Academy Pre-Flop Play Challenge

I'm fairly certain most of you are familiar with Chris Ferguson's full tilt poker Academy Pre-Flop Play Challenge. I recently finished completing the challenge all 10 times but still can not make up my mind on the validity of varying bet sizes based on position. The blind stealing and non-open limping parts of the challenge are sound parts of any NLHE cash game strategy, but I can't make up my mind about varying the bet sizes.

Ferguson states in the video his reasoning for this is because it makes it easier to get away from the weaker part of your range of early and middle position hands versus a reraise. He also states that your opponents ranges won't do so well, so when they call you shouldn't mind as much. I agree with this to the extent that you must be good enough to get away from trouble situations with big pairs if you play for the min or 2.5BB raise.

Nevertheless, I still debate whether a standard 3BB raise across the board isn't the best move. Then again, is 1BB truly big enough to deter someone who wants to call for 2BB not to call for 3BB (especially when both opponents are significantly deep)? Anyone have a firm argument why one strategy is better than another? Or is it so similar that it's more a personal preference than something that changes your expected value?

Depending on the level and the opponents you play, it may or may not matter. If they don't notice, and also if they don't adjust, then any amount will have the same effect.

It depends on the players on the table. If I've got a big hand and know the BB to be a huge blind defender, I'm going to increase the size of my preflop raise (I want to build a big pot, I am raising for value obv).

I did that challenge all 10 times, too. And i wondered the same thing -- and had some issues with it.

My greatest discomfort came in raising 2BB in EP with AA, KK and QQ. It was very uncomfortable for me to min raise these hands. Although what usually happened was that someone re-raised me (and I could then get that person HU), occasionally my fear of a multi-way pot became reality. I just hate a multi when I have AA. And inevitably, my AA lost about half the time when in a multi-- which is expected. I really want to be HU with AA, and the min raise doesn't get me there. I'm mixed, though, because the min raise triggered a re-raise often enough to be satisfying.

Oddly enough, 3BB does get me there, more often than not.

I did not see any difference in playing out the 2.5BB in MP and the 3BB in LP. I'm not certain that my opponents registered any difference between the two. The min raise in EP, however, was noticed, as, at most tables, it looked weak.

I definitely prefer the 3BB standard raise, and prefer not varying.

I watched a video just today by Andrew Foucault. He advocated the exact opposite of Ferguson. He said that in a new ebook he read about small stakes no limit hold'em that it is more profitable to raise more from an early position because your starting hands are going to be stronger and raise smaller from later because you don't need to risk as much to get the blinds to fold. For instance if you had AA from UTG you might raise 3 or 4 BB but you might only raise 2.5 from the CU or button. Anyone else seen this vid or have more arguments for a certain strategy.

Fulltilt acedemy

Yeah I agree some what with you. I am stuck on the increase your bankroll by twentyfive percent lol. I am always changing the challenges so I never stay on it long enough to get it.

I personally don't like raising only x2bb from utg. The most likely scenario is that you will have a chain of callers behind you if you raise that amount, specially in micro limits.

I normally do the standard 3BB raise unless I'm trying to keep the pot small with suited connecters or small pocket pair. I really don't like the 2BB raise, doesn't seem strong enough to take out marginal hands like KXs and too weak so that you'll get reraised from a variety of hands.