Ace Speaks Hold'em: No-Limit Versus Limit, An In-Depth Analysis - Part III

The size of your raise can make a tremendous difference.



A lot of poker authorities recommend that in big-bet poker, your raises should usually be about the same size. For example, if the big blind is $20, you would usually raise to $60 or $80, and with one or two limpers in, to about $100 or $120. All of these would be like pot-sized raises. The reasoning: You show your opponents that you are serious about trying to win the pot and you make it expensive for them to come in, yet you don't invest so much that you cannot get away from your hand if someone comes over the top. Also, by always making raises the same size, you avoid giving away information about your hand, making it hard for your opponents to get a read on whether you have a "real" hand like the K K or are simply making a play with the 10 9.



While this advice is good in itself, one should know that it is usually directed at tournament play. In cash games, I violate these rules habitually. I often will make raises that – according to some people – are totally useless. I will make minimum bets from time to time that seemingly serve no purpose whatsoever, and before the flop, I will sometimes just double the blinds instead of making a serious play for the pot. I also adjust the size of my raises to the atmosphere at the table, the size of my opponents' stacks, the read that my opponents have on me, and the hands that they figure I have when I choose to make either a very small or a very large raise. In other words, I use these strange bets and raises to get inside their heads, to gain a lot of information at minimal cost, and to lure them into making the decisions that I want them to make.



Here's an example: In a deep-money game, I will not hesitate to make three or four consecutive minimum raises with speculative hands like the A 4, the J 9, and the 4 4. Of course, if I get reraised, I am out, as I am not going to stand a reraise with hands this weak, and certainly not when I'm out of position. But it shows my opponents that I am trying to run over the table. In fact, I am actually trying to irritate them a little with my small raises. Invariably, someone will find something like anA-Q and come over the top, because he is "fed up" with my raises. So, when I have a big hand, all of my money will go in as a huge favorite, and there is no way back for them. What I am trying to do with these small bets and raises is set up a situation in which I can get all the money in as a huge favorite. Now, people always call this lucky when I get myself in these kinds of positions, but it has nothing to do with luck. It has to do with setting up a situation, and with working toward a climax. This is extremely important in big-bet play. Yet, the people who consistently follow the "book advice" of standard bets and raises fail to see that in cash games, you not only have to play your own hand well, but also have to play in a manner that gives your opponents maximum room for making mistakes. You want them to fall into the traps you have set, because that is exactly what big-bet cash games are all about: trapping your opponents into making the wrong decisions – especially when the real money is at stake.



So, what is this strategy of mine all about? What is it exactly that I am doing? Well, I often come in for a small raise as the first one in. In fact, I almost always come in for a small raise as the first one in; I hardly ever flat-call. This is especially true when I am playing a medium-sized stack, anywhere from 25 to 35 times the big blind. With a small stack – say, less than 15 times the big blind – I often go for the limp/reraise with my good hands, while folding all mediocre hands. And with a big stack – say, more than 50 times the big blind – I usually come in for a decent raise whenever I choose to play. The reasoning behind this is almost always the same: In big-bet poker, you usually want to play for your entire stack. So, you should base your preflop raise, in large part, on the size of your stack, so that after the flop, you will be in good position to get all in in two or three betting increments (say, by betting out, getting raised, and then moving all in, or by check-raising all in if the money is not that deep). Either way, your preflop raises are ensuring that you have either lots of opponents for little money or very few opponents for lots of money. What you don't want is to be up against two or three opponents for, say, 10 percent or 15 percent of your stack when they have a very good clue about the type of hand you are holding. That's why you want to keep them guessing – and making lots of small, seemingly random raises is an excellent way to keep them off balance. This way, you willingly take the worst of it in a few small pots in order to put your opponents in a state of mind to make mistakes when the real money is at stake. By the way, this has nothing to do with the "wild image" that Mike Caro introduced long time ago. For me, it is about creating a dangerous and somewhat erratic image, so that just when your opponents think they've got you labeled, you surprise them by taking their entire stack because of the trap that you have been preparing all along.



While I often employ a strategy of small bets and raises, it is usually unwise to make small raises when you are in position (say, on the button) or in the big blind. This is because you are reopening the betting, and you may actually invite one of your opponents to take a shot at you and try to raise you out of the pot. Again, this is not so bad when you are just making a positional play or are setting a trap for future hands, but it is bad when you have a hand with which you would like to see the flop. If you make a small raise in that situation and one of the initial limpers comes over the top, you will have wasted a potentially profitable situation.



Anyway, what I have described here is how I usually play. I have created an overall balanced strategy that suits both my image and my personality well, and that enables me to take control of the table. But it is by no means the only successful style in no-limit hold'em. I would recommend that you experiment a little with what you think you can get away with. In general, there is nothing wrong with starting out with the "uniform raises" approach. Of course, I recommend having fairly tight starting-hand requirements in any game. However, always be aware that no-limit hold'em is a game in which you want to keep your opponents off balance. If you think you can accomplish this with the standard-raises strategy – because you can sometimes play a bad hand like a great one and a good one like a merely decent one – there is nothing wrong with that. Just make sure that you don't allow your opponents to get a good read on you, because if you do, the edge that you used to have will be gone immediately. And even if you usually play the correct hands, and play them in the correct manner, you simply won't stand a chance against any thinking player – who will take advantage of your predictability and will truly devastate you.



Rolf's Rule No. 5: In big-bet poker, it is often best to adjust both the size of your raises and your actual plays to the atmosphere at the table and, most importantly, the tendencies of your opponents. It isn't "one size fits all." Quite the contrary, it is those specific adjustments that will lure your opponents into making mistakes that will help you crush the games.

This is Part III in a 14-part series on limit and no-limit hold'em. This series was created especially for Card Player Europe. The accompanying DVDs on this subject can be obtained through Rolf's site, http://www.rolfslotboom.com/.