which raise first in size is the highest variance and why?
Posted by Gino Song
Posted by
Gino Song
posted in
Low Stakes
which raise first in size is the highest variance and why?
a pot size raise with a tight range
or a min raise with a wide range?
if anyone has a database filter with big vs small raise sizing's and its variance or standard deviation comparison as evidence that would be great
looking for a simple explanation, thx
Loading 3 Comments...
I play anonymous. I use a Bet Size = Hand strength approach from every position that I open from. The nutty preflop hands (I use TT+ and AQ+ for 3x from every position UTG-SB). Risk/Reward is higher yes, but I have a range that mostly will continue in some way, shape or form in 3b+ pots. I feel this size would be what the above range wants to do (get more value). Do I need to Balance? Nope (plenty of players in the pool open that size). Do I balance? Somewhat. I use my RNG to decide if and when I open 3x with the weaker parts of my range. It is fairly infrequently. I also use my RNG to decide if I am going to 2x with the strongest parts of my range. Again, it is infrequently.
As far as using a smaller sizing (I prefer this in earlier positions), you need to examine a few stats like:
1) How often do I get cold called by IP players when I open 2x? How often do I get cold called by IP players when I open 3x? When I do get called, how am I doing when I check vs how am I doing when I cbet?
2) How often do they 3b vs the different sizings?
3) How often are my steals working with the different sizings?
4) Am I getting wrecked by playing a "check range" strategy when I RFI and have opportunity to c bet OOP?
5) Compare your aggregate winrate using different sizes or size ranges (2 to 2.499bb and 2.5 to 2.7499). The results can be somewhat skewed in my sample since I am using the combination of bigger sizing + much more nutty range.
I mostly do 2x from EP/MP.......between like 2x and 2.5x in CO/BTN and always 3x RFI from SB.
I have experimented heavily with all types of sizes and this strategy seems to work the best for me against the line that denies us equity (RFI and face 3b). The rest of the spots (either I get called by IP, get called by OOP or get into a MW spot) I have found very little difference in winrate.
Over a 240,000+ sample of my pool when they "RFI and Face 3b", they have a winrate of -2.15 chips per hand, -215bb/100 or 2.15 buy in's over the course of 1000 occurrences.
My lifetime when RFI and face 3b was -1.6bb/hand, -166bb/100 or i would lose 1.65 buy ins over the course of 1000 occurrences.
Since switching to the above, I have it down in the -90bb/100 range.
I would say think of a strategy change and play a sample and compare the results to what has happened before.
thx for your input
ive asked this question in various forums and have gotten a wide range of answers so i think its much more complex (like what you described) and simple answer wont suffice
some of the most common ones also contradict one another:
small raise less variance because less risk less reward
big raise less variance because you get more folds
the one that gets 3bet/called less is lesser variance
higher EV or closer to GTO sizing is less variance
my goal with the question is reducing variance in my game and starting from rfi ranges/sizes seem like a good place to begin
My expectation is that you won't be able to have a really big impact on the variance, 10% at most, I would be surprised if it was even this high. I don't think variance is something you should be optimising for.
Be the first to add a comment