value town bitch

man...nice hand, but look at your comments in this hand: http://www.liquidpoker.net/h/1010638

imo your betsizing here is worse than the guy's in the other hand, pot should've been like $30-40 bigger.

I have a default betsize for this board, I don't want to bet bigger with overpairs and smaller with overcards
river could have been bigger

i mean, what do you think he's calling $3.6 on flop that he's folding to $5? what do you think he's calling a bit over halfpot on turn that he's folding to 2/3 or 3/4 pot bet?

it's not like he's ever folding 7x/88-TT on flop or turn, and 88-TT prob usually calling river. and when he calls your bets, that's like, always what he has. with 44-66 he's probably calling flop --> folding turn most of the time regardless of your sizing too. most people don't float much oop.

i get balancing your cbet size on dry boards vs regs you play with often, but he just has a pretty well-defined range for continuing on this board that isn't really effected that much by increasing betsize a little bit imo.

i wanted to say that you can justify the smaller sizing if you want to be balanced, but if you look closely on your standard utg opening range this board will not hit you as hard as Axx boards and the board pairing helps you connect even less so even from gto perspective you should bet bigger especially if you barrel this rundown alot (as I think you do/should) as there is suprisingly large amount of hands iwth low equity in your range

On May 19 2013 20:42 bigredhoss wrote: i mean, what do you think he's calling $3.6 on flop that he's folding to $5? what do you think he's calling a bit over halfpot on turn that he's folding to 2/3 or 3/4 pot bet? it's not like he's ever folding 7x/88-TT on flop or turn, and 88-TT prob usually calling river. and when he calls your bets, that's like, always what he has. with 44-66 he's probably calling flop --> folding turn most of the time regardless of your sizing too. most people don't float much oop. i get balancing your cbet size on dry boards vs regs you play with often, but he just has a pretty well-defined range for continuing on this board that isn't really effected that much by increasing betsize a little bit imo.

I think you are right actually and I'm quite sure I can get away with betting a bit bigger on all streets, and prolly better to do it on this board. I'm sure that his range changes if I pot bet every street though ;p

yea agreed pot pot pot is a bit much. i think you can get away with around 3/4 each street though.

On May 19 2013 20:27 GoTuNk wrote: I have a default betsize for this board, I don't want to bet bigger with overpairs and smaller with overcards river could have been bigger

what you should also consider (and something a lot of players / regs do not) is different bet sizes depending on what position you open from, this betsizing is ok for a button open , but when you open UTG you have a right to bet larger with your entire range because it's significantly tighter

also consider having varring betsizing based on position vs position, for example UTG v BB defender (one of the weakest and widest flat ranges you will come across) you should be betting big / overbetting way more often then you would in a UTG vs EP battle for example.

On May 19 2013 23:03 TalentedTom wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2013 20:27 GoTuNk wrote: I have a default betsize for this board, I don't want to bet bigger with overpairs and smaller with overcards river could have been bigger what you should also consider (and something a lot of players / regs do not) is different bet sizes depending on what position you open from, this betsizing is ok for a button open , but when you open UTG you have a right to bet larger with your entire range because it's significantly tighter

ty a lot, haven't put much thought on this, makes a lot of sense

On May 19 2013 23:03 TalentedTom wrote: what you should also consider (and something a lot of players / regs do not) is different bet sizes depending on what position you open from, this betsizing is ok for a button open , but when you open UTG you have a right to bet larger with your entire range because it's significantly tighter

Actually, theory wise, it is exactly the opposite. The bigger bets you make, the wider range you are allowed to bet.One example would be river play and half pot bets vs overbets. When we bet half pot we are allowed to have less bluffs than when we overbet.Therefore ,when you raise utg , since your betting range is more narrow than when you open from the button you should bet less in relation to pot than what you would do had you opened from button.
As for this specific hand, how much we bet on turn and river depends on how wide our betting range looks like on turn and river, for me betting the river would probably be with a lot more narrow range than the turn, so i would bet turn closer to pot and the river bet would be less( in relation to pot always).

On May 20 2013 00:52 Pb wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2013 23:03 TalentedTom wrote: what you should also consider (and something a lot of players / regs do not) is different bet sizes depending on what position you open from, this betsizing is ok for a button open , but when you open UTG you have a right to bet larger with your entire range because it's significantly tighter Actually, theory wise, it is exactly the opposite. The bigger bets you make, the wider range you are allowed to bet.One example would be river play and half pot bets vs overbets. When we bet half pot we are allowed to have less bluffs than when we overbet.Therefore ,when you raise utg , since your betting range is more narrow than when you open from the button you should bet less in relation to pot than what you would do had you opened from button. As for this specific hand, how much we bet on turn and river depends on how wide our betting range looks like on turn and river, for me betting the river would probably be with a lot more narrow range than the turn, so i would bet turn closer to pot and the river bet would be less( in relation to pot always).

This is wrong. Yes betting bigger allows us to play a wider range, but that is more bluffs in comparison to our value range. Since we are utg and our range is way stronger, we should bet super big to win the pot more often. Our bet sizing should always be a function of how ahead our made hands are of our opponent. If our valuerange is somwhere at 70% equity against his we should bet around 1/2 pot. If we are at almost 100% like in this case we should try to get our whole stack in depending on how certain we are. So correct play here, if we can put villain on exactly pps TT and lower would be to pot and shove the river. Since we dont have that kind of perfect information pot pot is fine i think.

On May 20 2013 03:03 ytricky wrote: Since we are utg and our range is way stronger, we should bet super big to win the pot more often

but if we bet very big when we have the strongest range don't we just maximize the folds when we have mostly value hands?

Actually guys, both approaches are right depending on the way you look at it.
Pb's approach's goal is to construct your range to make the middle of villain's range indifferent to calling or folding. So indeed the weaker your range, the bigger you bet. That way you aim to be 100%unexploitable and you don't care if he folds too much or calls too much, he will be making a mistake either way unless he plays himself "optimal" which is the goal of that strategy.

TT's approach of betting bigger when your range is stronger is what we call exploitive and counts on villain's being dumb and calling too much when your range is strong (e.g. raising ep when you raised utg and having big sizes vs BU or BB caller) and folding too much when it's weak (e.g. against your stealing LP with smaller sizings). If people indeed do react that way, the ev of that strategy will be way higher than that of the "gto" approach, even though it can be exploited.

what is going on here

On May 20 2013 05:29 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On May 20 2013 03:03 ytricky wrote: Since we are utg and our range is way stronger, we should bet super big to win the pot more often but if we bet very big when we have the strongest range don't we just maximize the folds when we have mostly value hands?

Why do we have mostly value hands? I will give a simple example of extremes.
Say on this board, we could only play the flop. The hand ends after this. Now if we bet 1/2 pot villain needs 25% equity to call. So we could only bet a range of AA-TT 77,33,22 and AK as bluffs. So cbetting alot like people mostly do would be a huge mistake. If we bet 2x villain needs 40% equity. Now we can additionally bet AQ and AJs.

Back to the hand. On a board like this, where all our drawing equity is basically to the nuts, we should fire overcard runouts and we should fire them big. Betting small has nothing to do with playing gto really or with putting the middle ouf villains middlerange into a tough spot. Betting size should be a product of the equity of your made hands. the closer to 50% the nearer to zero it should be. The closer to 100% the nearer to infinity or your whole stack it should be.

On May 20 2013 05:29 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On May 20 2013 03:03 ytricky wrote: Since we are utg and our range is way stronger, we should bet super big to win the pot more often but if we bet very big when we have the strongest range don't we just maximize the folds when we have mostly value hands?

yes and no, if you always bet big with X range people's calling range will converge (will likley start off as high fold %, and then lower as they see you constantly doing it). Initiially you will experience higher then normal fold equity. It's like when you see a fish make a 2x pot bet and you just fold because the fuck.. but then he does it again twice, the second time you call him with 2nd pair.. because the fuck he cant always have it. I suppose a lot also depends on your actual opening range, but balancing a 15-18% UTG opening range with a 80% button opening range is silly, since all you are really doing is hurting your UTG EV (you are also making an excuse for playing autopilot (by playing every hand the same))

^ 100% this