There are several common theories concerning the proper size of preflop raises in multi-table tournaments. What cards to raise, what position to raise from, and how much to raise are all factors to consider. Here, we take a long look at some of the theories concerning raises. All of the discussions here relate primarily to situations where Hero is the first raiser, not re-raising situations.
Approach One: Raising Based Inversely on Hand Strength
Pros: More likely to get action with big hands; less likely to get calls with mediocre hands.
Cons: Investing large amounts in pots when intending to fold to pressure; increased likelihood of getting big hands cracked when opponents call with good pot odds.
There are certainly places where using this plan can be beneficial. When playing in early position at an active table, where reraises preflop are common, you can make a small raise (2-3 times the big blind) with a big hand, knowing that an aggressive player behind you is likely to reraise. You can then 4bet for a large amount, hoping to isolate against a single opponent. Be careful with a relatively small 4bet, because if it's less than all in, you are often giving away the fact that you are holding aces or kings. Sometimes even limping a big hand from early on can pay off, if you are in the first couple of levels of the tournament. Then, it is not uncommon to see 3-4 limpers, often followed by a substantial raise. If the raise gets called (or even better, reraised), you can then push all in without it being a big overbet (but with the pot being large enough that you don't really mind if nobody calls). Limping then reraising is an extremely powerful tell, though, and only the densest players won't recognize that you have a big hand.
Alternatively, raising big with mediocre hands from late position is disastrous. If you get called, you're often way behind. If you get reraised, you've just leaked 4 or 5 big blinds, since you usually can't call. The only benefit is that if you do hit the flop hard, you can often win a substantial pot. Unfortunately, those happen so rarely that they're not worth the risk.
Tailoring raise sizes to hand strength is generally a poor approach, but like every rule, there are exceptions. Using the approach occasionally can pay off, but using it regularly sets you up to be exploited by thinking opponents.
Approach Two: Raising Based Directly on Hand Strength
Pros: If you do get action with big hands, you will usually be way ahead and are more likely to win big pots; small risk with mediocre hands.
Cons: Less likely to get action when you want it; more likely to get called when you don't want it.
Like approach one, using this approach can pay dividends, but only if it's used occasionally. The best way to take advantage is if you have been especially active lately and have taken several pots without showdown. If the players at the table aren't as likely to respect your raises, you can fastplay with a bigger hand. If you don't get action, they wouldn't have given you action anyway. Alternatively, if they have a decent hand and are willing to play back at you, you are going to get paid well most of the time.
Alternatively, if you have been extremely quiet at the table, you can take advantage of this in the middle and later rounds of the tournament by stealing the blinds. Since your raises will be getting more respect, you can raise small with a mediocre hand, knowing that you'll be giving in to pressure, not having risked much.
Like with approach one, using this plan is generally a bad idea, but if done judiciously, it can work out quite well.
Approach Three: Always Raising the Same Multiple of the Big Blind
Pros: Impossible to read; easy to implement
Cons: Places artificial controls, does not allow for reads and table situations; does not account for antes in later rounds.
Raising the same amount (in multiples of the big blind, anyway) can be a sound approach for people multi-tabling several online poker games at once, and it is clearly impossible for opponents to get reads based on hand strength. The cons are self-explanatory. Most players use this system in general, allowing a little flexibility for various changes in the tournament structure as it progresses.
In this series:
|
