Cash Game Is not being able to open 2.5x with equal SB and BB (0.25c/0.25c) an issue? (1 Viewer)

[FearlessFred]

I'm thinking of playing a .25/.25 cash game but noticed it would be impossible to open the now standard 2.5x, is this an issue for anyone?

Thanks

FF

 

[LeLe]

You can just open 3-5x like a lot of regular live poker player.

It only standard to open 2.5x @ 6 handed online poker and when SB is half a BB

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I'm sure it'll be an issue for someone, but if you cant adapt to something basic like that in a microstakes home game you're in trouble lol. Dont worry about it. Play exploitive.

 

[FearlessFred]

thanks for the conclusive replies everyone

 

[springbox]

Not really, if you ran a solver with 2x and 3x as the bet sizing and no 2.5x it'd probably open 2x from EP and maybe 3x from the CO/BU. The difference is pretty small. For 6-max GTO wizard says open 19.8% of UTG hands with a 2x sizing. If we restrict the sizing to 2.5x It says 17.6% of hands open. 3x would probably be 15~16% of hands. But at .25/.25 I wouldn't worry about solver approved play.

 

[RocAFella1]

What about 2.25x?

 

[bmacpoker]

For this size of a game, just open with whatever gets the job done. My group played a lot of .05/.10 for fun, game started playing bigger. Pretty much have to 5x-7.5x to come close to isolating.

When we do .25/.50, 3x tends to do the job, but increasing if people limp in front of me. We're going to play .25/.25 tonight to keep it accessible to a friend who doesn't play often. I plan on using a 3x open, but increasing depending on the play and exploiting certain players.

 

[Jimulacrum]

How is 2.5x the standard open in a cash game? Are you playing with very short stacks or something?

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

How is 2.5x the standard open in a cash game? Are you playing with very short stacks or something?

It's the optimal opening size when playing a mathematically perfect strategy vs a computer.
You can and should deviate from the mathematically perfect solution vs players who are not playing optimally to exploit their mistakes.

So if they are calling the optimal size too wide, you can open bigger to maximally exploit those tendencies. You should however tighten up your opening range to account for the bigger size since there isn't as much post flop play and speculative hands like suited connectors go down in value.

 

[ES_Threeper]

I feel like 2-2.5x open is more standard for tournament play. Every cash game I've played the standard open is 4-5x +1x for each limper.

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

Because players are still calling trashy hands.
So it's actually a good opening size for those kind of games.
It is not, however, if players are playing more optimally.

 

[RainmanTrail]

No, of course not

 

[FearlessFred]

I was asking because 2.5x seems standard online. Sounds like a non issue though

 

[detroitdad]

Put .01 cent chips in play. Problem solved.

 

[Jimulacrum]

It's the optimal opening size when playing a mathematically perfect strategy vs a computer.
You can and should deviate from the mathematically perfect solution vs players who are not playing optimally to exploit their mistakes.

So if they are calling the optimal size too wide, you can open bigger to maximally exploit those tendencies. You should however tighten up your opening range to account for the bigger size since there isn't as much post flop play and speculative hands like suited connectors go down in value.

Ahh, got it, so it's the standard opener when all the fun has been sucked out of the game by solvers.

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

Ahh, got it, so it's the standard opener when all the fun has been sucked out of the game by solvers.

Correct.

Although I gotta say:
The solver does play way more aggressively and kinda maniacal compared to your typical old man playing live $1/2.
So in a way, the weird check raises with backdoor draws on the flop make the game rather exciting.

 

[KHarp1]

Let's all sit around the poker table and try to do just what a computer program thinks we should. Won't that just be a ripping kick-in-the-dick??!!

 

[drdr]

Let's all sit around the poker table and try to do just what a computer program thinks we should. Won't that just be a ripping kick-in-dick??!!

I see your point. But there are people who enjoy (it's their fun) a focus on maxing profit by approaching GTO. One can get too focused on that and play suboptimally.

 

[Geremie]

My standard open raise is e but sometimes I mix it up and raise π. Downside is that everyone thinks I'm irrational.

 

[ES_Threeper]

I really think stack sizes matter. If you are sitting 200bb deep and you open to 2.5x then how do you get all the money in on the river?

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

I really think stack sizes matter. If you are sitting 200bb deep and you open to 2.5x then how do you get all the money in on the river?

That's where over bet sizes on turn and river come into play.

 

[BGinGA]

I just raise pi.

 

[JustinInMN]

I'm thinking of playing a .25/.25 cash game but noticed it would be impossible to open the now standard 2.5x, is this an issue for anyone?

Thanks

FF

What do your players think? My experience is most players will just round up an open 3x instead without a ton of impact. And that's probably a reasonable adjustment given SB + BB = 2BB instead of 1.4BB in this case.

So yes, 0.25-0.25 plays slightly bigger than 0.10-0.25, I suppose. If the players have a problem with it, the solution is to introduce nickel chips.

 

[Ben8257]

I just raise pi.

BS! I can't believe this tread has been going this long and no one mentions the already established and across the board agreed on standard raise of

In any $.25/$.25 or $.25/$.50 game... the computer programs are completely incorrect... to win the most money possible in ANY and ALL hands of "friendly" poker (meaning use of fracs) the standard raise is "Bout Treefiddy!!!" Of course you can fold mediocre hands if necessary... but any decent hand has been deemed worthy of the "treefiddy" bet. More and people fold... less and folks limp in with doo-doo butter like (the dirty diaper 23o) and crack the hell outta your Anna Kornicova!

All based off the science of South Park with has been challenged many times over the years and never proven wrong! Lmao

 

[upNdown]

I really think stack sizes matter. If you are sitting 200bb deep and you open to 2.5x then how do you get all the money in on the river?

Is that really the goal in deep stack cash games? Honest question.

 

[Shaggy]

I see your point. But there are people who enjoy (it's their fun) a focus on maxing profit by approaching GTO. One can get too focused on that and play suboptimally.

GTO is maximizing profit if your opponents are approaching playing optimally... and have the capability to adjust their play to yours. If you are playing against opponents that are not observant, playing in a way that is exploitable will get you maximum profits. i.e. If they won't exploit you, play in a manner that is exploitable.

 

[JustinInMN]

Is that really the goal in deep stack cash games? Honest question.

Excellent question, I would think by design, playing deeper is to limit all in pots. Which I imagine is how are you thinking it too.

 

[upNdown]

Excellent question, I would think by design, playing deeper is to limit all in pots. Which I imagine is how are you thinking it too.

Maybe?
I guess when you’re playing short stacked, there are far fewer decisions because the answer is most often “all in.”
I’m not a good cash player and I don’t have a lot of experience playing cash deep. I do have a lot of experience playing deep stacked tournaments, and I know “getting it all in on the river” really isn’t a consideration as it often is in cash games. I’m not sure if that is because of the deep stacks or because of a fundamental difference between cash and tournament.

 

[JustinInMN]

I do have a lot of experience playing deep stacked tournaments, and I know “getting it all in on the river” really isn’t a consideration as it often is in cash games. I’m not sure if that is because of the deep stacks or because of a fundamental difference between cash and tournament.

I might argue it's more important to think it terms of getting it all in the on the river in tournaments, but only because inevitably tournaments become shallow by design. It's the only way to eliminate all but one player in the end. Earlier in tournaments if stacks are deep I can understand a goal of "getting as may chips as in as possible" in certain positions whether or not that's actually all-in.

On the other hand, one of my major belief in tournaments is protecting chips is more important than gaining chips (especially once "in the money") so I probably seek fewer spots in which I am looking to play for stacks unless I am already short-stacked.

This could be a whole other thread .

 

[ES_Threeper]

Is that really the goal in deep stack cash games? Honest question.

The short answer is Yes.

The long answer is..... it's complicated. This answer is not only long but also just my opinion.

First off, tournament strategy is completely different than cash game strategy. In tournaments your goal is to never get all-in until the late stages of the tournament. Instead, you are simply trying to chip up each level in order to position yourself for a late run. The reason for this is quite simple, when you're out of chips in a tournament you are done playing. This is where cash games differ. In a cash game if you bust out, you can just rebuy.

Typically, when players first start out experimenting with game theory, their goal is not to maximize profits but instead to minimize the losses that they have been experiencing. So they attempt to utilize a GTO only strategy. The purpose of GTO is to achieve equilibrium, making you unexploitable by your opponents. I would say if this is your strategy then you should likely buy into the game for no more than 100bb thus minimizing your exposure to big losses. And you are probably not trying to get in stacks by the river.

As you get more comfortable with GTO and it's principles, you can begin to utilize more of a mixed strategy. That is, using a GTO base while also using an exploitative strategy depending on the given situation and opponent. The purpose of an exploitative strategy is to maximize profits. This is where you should be buying into the game much deeper for the purpose of covering your opponents so that on any given hand you can win all of your opponent's money. And thus, you should be structuring your bet sizes so that you can get stacks in on the river. It's also much easier to get pot sized bets called on earlier streets than it is on the river.

So Yes, you should be trying to play for stacks in a deep stack cash game if your goal is to profit as much as possible.