Cool video, just popping in now. For me I like to think about pot odds and build bet sizes around that. If I am ahead, but need protection on a connected board I will over bet for EV to charge draws from staying in the pot above their profitable EV. If they fold, you win, if they continue, they made a negative EV play. If I think I am ahead but have a dry board, I can bet smaller for value as a better means of positive EV. If I have a draw heavy hand, I am polarized to bluff, call down, or fold depending on my opponent and board texture.
This is the concept I struggle with the most. I always worry that you would have to play a huge volume of hands for the your opponents to actually determine your balance, and therefore it is easier to balance yourself by only having 1 bet size. I would never challenge that having multiple bet size is better in theory, but the questions is can a recreational player properly balance numerous bet sizes. It is one thing to review off table that you should bet, fold and raise all at certain frequency, but actually determining this with
Cheers Glen! And against most opponents, in most spots, a single size is fine in practice. But it's good to know the underlying theory for more advanced strategy =)
If some players opt to make a very small (~20%pot) c-bet on the flop with basically their entire range. Should this play be considered a mistake as well?
It would be useful to mention how much ev is lost by not implementing certain strategies. For example, how much ev does using one bet size lose? Or only two instead of three? Or betting all hands the same (I.e., don’t have two bet sizes for any one given hand). It’s impossible to play a computer. Which simplifications are worth making? When is it worth learning the complexity?
i really dont know about those overbets, there are players who calls just because you overbeted, and there are players who aways fold, and there are the fish who doesnt even look the sizings, ofc if you play straight gto would be good, but, its impossible to do that, i feel like having only "standard" sizings on this spot is way easier to play, having to overbet 65o on the river feels rough, kinda of a gamble depending on wich player you are against, and probably you wouldnt have the right frequency, i think having a sizing depending on the playr is way more doable than hiting the right gto frequencies, and betwen having a sub optimal gto, and a "normal play", the normal play feels like will have a better return.
@@chanceneck8072 because the two responses are quite dissimilar, and it is unclear to me which position you are taking. and since I am interested in what you have to say, it is necessary for me to understand what you are saying.
@@ekw555 No, it is not. Let's just say, I think not overbetting the pot IN GENERAL is a mistake. What are you getting out of that? Well, it is kind of a point worthy to put to debate. How often have you overbet the pot? How long have you been playing? How regularly? If you can pull off some sick overbet bluffs on players Tom Dwan style, you're probably gonna be a force to be reckoned with still today (or perhaps even more so). The second case is let's say, I just think, ME never overbetting the pot was a mistake! What are you getting out of that???? 🤔🤷♂️ I would say probably even less! You don't know me. You don't know my range, my playstile, my bankroll or how often or how long I play... But, do I do think, me almost never overbetting the pot was a mistake??? ABSOLUTELY!!! That's the point, I was trying to make! The point I wanted people to focus on! Of course, your range should be very polarized IF you overbet. But why not overbet? Do you have the BALLS to overbet? The right senses, to feel WHEN to pull the trigger? And heck yeah, WHY NOT overbet the pot with a straight flush nuts??? ..... Stuff to think about. But defitely stuff, I would call a potential leak....
@@chanceneck8072 well, in general (but talking only of poker) , I think most* absolutes are a mistake so, when you said "However, I have NEVER overbet the pot." I was inclined to think (given a reasonable number of hands played) that if "never" doing it was a "policy" that you employed, regardless of situation, that was, indeed, a mistake. and what I get from that, is the impression that perhaps you have begun to consider adding it in to your game in some advantageous spots. anyway, I appreciate your reply. Always interested in how other people think about the game. Always something to learn. that's why I am here, watching James. * open limping could be close to "always wrong", but there could be some game dynamic involving an aggro-fish, blah, blah, blah. though just when you're sure they will make a huge raise, they over-limp, lol.
