what about for us mere mortals? Anyone like this idea? Anyone use this concept of a smaller PFR? I think this might be a good strategy for a skilled player, not sure if it would work well for the less skilled however.

[BrianSwa]

if you are bankrolled for the level you are playing I dont think the actul amount of the PFR should matter too much. I mean the question is can you realize that with that raise you are letting hands like QK in so if the board is QK can you lay down the AA? You are also letting alot of hand like suited connectors in so again the question is can you lay down that pocket pair.


I have been watching alot of high stakes poker on gsn and honestly I have learned more from that show then I ever have watching wsop last couple years. I mean if you always raise 4x to 5x preflop you really are not making that much with those hands.

I read somewhere that mixing up your play dosent mean playing the same hands different ways but playing different hands the same way. So if you usually raise 2x with AA you have to raise that same amount with 9-T suited so its hard to be readable. Just couple things to think about.


also what kind of player are you in general, are you a LAG player. Im actully working with this style alot, raise alot with suited connectors in position and stay aggresive whole hand. I actully think my total lack of aggrssion was a big hole in my game. So many player are so tight/passive that its really easy to take advantage of them.

[melioris]

interesting RD, but really, nothing beats the "pot" button. Clean and easy.

[Talking Poker]

First, I disagree with almost everything in Brian's post.

As for the 2.5x BB, I think it's fine, but only in certain situations. I DO NOT think it is correct (ever, IMO) in cash games. Late in a tourney (not necessarily LATE, but after the antes have kicked in and the blinds are significant) and ONLY if you are at a table where people will fold the a 2.5x BB raise just as often as they will a 3x raise, then I think it is a good play. But if you are getting more callers with 2.5x than you would with 3x, you are asking for trouble.

[New Guy]

I agree that that is a ok idea in tournies but in a cash game ehh. lets say your at a .25/.50 nl game and you get aa , now a 1.50 raise here under the gun seems kinda inviting , to where instead of going heads up to the flop you may get 2-3 callers and be going down "crack my aces road" . Sometimes with possition I think thats a fine raise but i think every situation is unique.IMO

[omahilo]

In tournies I usually do a 4-5 x BB raise in the early stages then later on I will do a 3x BB raise once the antes, etc kick in.

In Cash games I almost always do 4x the BB aleast, sometimes more depending on how the table is playing out. If the standard is 5 or 6 x the BB at a certain cash game table then I will usually raise it up that much.

[Reel Deal]

I can understand why it would be incorrect late in a tourney but, out of curiosity, why do you feel it's incorrect for cash games? Mainly b/c you're inviting too many hands to come along?

[lightfungus]

Frankly, I think that outplaying your opponent postflop like Negreanu does is something only achievable in live play at a high percent success rate. Secondly, I can see how that raise is powerful if used by a powerful player, but only in the appropriate situation. For example, I think if the average raise is, like they said 3-4 times the BB, then it's fine and you would adjust accordingly to the average raise. In fact, if I ever play live again I would like to give this a shot.

In retrospect, I just regurgitated what TP said in a lame way.

[Boobie Lover]

One player who destroyed the 10/20 NL game on Party opened regularly for 2.5BBx (sameolus on 2+2). Of course, he played some ridiculous laggy style (like 39/29) so that was probably in a way to negate his preflop disadvantage that he will encounter. So, there probably is a way to make opening for this small to work, but you have to be so exceptionally better than your opponents postflop that it is doubtful many people in the world can do it.

In my tournament game, I just try to find what is the smallest amount preflop that will routinely steal the blinds. If the blinds are really weak, I'll *shock* min raise to take away their blinds.

[Zybomb]

Because it does not accomplish what a raise is intended to accomplish... thin the field.

In a cash game your open should be the table standard. Sometimes thats $20-$30 at a $1/$2 Table, sometimes it's $7.

In the 5/5 Game I regularlly play the average open varies between $30-$50 typically. Thats 6-10 BBs

In Vegas at the 2/5 Tables, the opens were generally $25-$30, with some tables being in the $35-50 range.

Never however, is raising 2.5 BBs in a cash game standard and never will it accomplish what you intend it to, since all hands which would come in for a limp will come in for this raise and the blinds will also call with a very wide range of hands if a few players are in, since its not much more.

Never less than 3.5BB's, I personally wont come in for less than 4

Late in a tourny I like the 2.5 BB approach IF it works like TP said.

[Talking Poker]

Yes. It's barely different that a min raise, which IMO, is worse than limping.

[Kurn]

In a tournament, you generally raise to either limit the field or steal the blinds. The concept that I learned from Greg Raymer was that the basic idea was to make the smallest possible raise that accomplishes those goals: maximize fold equity or when the blinds don't fold, get it HU with position. As TP said, this comes into play later in a tourney when the blinds/antes are high relative to stack size and you have a big stack.

In a cash game, winning the blinds tends to be irrelevant, so you add building a bigger pot as another reason to raise. Smaller raises serve that purpose, but add the stress that you better be sure you can get away from the hand postflop when you're in trouble. Since I'm not a NL cash-game player, that's all I'll say about that aspect.

As for varying preflop raise sizes, although the conventional wisdom on poker boards says always raise the same amount, Harrington, Sklansky, Lindgren, Negreanu and Ferguson all disagree. Harrington says randomly vary preflop raises between 2x-5x, Lindgren prefers to minraise, and Ferguson says there's little reason to raise more than 2x from EP. personally, some of the opponents I've found to be the toughest in tourneys are those who play a lot of hands and always minraise.

One final thought is that the "always raise the same amount" justification is to prevent your opponents from being able to figure out your hand by the size of your raise. However, we can infer that the above named players don't necessarily think that's much of an issue, and they play in games where one would suspect that their opponents actually try to figure out what their bets mean. On the other hand, at the levels I play, the under $30 online tourneys, its probably safe to assume that the average opponent isn't really thinking about much more than his own cards.

[Kurn]

This I don't get. In effect, if you're in position with, say QJs, and you would limp after limpers anyway because you believe you can outplay them in a multiway pot, what's wrong with doubling the bet and in effect say "lets all play, but lets double the stakes"? All the minraise does is to make the bets on later streets bigger. If you're better than they are, why is this bad?

[Talking Poker]

So, you are raising QJs for value, then? In other words, you think it's the best hand right now? Because if you don't, then you are basically building a pot with the intention of "stealing" it after the flop - and you can do that with any two cards.... so why do it with QJs and not KT or 44 or 72? Or are you just gambling, because you have a hand that can hit some flops (but won't won't be the best hand most of the time)?

Not only that, but with your min raise, you have opened the door for any of the limpers and certainly the blinds to reraise and push you off your hand, so you'll be throwing away twice as much money (I assume you'll fold to a real raise) as you needed to.

IMO, if you want to play for "double the stakes," move up in limits.

[Kurn]

OK, I see your reasoning. I was again parroting Sklansky's point from the NLHE book. As for pushing people off their hands later, I'd rather make a normal raise here for that purpose.

Again, this is still me thinking like a limit player with position and positive equity.