Optimal sizing on wet flops: texture based betting

Hey guys,

Actually got some time this month to sit down and do some serious study/work on poker. Always feels good when that happens ^^

Anyway, I was working for headsup on having predetermined bet sizes based on non-hidden hand info, such as position, previous number of raises in hand, and flop texture (obvious example is how preflop the person out of position tends to have larger raise sizes relative to the pot size than the person in position).

Anyway, I was thinking about drawy board textures quite a bit, and was wondering if anyone could offer insight, or simply participate in discussion.

Do you guys think larger or smaller bet sizing is better on wet flops, relative to dry ones?

On wet boards, there are a lot more draws, but usually the same number of made hands. I was first thinking that we would want to have a larger bet-sizing, and bet a tighter range. This is because there will be more hands in our opponents range that have equity and could call, and also because there are potentially more hands in our range that we would be semi bluffing with (also giving opponents more equity against our betting range). Because our opponents usually have more equity, it should take a larger bet to bluff them off of much of their range. Because our bet sizing is larger, our value range needs to shrink, else we will be vulnerable to raising of the opponent, who will also have many semi-bluffing hands. When I started doing this in practice, things felt a bit awkward though. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to write it off as bad or wrong, but I'm having second thoughts.

I've heard for years that if a flop is dry, there are few hands that are strong, and so betting small is a good idea. Is this just old thinking that doesn't work when people are aware of how their ranges interact with each other, and how uncoordinated hands gain equity on a dry flop?

If we keep our bluffing/semi-bluffing range fixed, we either need to have a smaller bet size and more value hands to balance, or a larger bet size and fewer value hands to balance. Pretty standard shit there. Anyway, if anyone has thoughts on the subject I'd love to hear them.

Sizing its about manipulating your balance, if your range contains too many value and too little bluffs then you have to make villians call indifferent giving him better odds and you do that by betting smaller and viceversa

Baal, thanks for your reply.

I think that whether your sizing is large or small, you are able to balance it. For example in the most basic toy game, when your range is polarized and you get to bet and your opponent decides to call or not, you can value bet by betting pot, and then to balance that you will bluff once for every 2 value hands. This makes him indifferent to calling.

We can do the same thing if we are betting 2x pot, in which case we balance by showing up with bluffs twice for every 3 times we value bet.

In this toy game, it is better to have a very large bet size if you can, which converges on you being able to show up with a bluff one time for every one time you show up with a value bet as your bet size approaches infinity.

What I was asking people about was whether they preferred having a balanced ranged with a small bet size, or a large bet size on wet flops.

On wetter board textures, I generally like to have a 3/4 pot bet size that consists of a somewhat polarized range of value hands and bluffs that have decent equity on future streets. I like to also have a check back/check call range that includes a lower tier of strong non nutted hands, medium strength type hands, lower strength hands that still have some showdown and just complete low equity/low showdown hands (that I'm either completely giving up with or might delay cbet turn/river with repping some of the aforementioned range).

All of this is obviously very opponent dependent and can change based on history & meta game but hopefully that helps

Yeah always like to hear what other people do. What about relative to your sizing on dry boards? Do you usually do 3/4th sizing on dry boards too?

On January 21 2015 22:05 HungarianGOD wrote: Yeah always like to hear what other people do. What about relative to your sizing on dry boards? Do you usually do 3/4th sizing on dry boards too?

no, on super dry boards I like a 1/2 pot bet sizing

I am offering a small sidebet that HungarianGOD won't be playing 200nl by 2035. He gives advice to established 100nl players yet fails to grasp the simplest of concept. Since the bet is so far into the future i offer to bet 3 loaves of bread. If OP takes up the challenge i will bake the bread myself.

Cariadon, even though most of what you write is hateful trash that adds no value, I'd be happy to listen to your advice and criticism if you offered it. I would like to think that there are some things you understand well and are good at, and am certainly open-minded enough to listen to and think about your points seriously.

I don't really care what stakes I am playing or what other people are playing. If I think I have value to add or value to take away from a discussion, I will participate. Much of my learning of poker has come from studying and math, not from playing and practice, so there are many holes in my knowledge. I'm not sure what 'simplest of concept' you are referring to; this particular one I posted about isn't trivial at all. And if you are still talking about the sample size thing, you were just flat mathematically wrong. Even if you were Phil Ivey or Jungleman running around making posts under your account, it would not make you correct in that case.


And btw, I concede to you that I play the lowest stakes possible online. I currently only play for play money on stars; I don't have a site that I have any money on atm. That said, I might be interested in playing a grudge match against you at the end of this year if you are so confident in my lack of skill or talent. It would be fun; a battle of those who are good at math vs those who are bad at math. Of those who know game theory and those who don't know game theory. A battle of those who try to add value with their posts, and those who run around posting thoughtless useless spite all the time. And of course, a battle of those with very little experience and those with great experience. Might be an interesting game.

I will have a go at this. I am sincere in what i say next and believe it to be the best way to answer your vaguely worded question.

As a mental exercise pick say 3 types of players e.g. TAG regular marginally winning rakeback pro, LAG regular winning at a decent rate, losing player pretty much drawing dead over a long run. What do they do differently and how does it influence their winrate over say 250 000 hands. If i were to sum up what i have read over the years, seen on poker tables of different stakes and self analysis well over a million hands it is this:

Losing player - may or may not know rules, clicking buttons with no gameplan and clueless about poker theory.
TAG - ABC of poker, neccessary foundation needed in order to be consistent and progress forward. TAG raises preflop, c-bets flop a high % of the time and plays straightforward for hand value not overcomplicating things.
(good) LAG - besides taking money from losing players is able to take money from TAG players because he understands poker concepts thoroughly and throws TAG players off by varying betsizes and frequency of betting. A good LAG is very observant and takes advantage of situations that arise less often but are more profitable (think bigger pots, deeps stacks with wider ranges for value and bluffing). He takes into consideration players positions and table dynamics.

TAGs shouldn't cbet under two thirds of the pot on flop at low limits and i'd advise betting bigger on wet flops both to protect good hands and to build a pot with equity. TAG plays most pots in position and isn't afraid of being outplayed, knowing when to fold the equity hands because other options (call, raise) are not mathematically justified.
LAG is observant and may start c-betting smaller and larger to accomplish different things depending on his opponents and their tendencies.

Visualising how a TAG & LAG player use the tools of position, agression and betsizing similar in some spots and different in others will be instrumental in leapfrogging you from playmoney to delicious ryebreadom.

The next step is up to you. Vital[Myth] and Daut have always stood out as strong players with deep understanding for poker concepts. Most greenstar posters are strong accomplished players, either winning TAG or LAG. Go over the archives, see how they play high pocket pairs, low pocket pairs, suited connectors. Breaking poker down in this manner is far more efficient than to start inventing the wheel.

The short answer is play TAG, an even better answer is play LAG. The absolute answer might be to play GTO against fish.

I take back what I said about you always making useless posts. Thank you for sharing your insight, I will definitely think about your post. I apologize for my hostility.

Taking part in discussions is welcome. It has been the status quo on LP.net not to teach players who play higher limits than yourself. Most of us are helpful, the initiation proccess may be harsh at times. If you see an interesting hand in the handhistory section, by all means, feel free to ask your question. If you do it in a way that is easy to reply to you will get value comments. Always ask yourself if what is being said makes sense. Glad i managed to summon something worth your time.

yeah look at vitalmyth whos abilities were questioned even back in 2009 or check some random outdated hands lol

bet w/e you want vs fish and datamine some strong 2014 reg who plays similar style to urs

On January 22 2015 17:16 cariadon wrote: I will have a go at this. I am sincere in what i say next and believe it to be the best way to answer your vaguely worded question. As a mental exercise pick say 3 types of players e.g. TAG regular marginally winning rakeback pro, LAG regular winning at a decent rate, losing player pretty much drawing dead over a long run. What do they do differently and how does it influence their winrate over say 250 000 hands. If i were to sum up what i have read over the years, seen on poker tables of different stakes and self analysis well over a million hands it is this: Losing player - may or may not know rules, clicking buttons with no gameplan and clueless about poker theory. TAG - ABC of poker, neccessary foundation needed in order to be consistent and progress forward. TAG raises preflop, c-bets flop a high % of the time and plays straightforward for hand value not overcomplicating things. (good) LAG - besides taking money from losing players is able to take money from TAG players because he understands poker concepts thoroughly and throws TAG players off by varying betsizes and frequency of betting. A good LAG is very observant and takes advantage of situations that arise less often but are more profitable (think bigger pots, deeps stacks with wider ranges for value and bluffing). He takes into consideration players positions and table dynamics. TAGs shouldn't cbet under two thirds of the pot on flop at low limits and i'd advise betting bigger on wet flops both to protect good hands and to build a pot with equity. TAG plays most pots in position and isn't afraid of being outplayed, knowing when to fold the equity hands because other options (call, raise) are not mathematically justified. LAG is observant and may start c-betting smaller and larger to accomplish different things depending on his opponents and their tendencies. Visualising how a TAG & LAG player use the tools of position, agression and betsizing similar in some spots and different in others will be instrumental in leapfrogging you from playmoney to delicious ryebreadom. The next step is up to you. Vital[Myth] and Daut have always stood out as strong players with deep understanding for poker concepts. Most greenstar posters are strong accomplished players, either winning TAG or LAG. Go over the archives, see how they play high pocket pairs, low pocket pairs, suited connectors. Breaking poker down in this manner is far more efficient than to start inventing the wheel. The short answer is play TAG, an even better answer is play LAG. The absolute answer might be to play GTO against fish.

lol his question in op is actually quite sophisticated (at least the first part of it, about predetermined sizing based on public information), while this reply is unsophisticated noise
awkward

On January 22 2015 19:55 dogmeat wrote: yeah look at vitalmyth whos abilities were questioned even back in 2009 or check some random outdated hands lol bet w/e you want vs fish and datamine some strong 2014 reg who plays similar style to urs

took the words out of my mouth. hungariangod i know the game of which u speak and while it can be a useful example for basic odds concepts and some simple river spots it does not model the game in general.

You cannot balance any sizing. Hand combos and scenarios are static and finite in the game. Therefore on a game theoretic level for any spot there is a solution which contains a certain set of actions at a certain frequency, and if that action is bet/raise an exact betsize amount (or betsizes in the event of various cooptimal strategies existing).

In other words that is one of (if not) the ultimate points of the game in a way; to find the right betsizes within a framework of actions (strategy). To look at one's own possible hand range and frequency; to look at how that range interacts with villain's own, and then to decide how much to bet based on the balance between those ranges and combos. The point is not to decide on a betsize and then "add" combos after he fact. That would be impossible if you think about it, we as the player have no affect on combos that is a fixed aspect of the game we only select betsize i.e. with the slider.

when you hear people talking strategically about "adding hands to a range" to balance it or fill it out that is more of a mental tool to try to figure out what those fixed solutions actually are and get as close to them as possible.

poker played by humans is a pretty dynamic game but intrinsically it is not. good to remember that

I think it depends how you define balance, whether you can balance different sizings. You definitely can't play optimally with any sizing, or even close. I disagree with nothing else you have written Trax. Of course the toy game is a vastly simplified example, but it does demonstrate that there exists scenarios where you can be perfectly balanced with vastly different betsizes (though in that case, only one way of being balanced is the 'correct solution' to the game).

So all else being held constant, how does your bet sizing differ from wet to dry flops?

smaller on dry, QQ5r for example. esp in 3bet pots. sometimes in single raised pots pre you will still cbet big if deep enough just because it becomes more important to build a pot 200-250+ bb deep or whatever. Its a question i have for the computer one day is if betsize pre and on the flop continually increases with stacksize to where at for example 15,000 bb it becomes correct to raise pre to 6bb as a standard open or regularly overbet cbet flops. On the flipside everyone already minraises pre with small stacks (and bets flop as small as they can get away with).

Larger on wet. more hands to get value from, protection, more often may want to go 2street all in rather than 3barrel, etc.

and you are right in that toy game there are many balanced solutions but only afaik one optimal one. Optimal solution was selecting the largest betsize possible. all the balanced solutions made villain indifferent to calling but the largest betsize allowed us to bluff with the highest frequency yielding max ev because that is the best way to attack the money already in the pot. This betsize forces his folding frequency up to its highest point while still leaving him a breakeven call