How to exploit calling stations pre-flop?

I mean sure raise $40 if they'll call. Mostly what happens is that these guys have a raise size in mind that they consider reasonable and then they tend to fold when you exceed that amount. When one calls ahead though, it tends to set off a chain of callers, because they are 'priced in'.

The result of this is that, sure, don't raise too little because you always get called by the table but understand you're going to have to get used to playing many pots 3- and 4- handed rather than heads-up. This is just the reality of low-stakes sticky tables. Its a feature, not a bug.

This also implies that you should value position and strong starting hands.

The problem with raising to $40 is that:

1. You have to raise $40 with your entire raising range, or
2. You need to have a much narrower raising range, or
3. You have different sizes for different hands, which at least some of the players will figure out.

If you raise to 40 when you usually raise to 25 or less, it will generally be interpreted as JJ+/AK.

What happens if you limp UTG? Does someone raise? If so, then we can implement a limp-3B strat.

Also, what happens if you check flop? Does someone stab? If so, then we can implement a range check from OOP as the PFR.

Take a deep breath, and realize that you're not going to win every hand or lose every hand that goes multi-way. Your goal shouldn't be to win every pot. It should be to maximize the size of the pots you win and minimize the size of the pots you lose. If we win one or two huge pots, we can easily tolerate losing half a dozen small pots.

Prioritize position and starting hand strength pre-flop. It's fine to increase our open size facing inelastic opponents, but let's not go too far with that. Let's not inflate the SPR to the point that we negate our post flop skill edge and positional advantage.

Play a more value oriented game - fewer bluffs, more value betting when in position, more trapping when out of position. Over fold marginal hands and weak draws when facing aggression. Pile the money in with our nutted hands.

If you raise more than normal, it will look like JJ+/AK. If you limp/3!, it will look like KK+. Of course you could do either with suited connectors or whatever for deception and to balance your range.

Also, they may not be bad enough to exploit you betting tells. Problem is when you open huge or LRR, decent players will fold everything but pps (and in some situations AK) and then put you on a high pair and try to stack you when they hit.

Like the other poster implied, it is OK to raise normally and play it 4-way or whatever OOP. You just may have to x/c some, depending on the action and board, rather than try to gii.

Yes that's it. My opening range is even tighter vs these sticky players.

When opening in EP raise a narrow range to stupid big amounts. Play a 10% type range or even less and raise to $20+. As you go around the table raise a wider range to smaller amounts until you get down to something like $10 on the button. This way your not giving away much about your hand. This is contrary to the tactics in some books and videos but those are designed for playing good opponents, this tactic is designed to exploit bad players with super wide calling ranges and little preflop aggression.

It isn't just opening size that matters, stack sizes and what SPR will be on the flop matters. If they are short there is nothing to do but wait for strong hands and play for stacks every time because you will be committed with top pair+. If stacks are deep you can limp in behind and fish for good flops. Having so many people on every flop will insure the pot sizes will be reasonably big.

I don't understand how raising huge is a counter to opponents who 3-bet too frequently. It just severely limits our range and will likely put us in a super low SPR with hands that will lose their luster on the flop.

Also, you do realize that a 10% range includes 88, QTs, and KTo? Even a 5% range includes AJs/99. Do you want to be open-raising 1/10 of our stack size or more with these hands?

I know I'm only speaking for myself, but it's been really liberating to embrace the smaller GTO raising amount, which allows me to play more hands and feel less pressure to fight for pots when I miss. I just accept that in some lineups I may make less off premiums in EP...but I hopefully make it up on the other hands, given how bad these players are if raised pots are going to the flop with 4+ players.

If these players are truly calling raises pf with ATC, the exploit doesn't occur pre flop. It occurs on the flop. They are going to mainly have weak hands on the flop. The question you have to figure out is what are they going to do with their weak hands. If they fold anything that isn't TP or better, you're going to cbet them to death. If they are going to stick around with anything that connects, you're going to value bet them to death with your good hands. Just raising big pf is just going put you in a situation where you're going to win medium pots and lose big ones.

Yes I agree with this 100%, this is exactly what I'll do.

My UTG Opening range is 99+ A10s+.

Lets say I have a strong hand like JJ. If I know a certain player will call 54s whether the bet is $10 or $30, why dont I just go $30?

This also has the benefit of me likely going heads-up with this player

Reposting because this is all really good advice.

some interesting thoughts posted here and they represent the entire spectrum of my beginning and evolution with this dynamic

back when i played in stronger lineups with more pros involved - i would maintain a static opening size with minor adjustments if there were any limpers or opening slightly smaller utg (because it got so much fold equity) and slightly bigger on btn (so bb wouldn't feel so priced in and it worked)

these were not nitty tables by any means, but we'd rarely go to a flop more than 3 ways and it was usually heads up or taking it down without a flop due to getting the walk or blinds chopping

i think at the time this was the correct play - but mainly because about half the table were people i was playing against 3+ times a week already and we all knew each other's styles and tendencies very well - i have no doubt if i adjusted my opening size they would have picked up on that and exploited me

but since coming back to usa and playing poker again at low stakes after about a decade of barely playing, i've noticed a lot of other good regs using linear bet sizes and it working wonders for them as the fish don't adjust, as others have said, so many of these players have a "i have a cards worth x amount" you often hear "i had a $20 hand but not a $30 hand" as they fold

ie you btn straddle to 6, the entire table completes, you squeeze to $65 you know with certainty that if the first guy calls, the 2nd guy to act is now going to feel "priced in" and now he's far more likely to call and now you got a bunch of idiots playing limped trash like T7o feeling they are priced in because they already put in 2bbs so now they obviously need to put in 20 more because people are dumb

and i also noticed i'm rarely punishing those other good regs who use linear sizes, specifically because the sample size of action means the likelihood is i've already folded or look down on something like 62o when they make an open that lets me very narrowly range them, but more so in that i have no inclination to battle it out with these guys - yes that info will be handy if i do look down at a playable hand and we see a flop, but most of the time i'm watching from the sidelines - and if anything, the big exploit i've made with them is overfolding when they open large rather than 3! light when they open small because they'll surely pick up on that and play a reverse uno card against me and again, my focus, and your focus as well, should always be on the spots at the table, not at battling it out with another guy who is competent - a table full of competent players = rake trap with a foundation of luck

one of the best skills in advantage gambling is not get yourself into marginal or -ev situations doing things like battling regs - i often wear a blazer to the table, this usually gets me targeted by some regs sometimes when i first sit down because their only interactions with people in blazers are wedding guests and douchebags on gossip girl, it's the regs who just see a douchebag in a blazer and just go full steam ahead who are the misregs stuck at this low level and usually lose a buyin or two in the process but usually the ones who while obviously bumhunting me initially will try to engage me in conversation to find out where this rich douche gets his money etc and through table talk + observing my play will usually cease their whale hunt once they figure out the blazer tricked them - it's those people who you often see rack up early to go to the bigger game which is just starting

i am by no means a crusher anymore - i'm specifically playing 1/3 right now to get back into the groove of things, figure out what new leaks i have and plug them, and then finally once i get a couple sessions in a row where i feel like i made less than 5 blunders (usually way more) will i resume to play the stakes i used to play (and yes will probably need to go through a similar orientation process all over again) - but despite that i'm cowering in fear at the low stakes while trying to get back my sea legs, guys who usually play much bigger, are still not actively targeting me once they realize i'm not simple jack, i'm more of a forrest gump, he's different and slow, but he somehow succeeds at it

you don't target forest, you target simple jack

as far as others exploiting me, again, i have yet to see myself get punished for turning my cards face up vs good regs, because i'm not simple jack, they of course overfold to me a bit when i open larger but i'm happy with that result, i have no interest in seeing flops vs them, and at least once it saved me a bunch of money because I opened to $25 utg with KK and the nittiest nit to ever nit who is also a good player not only reraised but did it with some theatrics involved with a big thump and a huzzaah type exclamation as he mad it $84 so i could happily fold KK in a situation where i would normally open $10, get 3bet to $35 without much of a speech, see another player cold call and then either shove and see the bad news or raise and sigh call off the rest because i know it can only be AA

so it has it's benefits as well because a lot of low stakes players, even the good ones, give zero credit to their opponents, that guy could have easily clicked it to $65 without any theatrics and at worst i call and probably 4! but he got greedy, he saw i liked my hand and was hoping ego would get me to stack off (as many would there with kings)

and then in the meantime, those same idiots (who you should give very little credit to) will still call my $30 open with 69s as they would my $10 open - it always takes a few raises to kind of find out where the "yeah i'll see a flop with these rags" price is for most players, but once you find it, you can come up with some really exploitive sizings and get paid big time on your monster hands, especially so when you know player C's "atc price" is x and you just opened x+15 targeting someone else and player C calls then you know player C is playing a very strong hand so you can overfold with more confidence if he shows aggression and more importantly, overbet when you just nail the flop

so i'm all about playing with linear open sizes now, just be aware that others will notice and once i start getting genuine pushback (has not happened yet) i'll either use that as an exploit myself or just take the low variance route and go back to static open sizes

I mean, if you raise 25 and get 3 calls with KK, it is probably a sign thet the game is really good. Just adjust to how bad people are playing.

If you raise 10 and constantly get pots multiway with recs cold calling with hands like KJo, KTo, then yeah, open bigger. When I play 1/2 unstraddled, I still get people calling these hands when I raise 15. Or even cold calling 3bets to 50 with KJo over a 15 iso raise.

25 seems a bit big, but maybe it's not. Generally you want one raise size to disguise your range, but if players are terrible and not adjusting, you can definitely use different sizes. I tend to size up more if the players in the blinds/straddles are weaker and there are less aggressive players left to act.

The more you get 3bet, the more you want to be sizing down your raise first in size, and the more you want to 4bet.

Because everyone else will know you have a strong hand and just fold pf. If the 54s person isn't a calling station post flop, they'll fold everything they miss and take you for your stack when they hit.

Then it becomes a calculation of how often we’ll be stacking off bad versus how often we take a large piece of their stack. It is not necessarily true that this situation is unfavorable for us, even assuming your other premises are correct (namely that we won’t ever stack him, which if he flops a draw or we hit our set may not be true).

It's a tactic for opponents who are too loose and passive, not overly aggressive ones. If you are getting 3 bet a bunch then you will have to do something else.

In EP hero plays a tight range to make sure hero is stronger OP and raise big to discourage the non-fish opponents from coming along when hero's narrow range is obvious. In LP you raise less because you want to encourage some action from the fish and don't mind other people coming along OOP as much. It isn't a GTO strategy, it is one designed to maximize exploitation of fish without putting yourself at too much disadvantage against other opponents.

reread what i wrote earlier on a lot of medication

yikes, what a bunch of jumbled thoughts

if terrible are going to be playing certain trash/speculative hands up to a certain limit - then it's your goal to find out what their "i'll call up to" number is so you can open to exactly that amount when you have premiums

if you know the bb is going to call up to 45 then bet 45 when you have a big hand instead of the normal table size which is probably anywhere from 10-15

if we're at 300 stacks, and you do a standard open your seeing a flop with an SPR of 9 vs an SPR of 2 if you made it 45

you're taking down much bigger pots when they fold to the cbet, you're getting them to stack off much lighter (they will jam and commit to a QT4 flop with mid pair etc) and you face the same amount of coolers - so far more big pots go in your favor because otherwise you're mostly taking down small pots when they whiff and losing big ones when they hit yahtzee

Nowadays when I hear opening a 10% range from UTG I am probably thinking about 10% of hands closer to what a solver would suggest at 100bb, not the top 10% based on pure equity. Hands that tend to play better postflop, less dominated, more options to continue vs 3b. So 10% UTG opening to me is more like AQo+, KQo, A9s+, KTs+, JTs+, 77+, A5s, which is about 10%. In practice it doesn't need to be exactly 10% and exactly which hands depends rake, how often you get 3bet, how often you get cold called. In rakeless games hands like 65s get better. And when we get cold called wide I think the value of pocket pairs and the fringe high card hands like AJo, KQo get better. When we get 3bet more, the suited connectors and weak pocket pairs go down in value a lot more while the high card hands that block 3bets and the continue range vs 4bets become stronger as you get 3bet less often when holding those cards and you have good hands to 4b bluff with.

I am not thinking of KTo in a 10% UTG range even though technically if you are using an equity slider it's in there.

I open large compared to tournament, online, or GTO sizes, but not huge. Usually 12 or 15 in 1/3. I don't like opening big, as it is somewhat face up, sometimes you just take the $4, and if they want to see a flop with crappy hands, let them. I don't want them to suspect I have AA/AK/JJ or whatever.

I usually open Any pp, AJo+, A9s+, KQo, and suited cards both 9 or higher from ep. If raising thins out the field too much or a there is a decent chance of a 3!, I limp/call small pps. IMO, KTo is a junk hand, and I would much rather play Axs or suited connector than it.

From later position, I open looser with no raise and call or 3! a little tighter than this if there has been a raise, depending on sizing, action, and reads.

There are different approaches. I see a lot of people making huge raises.

A brief point. High SPR favors IP vs OOP. As SPR drops, so too does the value of position. UTG is as bad as position gets, excluding the blinds. So we shouldn't mind SPR going down considerably PF when we've a premium UTG, right? We're getting more money in with the best of it.

I like the idea of varying open sizes by position, though I've not tried it. And I read all of what Rick wrote.

Yeah, I don't like raising large with a tight range in ep. For one thing, it is sort of absurd, making it like 7xpot. Then you are more defined. If the flop comes 234, you never have a set or straight.

Even if they are bad players, if you open 8xBB or something, they will put you on a tight range. Even if you get preflop calls, they can have some king of read. Like you originally had 99+/AQ+, and based on your post flop play it can be clear whether you have a high pp or a big ace. So opponents can fold when they are beat or bluff when it is clear you have something but not that much, and then extract the max when they know you have a good one pair and they have that beat.

If you raise JJ or AK and it goes 5-ways, then you need to x/fold a lot of flops. Same if you raised 66, except you can continue on a higher percentage of flops. With AA, you may need to call down sometimes and sometimes even fold postflop. A lot of your money in these games should come from sets and maybe nut flushes, playing speculative hands.

I don't follow that at all. I wind up raising more in later position, because there are already limpers in the pot, or a raise I might 3!. I thought it was better to build the pot with position anyway.

First of all, live games--in particular low stakes live games (and in particular-particular 1/2NL)--are so bad and soft that several different approaches to the game can be profitable. For any raise size (from literal open limping most seats up to and including 10bb opening from every seat) I know of at least one player who crushes for 10bb/hr+ using that strat.

This is why I don't bother with this argument anymore because there's a big enough margin of error, that there's room for your particular strengths and tastes to steer how you want to play.

All that being said, the "point" of raising is not to thin the field. If raising to $25 netted you an average of 4 callers, and raising to $26 would get an average of only 1.5 callers, raising to $25 would undoubtedly be the higher EV option.

The point of raising to $10, even if it gets called by most of the field, is that you have built a 25bb pot with a nutted range against 70% of ATC (with a skill advantage, uncapped range, etc). As someone who plays bomb pot games online, I can assure you that if you filter for top 15% preflop hands, my winrate is astronomical. (Not a brag, obviously that's how it should be.)

The way I see it, there are two main reasons why most low stakes grinders prefer to thin out the field:

1) Basic survivor bias - The number of players who continue to a raise isn't just determined by your raise size and villains' tendencies, it's also determined by luck. If you raise to a size that would ON AVERAGE make 80% of the field fold, but you get 4 callers, you are disproportionately facing a field of hands that collectively perform well against your hand (especially PPs and SCs), and so raising to 12.5bbs and still getting 4 callers is a relatively unlucky outcome.

Of course, NEITHER your strategy NOR your opponent tendencies affects how many top 20% calling hands you face. Your strategy and/or opponent tendencies only affects whether they call with top 30-80% type hands (A2o/K8o/Q3s/65o/74s/etc).

2) Just a lack of comfort playing in multiway pots. Online bomb pot strategies are highly divergent from standard LLSNL play, and I think LLSNL players correctly intuit that it gets them in "bad spots" (but incorrectly externalize that blame).