As for me, I'll bump to 10% raising if I'm REALLY having trouble getting callers, but that (as confirmed and in fact suggested by several published and well-known pros and with regard to cash games) really starts when you can't bring it in for 3 BB and get your 2 callers.
One possible difference of opinion here may be that, regardless of stack-size, I always want exactly 2 callers on my raise. Some prefer just one, in which case raising bigger is certainly desirable. I don't think raising to get one caller is as profitable as raising to get 2, but I have seen that some of the pros don't main raising sufficiently to get 1, although I think that's also usually in tourney contexts, where you do want to decrease risk.
Anyhow, aside from the player who tried it that night, I've seen several players try using a (calculated) maniacal raising strategy mixed with big hands in order to get more callers on the latter. I never thought this worked particularly well (at least among good players trying to get callers), largely because you don't really know when your AA or KK is going to hit. So, ok, you raise 72o to $40, all fold and you show, then 3 hours (=100 hands) later you get AA or KK...
My opinion, really, is that you guys need a more adaptive raising strategy. There's not a "right quantity" in any absolute terms (imo). At our 1/2, you do want to raise to 8 BB, and 10 or even 12 BB isn't excessive at most 1/2 tables if there are a lot of limpers. But the goal, imo, is normally to get 2 callers on your raise, and the amount to raise in order to do so is variable depending on game.
I've seen plenty of people try using a maniacal raising strategy to force the table into calling, but I haven't seen any players do it in a manner that seemed to me viable. And none of the pros who show up once in a while seem to like that strategy.Statistics: Posted by Aisthesis — Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:12 pm
]]>