Pros opening 2-2.3x BB

N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
For at least a few years now, most pros have moved away from the standard 3x (sometimes 4x) BB open to most commonly 2x and sometimes a weird variant like 2.2x BB.

Feel free to voice your opinion on THAT strategy but let me say I think it is stupid and borderline reckless. I was hoping to get into a game like that to completely abuse it. The casino I played at was only cash for me so this didn't occur. 10xbb was more common than a min bet.

So for some reason, I thought playing online (at all levels) I would come across this and waited to exploit it. But it didn't happen. Everyone seems to still be in the 3-4xBB opening range. Why is that?

As an aside, I am seriously re-tooling my game, and yesterday when I made my awesome run I actually did implement some smaller opens (less than 3x but rarely as low as 2x) later in the tourney. Mostly because of how huge a lead I had, and how little people wanted to tangle with me, it seemed like at least 9/10 that GII would be stacked. So no matter my position, but especially if I were first to open, going with 1050 on 200/400 seemed to often enough TID and regularly thin the field. I liked it because I risked less to earn more, and increased my fold likelihood if met with a large overbet that seemed to crush me. But I kept them guessing and would size from 2x (very rarely) up to 6x depending on what I felt was optimal for any given situation.
 
Kenzie 96

Kenzie 96

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
May 21, 2005
Total posts
13,666
Awards
9
US
Chips
125
So you played stupid & won? Congrats, I think.
 
toots babos

toots babos

ex-tornament grinder
Bronze Level
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Total posts
3,869
Awards
16
Chips
109
Posting now whilst I'm drunk so that it's in my subscribed threads to reply properly in the morning :)
 
W

WiZZiM

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Total posts
5,008
Chips
0
For at least a few years now, most pros have moved away from the standard 3x (sometimes 4x) BB open to most commonly 2x and sometimes a weird variant like 2.2x BB.

Feel free to voice your opinion on THAT strategy but let me say I think it is stupid and borderline reckless. I was hoping to get into a game like that to completely abuse it. The casino I played at was only cash for me so this didn't occur. 10xbb was more common than a min bet.

So for some reason, I thought playing online (at all levels) I would come across this and waited to exploit it. But it didn't happen. Everyone seems to still be in the 3-4xBB opening range. Why is that?

As an aside, I am seriously re-tooling my game, and yesterday when I made my awesome run I actually did implement some smaller opens (less than 3x but rarely as low as 2x) later in the tourney. Mostly because of how huge a lead I had, and how little people wanted to tangle with me, it seemed like at least 9/10 that GII would be stacked. So no matter my position, but especially if I were first to open, going with 1050 on 200/400 seemed to often enough TID and regularly thin the field. I liked it because I risked less to earn more, and increased my fold likelihood if met with a large overbet that seemed to crush me. But I kept them guessing and would size from 2x (very rarely) up to 6x depending on what I felt was optimal for any given situation.

without getting too much into it, it's because more people actively 3bet in tourneys nowadays, so opening less when the blinds get bigger is a great idea because we overall save a lot of chips in the long run when we have to fold to 3bettors in the blinds or wherever.

but yeah overall i think your "re-tooling" seems to on a great track to me. you would be suprised how often the 2x-2.2x raises get it heads up, i pretty much open 2.2x all the time, apart from the early game when i make it 3x mainly to boost the pot size up preflop. i rarely ever do it to just "thin the field", i don't really mind playing multiway pots that much.
 
N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
without getting too much into it, it's because more people actively 3bet in tourneys nowadays, so opening less when the blinds get bigger is a great idea because we overall save a lot of chips in the long run when we have to fold to 3bettors in the blinds or wherever.

but yeah overall i think your "re-tooling" seems to on a great track to me. you would be suprised how often the 2x-2.2x raises get it heads up, i pretty much open 2.2x all the time, apart from the early game when i make it 3x mainly to boost the pot size up preflop. i rarely ever do it to just "thin the field", i don't really mind playing multiway pots that much.

Yeah, like I meant to say, they do it from the onset of a tourney, when it seems to be useless. I only did it much further on.
 
dmitriy skripka

dmitriy skripka

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 24, 2016
Total posts
60
Chips
0
For at least a few years now, most pros have moved away from the standard 3x (sometimes 4x) BB open to most commonly 2x and sometimes a weird variant like 2.2x BB.

Feel free to voice your opinion on THAT strategy but let me say I think it is stupid and borderline reckless. I was hoping to get into a game like that to completely abuse it. The casino I played at was only cash for me so this didn't occur. 10xbb was more common than a min bet.

So for some reason, I thought playing online (at all levels) I would come across this and waited to exploit it. But it didn't happen. Everyone seems to still be in the 3-4xBB opening range. Why is that?

As an aside, I am seriously re-tooling my game, and yesterday when I made my awesome run I actually did implement some smaller opens (less than 3x but rarely as low as 2x) later in the tourney. Mostly because of how huge a lead I had, and how little people wanted to tangle with me, it seemed like at least 9/10 that GII would be stacked. So no matter my position, but especially if I were first to open, going with 1050 on 200/400 seemed to often enough TID and regularly thin the field. I liked it because I risked less to earn more, and increased my fold likelihood if met with a large overbet that seemed to crush me. But I kept them guessing and would size from 2x (very rarely) up to 6x depending on what I felt was optimal for any given situation.
I always try to play a system 3BB +for each player B, and I will say that if the opponents have an ACE with a small kicker,usually fold,mostly encode with the couple.And why the system works poorly because a lot of people under the age of 18 and they treat poker as a lottery:lucky unlucky.
 
bakreni

bakreni

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Total posts
156
Chips
0
in the begening with 10-20 bb i open 4x if i get plenty callers i reise 5 ...but later in game i reise 2 bb are 2,5 bb
 
M

MEJ

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Total posts
175
Chips
0
I think the game you play and the game pros play is a little different. From the stakes on down.
 
N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
I think the game you play and the game pros play is a little different. From the stakes on down.

Do you just do a search for my name to help you figure out where to post?

And have you really won that many coinflips against Poker Orifice as to which one of you gets to respond?
 
dan5379

dan5379

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Total posts
78
Chips
0
I have seen pro's doing so myself nutcracker69. I have also been playing that same strategy. It got me 2nd in one of our freeroll a few weeks ago.

It's amazing how much that the other players don't want to play against you.

Nice post. Be lucky nutcracker69
 
N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
I have seen pro's doing so myself nutcracker69. I have also been playing that same strategy. It got me 2nd in one of our freeroll a few weeks ago.

It's amazing how much that the other players don't want to play against you.

Nice post. Be lucky nutcracker69

Thanks man! An outwardly nice gesture! Welcome change to what I usually get in response on here.
 
Jacki Burkhart

Jacki Burkhart

long winded rambler...
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Total posts
2,960
Awards
6
Chips
0
I think there are a few different factors contributing to this, and I would definitely agree that most good players are opening smaller now.

*most players including pros and fish and everyone in between still seem to open 3.0-4.0 in the early stages when everyone is deep stacked. This is because relative to stack depth there is still plenty of maneuverability to have lots of options by the river. Also, in early play 2.2x raises would probably result in seeing many flops 6 ways and most players with any kind of a hand would prefer to "thin the field" at least somewhat. The best 2 card hand preflop is unlikely to remain such when 6 people see a flop and even less so when 3 people see a river....

*as stacks get shallower relative to the blinds, (and antes are introduced) it gets really tough to play post flop when pots are "big". meaning if avg stack is 25bb and you raise 3.0bb preflop and get 1 caller (not in the blinds) the pot is now 8.5bb (with antes) and each player has about 22bb behind. Now, a Cbet costs about 5bb and if it gets called the pot contains 18.5bb going to the turn and each player has about 17bb left behind. Now before any turn action we have a stack to pot ratio of less than 1. This reduces maneuverability and therefore increases risk and variance. Most pros would prefer to maintain maneuverability and reduce risk and variance...so they opt for a smaller preflop bet. Since all bets grow exponentially in NLHE this will often result in the entire pot being smaller. Or in other words...the pro is attempting to spread his risk of busting over as many hands as possible and relying on his superior post flop skill to be able to make chips and avoid tricky spots.

*your bets should all have a function and purpose. Most players who approach their bet size this way will look at it in terms of risk/reward ratio. Since most of the time "good" players are not waiting for a premium hand to raise with they are simply trying to find the smallest risk (price) that results in the highest reward (likelihood of taking down the blinds and antes, or playing a HU pot in position). I have found in tourney poker that as antes are introduced usually small bets of 2.0-2.5x are just as likely to result in a HU pot as larger bets. This is counterintuitive as the blinds should be more willing to defend getting better odds....but until the masses adjust, and keep folding their blinds with good odds.....players should continue raising small as long as it works.

*why doesn't this phenomenon seem to extend to online play? I think that in the early stages of online play there are enough "bad" players who simply don't think about the exponential nature of bet sizing; plus there are the "preset" buttons that usually are something like "min click" "3.0" and "all-in". most players in the early stages (including good players) don't want to take the time to calculate what 2.2 is and then type it in...it's much easier to just click a pre-set button. also, in the early stages all the players are more likely to be multitabling and paying less attention to that specific table. as the tourney runs deep remaining players are more likely to be paying more attention or sole attention to the tourney they're doing well in. Now they have time to type in their preferred bet amount, now they have time to observe their table and see "what is the lowest amount I can bet and win the blinds?".

*contrast the above to Live tourneys: When you're live everyone is single tabling. So everyone has time to observe this, and there are no "preset" buttons. Add to the fact that minimizing your risk is slightly more important in live tourneys since you have overhead expenses (travel, lodging, parking, dining) and since you can't just bust and fire up a new tourney 5 minutes later. Protecting your tourney life is simply worth "more" in live tourneys. that's before you factor in the stakes. most live tourneys are not cheaper than $100 and most online tourneys are a fraction of that price. people are simply less motivated to protect a $10 investment than a $100 or $1,000 investment....


Summary:

I raise 3.0 in the first level and sometimes the 2nd level. I lower it to 2.75 or 2.5 in the next 2 levels and once the antes are kicked in I never raise more than 2.5x as the opener. *exception is when I feel I am outclassed at my table I'll try to play higher variance lines with a generally stronger range and so I may revert to 3.0x raising if I feel I keep getting outplayed. usually this is not the case and so I'm trying to steal as many blinds and play as many HU pots in position as I can vs. my perceived weaker opponents.
 
Last edited:
N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
Great points and thoroughly analyzed and experienced.

That said, I look forward to exploiting when others use this strategy against me.
 
Jacki Burkhart

Jacki Burkhart

long winded rambler...
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Total posts
2,960
Awards
6
Chips
0
Great points and thoroughly analyzed and experienced.

That said, I look forward to exploiting when others use this strategy against me.

how do you plan on doing so?
 
N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
how do you plan on doing so?

It hasn't been since November (or before) that I laid my plans, so I'd have to think about it.

But it would probably be something like:

Allow them to get it through enough times early on to have them believing it will work more than it won't. Then from the blinds, flat call preflop, check/call turn and determine how/when to steal away the pot if you don't connect meaningfully. From other positions, but especially the button, widen your 3bet range AND bet sizing to force them into the high variance/high risk positions you describe them as wanting to avoid. Their best defense to this offense is becoming passive and calling. Perhaps this is done with premium hands or ones that connect. But now they have gone from being a slight aggressor who can win 2 ways (win outright or folded to) to a higher risk caller who only wins at showdown or with triple aggression against a double aggression hand that can't handle it.
 
Jacki Burkhart

Jacki Burkhart

long winded rambler...
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Total posts
2,960
Awards
6
Chips
0
It hasn't been since November (or before) that I laid my plans, so I'd have to think about it.

But it would probably be something like:

Allow them to get it through enough times early on to have them believing it will work more than it won't. Then from the blinds, flat call preflop, check/call turn and determine how/when to steal away the pot if you don't connect meaningfully. From other positions, but especially the button, widen your 3bet range AND bet sizing to force them into the high variance/high risk positions you describe them as wanting to avoid. Their best defense to this offense is becoming passive and calling. Perhaps this is done with premium hands or ones that connect. But now they have gone from being a slight aggressor who can win 2 ways (win outright or folded to) to a higher risk caller who only wins at showdown or with triple aggression against a double aggression hand that can't handle it.

bingo. You've basically nailed exactly what I do. Not saying it works perfectly, but it just seems to be a good plan for combatting min raises.

I only differ from you in the sentiment that it is tupid and reckless. I think few enough people are playing back against the pros in the way you've described that they can continue doing it and show a profit while lowering their variance against most players until the masses adjust. once they catch on to what you're doing (and they will) they will adjust to you. it's just a game of who adjusts first and if you zig when you shoulda zagged.

but facing MOST players it works beautifully. that's why I've adopted it for myself, and I've adopted a counter strategy for when somebody is using it against me.

Basically, it just allows the good player to see more flops with a wider range of hands but it doesn't reduce the likelihood if the pros being dealt a premium hand....so they can still elect to make the pot big when they want to, or let it go or take a flop when they want to pot control. it seems like the best of both worlds.
 
N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
bingo. You've basically nailed exactly what I do. Not saying it works perfectly, but it just seems to be a good plan for combatting min raises.

I only differ from you in the sentiment that it is tupid and reckless. I think few enough people are playing back against the pros in the way you've described that they can continue doing it and show a profit while lowering their variance against most players until the masses adjust. once they catch on to what you're doing (and they will) they will adjust to you. it's just a game of who adjusts first and if you zig when you shoulda zagged.

but facing MOST players it works beautifully. that's why I've adopted it for myself, and I've adopted a counter strategy for when somebody is using it against me.

Basically, it just allows the good player to see more flops with a wider range of hands but it doesn't reduce the likelihood if the pros being dealt a premium hand....so they can still elect to make the pot big when they want to, or let it go or take a flop when they want to pot control. it seems like the best of both worlds.

We're basically in agreement. But the main "problem" with this "new pro strategy" is the excellent price provided to the blinds, and the BB in particular. The SB MIGHT want in for that price, but still has the BB behind to act, who he would expect to raise unless he is flatting (to balance). So it really comes down to the BB. Basically they SHOULD be calling the 2xBB open most of the time. Since they're not, now they can call with a better start versus a slightly aggressive opponent out of position. When you see arguably one of the best, Brian Rast come up against a BB smooth call and continue to triple barrel only to get value check-raised on the river because the BB flopped trips and they held up for two more streets with Brian leading the betting. Sometimes he calls to see the damage and other times is left wanting. In both cases, in one hand he basically just gave up all the value he had built up from this strategy from what he would normally pick up uncontested. To add fuel to this fire, the hands in question the time I'm thinking of was 610o in BB versus Qjs for Rast.
 
Jacki Burkhart

Jacki Burkhart

long winded rambler...
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Total posts
2,960
Awards
6
Chips
0
We're basically in agreement. But the main "problem" with this "new pro strategy" is the excellent price provided to the blinds, and the BB in particular. The SB MIGHT want in for that price, but still has the BB behind to act, who he would expect to raise unless he is flatting (to balance). So it really comes down to the BB. Basically they SHOULD be calling the 2xBB open most of the time. Since they're not, now they can call with a better start versus a slightly aggressive opponent out of position. When you see arguably one of the best, Brian Rast come up against a BB smooth call and continue to triple barrel only to get value check-raised on the river because the BB flopped trips and they held up for two more streets with Brian leading the betting. Sometimes he calls to see the damage and other times is left wanting. In both cases, in one hand he basically just gave up all the value he had built up from this strategy from what he would normally pick up uncontested. To add fuel to this fire, the hands in question the time I'm thinking of was 610o in BB versus Qjs for Rast.

first of all, far be if from you or me to criticize the play of Brian Rast who is among the best in the world and nearly always playing against other top players and they are thinking so many more levels deep on this than we are....but even in the hand that you are describing...it is not showcasing a problem with his min-raise strategy. It is showcasing a problem with him not knowing when to pump the brakes post flop. there's probably unknown factors to us; or he just messed up a hand.

messing up a hand postflop doesn't mean your entire preflop strategy should be scrapped.
 
Jacki Burkhart

Jacki Burkhart

long winded rambler...
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Total posts
2,960
Awards
6
Chips
0
but yes, the natural counter to the min raise strategy is to call obscenely wide, and to check/ call when you flop anything and to check/raise flops that miss the min-raiser's range and/or are way ahead/way behind flops that can easily be in your range. for instance check raising on a 337 flop is better for the BB than to check raise on than a 9TJ flop.

say blinds are 300/600 with a 100 ante. facing a button raise to 1,300 (2.16x) the BB has to call 700 into a pot of 3,100 so the BB is getting 4.4:1 or essentially needs a preflop hand equity of only 18%. It's pretty hard to find a hand that doesn't have at least 18% equity against a player's range. the BB can safely fold the worst unconnected, unsuited garbage (to make up for the ICM tax and for being OOP) but the BB should probably not be folding any hands that can flop a straight or a flush. including such gems as 9s5s T6o etc. Folding 93o is probably OK but 93s? might be too tight of a fold given the odds.
 
Last edited:
N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
first of all, far be if from you or me to criticize the play of Brian Rast who is among the best in the world and nearly always playing against other top players and they are thinking so many more levels deep on this than we are....but even in the hand that you are describing...it is not showcasing a problem with his min-raise strategy. It is showcasing a problem with him not knowing when to pump the brakes post flop. there's probably unknown factors to us; or he just messed up a hand.

messing up a hand postflop doesn't mean your entire preflop strategy should be scrapped.

I mean, that is just ONE example that I had readily available at the top of my head which didn't cost him the tournament (because he was so far ahead) but was probably a contributing factor in his inability to TID.

I have no problem not "criticizing" but critiquing what occurred, especially when you are told EXACTLY what they were both thinking after the fact. (Granted, they're poker players, so born liars so maybe they withheld info or adjusted what they wanted to share)

Also, I will grant you that his accomplishments suggest that he is a top tier performer. But based on televised performances, his style of play has made it so his outcomes end up being based too much on two major factors:

1) Luck. When "taking a stab" did he, in fact, nail the deck and now try to extract max value (which you have to say he is either (a) really good at or (b) fortunate both because of how aggro/unpredictable he is) or did he whiff?

2) Aggro Max Pressure. Like others such as Dan Colman, even in spots where he might feel it is likely he is behind, he can "magically" pick a bet sizing that works often enough to be profitable.

I've actually asked his fellow pros about this, and with some variation, the song remains the same. Essentially, because he has shown up with the goods often enough, it always plants the tiniest seed of doubt that sometimes gets you off the best of it. Additionally, they feel like it's not in their gameplan to try and risk as much in the high variant spots when there will be better risk/return opportunities where they feel more confident. And then there's the rest of the time when they call down with jack high and scoop a big pot. lol

Once again, based on what has been televised and otherwise broadcast, anyone watching can say with a degree of confidence that he is "spewy" or at a bare minimum has serious holes (not leaks) in his game that should be exploited far more often than they are.
 
W

WiZZiM

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Total posts
5,008
Chips
0
the flipside of calling wide vs min raises is that sometimes we want to play pots vs players in the blinds. So if i'm vs some fish who is in the BB i'll min raise hoping he will call and then can play position vs him.

I will change my strat based on who is in the blinds if i'm vs any good player i'll open larger to avoid him being able to flat call me with a wide range.
 
Kavaleits

Kavaleits

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 29, 2015
Total posts
265
Chips
0
I think it good strategy to bet 2-2.3x bb in later stage of tournament, because blinds are big + antes. Not too risky.
 
N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
the flipside of calling wide vs min raises is that sometimes we want to play pots vs players in the blinds. So if i'm vs some fish who is in the BB i'll min raise hoping he will call and then can play position vs him.

I will change my strat based on who is in the blinds if i'm vs any good player i'll open larger to avoid him being able to flat call me with a wide range.

I'm on board with this, but let me play devil's advocate for a second.

I, too, want to get head's up vs a fish (especially one who will call light when I hit) rather than a good player.

But Game Theory shows that the cards dealt randomly don't care if BB is biggest fish in the world or Daniel Negraenu. They both have the same "odds" of being dealt something that could hurt you.

Obviously, one can hurt you more than the other, most likely. But today's fish at least know the value of their hands. So if they flop trips, you might catch something, think you're betting for value and realize you hit the big fish wall.

I'm just saying......it's possible
 
Top