Okay awesome players of Pokerstrategy.com:
Authors such as Dan Harrington suggest raising a higher amount in worse position to increase the chances of winning the pot pre-flop. The logic assumes that with slightly marginal hands and situations (AQ on the BB with two limpers in early position), it's better to take a hand down as quickly as possible to avoid tricky situations post-flop.
But hear me out here. If you were in position, how much more likely are you to fold to a x4BB raise as opposed to a x3BB raise? I don't think there is a huge gap in fold equity here. After all, the player in position knows his advantage on the flop and onwards.
So I think that if we were to make a raise for value/take down the pot, why not a slightly smaller raise instaed of a larger raise to minimize the money put into the pot? It's easier to fold a hand with less money invested, am I right?
All constructive suggestions, arguments, rebuttals, and of course, concordance with my theory is welcomed.
