$1/$3 open size
my $1/$3 games, open size vary from the normal $12 to $15, to opening ridicuslly large like $25 or $30. There are also the very small $8 opens. Ive been experimenting with $10 opens, and it gets the job done. I think $10 is the sweet spot here. Also rake in my game is flat $5 drop and extra $1 if pot reaches $30.
Lately ive been thinking about the 2x open size. Theoretically 2x is mostly used when the table is 3bet happy, and using that size in a passive game is incorrect. But is it really?
When i open small, i can double barrel fold and it will be a very small percentage of my stack. Compare that to opening big, not only does it narrow villains range to stronger hands, Im also betting more money into their range and it can get very expensive and it will be a decent chunk out of my stack, with a higher chance of being pot commited.
Using a smaller size has its good points, but it also has some major flaws, and im not sure how to weigh the differences. The smaller size invites lots of callers because price is so cheap, and if we are able to just get 1 caller the pot would basically be what we opened for. At that point we are just trying to win back our money and i think that beats the purpose of playing for a raise.
What do you guys think of opening for $6. What do you guys think is a good open size for my game. In my game the player pool flats all boardways, pairs, big small suited, connectors, any ace. They like to float putting you on AK. They like to speculate and make big hands.
21 Replies
I think it's a mistake in a raked game. We should be opening larger, and seeing fewer flops.
When i open small, i can double barrel fold and it will be a very small percentage of my stack. Compare that to opening big, not only does it narrow villains range to stronger hands, Im also betting more money into their range and it can get very expensive and it will be a decent chunk out of my stack, with a higher chance of being pot commited.
I find that many 1/3 players are more sensitive to absolute bet size than bet size relative to pot. In my games, betting 15 into 20 on the flop is folding way less of their range than 75 into 100. With smaller pots, yes you can barrel half-pot for less $, but you are also getting fewer folds, and a higher % of the pot is raked.
In my game the player pool flats all boardways, pairs, big small suited, connectors, any ace. They like to float putting you on AK. They like to speculate and make big hands.
These players play too loose-passive preflop, and they call too wide on the flop. Your adjustment should be to bluff less, and value bet more. Preflop, I start a session opening 15 + 3/limper + 3(OOP). I often will raise the starting size to 20 if too many hands are going multi-way. You will want to tighten your range accordingly. Postflop, a single c-bet bluff accomplishes little vs these players who float and chase. Value bet relentlessly when you have it, and bluff sparingly (ie, when you're HU, IP, and/or have equity to improve).
I would never open 2x in a 5+1 game.
I'd probably use a 5x strat
i had just finish one of W34z3l podcast where he talks about finding the tables breaking point, the size that will get you headsup. He mention that every table is different, on one table you can open for $10 and get lots of folds, while on another you would have to open up like $35.
What if the table doesnt have a breaking point, and everyone are willing to put half their stack in just to see a flop? We would have to tighten up our opening range for sure. But we still cant just just rfi $50 in a $1/$3 with JJ+ or can we go ahead and do it?
When there is no breaking point, then open limping becomes a viable option. Open limp everything, and if someone raises behind, we can make it $75-$100 with premiums, and flat playable hands that do well in multiway.
And if our premiums somehow made it into a multiway limped pot, we will have to play cautiously and hope to make a big hand before stacks get in. If it doesnt work out, then it was just $3 bucks.
If you minraise to $6 and only bb calls, the pot would be $8. If people are getting their $30 raises called then thats the size you should use, and the larger you bet the tighter you should open
Lord, that rake is atrocious. 1.67bb cap but it's 20+%.
Ideally you would be very deep, like 1k+ with a few (hopefully bad) players. At 300 effective it sounds very unfun.
I usually advocate on the smaller side for raises, but in this case I think I may advocate going 5x and opening a very tight range.
Opening to min raise would make the game damn near unbeatable. As mentioned, if only the BB calls, the pot is 8, almost a 30% rake. When you are the preflop raiser, you usually have am advantage against the preflop callers. But it isn't enough to overcome that level of rake.
I would try to play higher stakes, where rake is lower if possible.
i tried doing this. it didnt go well. the rake is too high.
Lord, that rake is atrocious. 1.67bb cap but it's 20+%.Ideally you would be very deep, like 1k+ with a few (hopefully bad) players. At 300 effective it sounds very unfun.I usually advocate on the smaller side for raises, but in this case I think I may advocate going 5x and opening a very tight range.Opening to min raise would make the game damn near unbeatable. As mentioned,
6$ max rake is atrocious?? what planet do you play on?
edit: oh I see flat 5$ drop, yea well then blast pre all day, Im never opening to 6$ lol
Certainly don't want to start a contentious LRR debate, but with regards to rake (noting I play in a $9+$1+$1 game), one of the big benefits is that if we get in the LRR it either (a) takes down typically decent dead money completely rake-free or (b) creates a huge pot ASAP (which starts to outrun the the rake).
This 2x sizing idea (which I've considered myself) isn't actually too far off the 1x / LRR method.
Glotsofwaystoskinacat,imoG
It's actually really difficult to find a table's breaking point because often the preflop result is simply dependent on how many players (including looser vs tighter) got dealt a playable hand (including who got dealt a hand first to create a possible train), and almost has very little to do with sizing (at least any sizing that falls within "reasonable"). And by the time you think you've figured things out the table makeup could have easily changed significantly.
GcluelesspreflopsizingnoobG
I actually like $10 raising size in my games, mostly we go 5 ways to the flop and at 10% up to 5, we hit the rake cap otf, and are playing rake free after that. I will raise a bit bigger in later position if less folks have limped in front of me. I'm always trying to have about $50 in the pot otf.
The smaller size allows for a somewhat looser opening range (although my range is still generally better than the limpers), and it ties people to the pot more (people see that $50, and they wanna win it).
Needless to say, I am fairly careful postflop.
Edit: I used to like the "breaking point" theory, but that was years ago when people stacked off lighter postflop. Also, I don't like playing that tight anymore. Juice the pot and play postflop poker, imo.
The problem with "just play postflop poker" is that you're still paying rake, even if the rake cap was hit on the flop, whereas if the rake is only taken if there's a flop, then it's inherently more profitable to NOT see a flop, by taking the pot down pre.
The rake can make some games virtually unbeatable. We should absolutely prefer to avoid the rake as much as possible. If we're opening to $10 and going five ways, we're just making it harder for ourselves to beat the game.
FWIW, the rake where I typically play 1/3 is 10% up to $5, with a $2 drop for promotions, but only if there's a flop. Most decent players are opening to $15. Only the rec-fish or the online players trying out live open for less.
If they're dealing 25 hands / hour, and half of those see a flop, and the pots average at least $50, they're taking almost $90 off the table every hour, or $10 per player. We need to steal 3.3bb / hour just to break even in the game.
If we're opening to $10 and going five-ways to the flop, they're taking $7 out, leaving $43, so we have to win that pot almost 25% of the time to make a minimal profit, which means we need to win 1 out of 4 times when we go 5 ways, which is more than our "fair share".
That's not easy to do, especially if we're opening in EP and playing OOP post-flop, even with a reasonable skill edge.
Meanwhile, if we're adding more than 3.3bb / hour to our stack, by taking pots down pre, we're printing.
What docvail said, but also...
Every room I've played in takes 10% upto $5 by taking $1 for every $10 in the pot rounded down. So opening to $10 is the worst number to pick.
O rly? Because you just said this:
How many people are in your games, if you're getting plenty of folds, and still mostly going 5 ways to the flop?
If they are playing, they are playing, if not 10 is the same as 15, hence why I said this
But plenty of times no one plays, therefore, I get plenty of folds at 10.
i might try a 100% LRR strat with a $500 buyin at 1/3 from EP/MP like GG. unlike GG however ill try doing it with a range that is wider than top 5% hands. basically the idea is to limp RR 4-5x the opening bet, 2/3 pot flop, pot turn, shove riv on many runouts with a range of 10% EP (AQo+, 99+), high teens% MP (add in KQo, K9s+, QTs, JTs, pairs down to 66. if shoved pre, fold the hands that dont have good eq. vs JJ+.
reason being that i think playing passive pre in these high rake games is basically donating money, and it sounds like opening a standard range to a standard amount and having to play OOP vs multiple callers with very high SPRs is donating money too.
Sure, I could be wrong but inelastic to 10 or 15 is not likely inelastic to 400, ffs.
Anyway, I'm out, I explained why I raise to 10, if it's not for y'all, you do you.
Yes but
1) the exact same concept exists, you are raising for value, because people call too wide, so you want to extract max value, meaning if they fold 0% more to a $15 raise (they dont), then you should be choosing the larger sizing
2) ok so lets say 10 and 15 are the same, then go 16. Same? Ok go 17. Same? Ok 18. Youve accepted that going all in changes their range. Its not like it changes like a light switch, there is some number between 10 and 400 where you increase the bet size by a mere $1 and that causes them to fold more. (In fact, in my experience, almost every additional dollar causes the field to fold slightly more)
