---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by Gman (Micro/Small Stakes)

looking forward to this!

It wasnt a bunch of new stuff to my game, but its always value with some explaniation on why we do certain plays in certain situations: thats what Im taking with me from this video.

Please keep it up Gman!

You start a new series just as my subscription is about to end? Uncool.

Time Link to 00:06:02

Betting smaller with a weak range and bigger with a strong range works if your opponent does not adjust his calling ranges relative to the ranges he assigns to you and the price you are offerening.

The bigger you bet the more bluffs you can have in your range relative to the number of hands that beats villain's calling range. That could lead one to think that betting big on the flop is the right strategy but on the flop the threat of future bets allows you to bet smallish with a weak range. This is especially true when we are IP.

The turn size should depend on the turn card (the range you rep when betting). The more draws you rep and will actually have the bigger you should bet.

But does that mean we should bet smaller rather than larger on the flop, considering our continuation bet size on the flop is more important than on any other street for pot geometry "bigger is better" if our intention is to be able to leverage our stack and/or close the action without ovebetting at some point on a later street.

It wasnt a bunch of new stuff to my game, but its always value with some explaniation on why we do certain plays in certain situations: thats what Im taking with me from this video.

Please keep it up Gman!

Thanks man. Agreed this one will be review for some, but the next few will likely be fresher information to you.

Betting smaller with a weak range and bigger with a strong range works if your opponent does not adjust his calling ranges relative to the ranges he assigns to you and the price you are offerening.

Agreed. But first all, it is a reasonable difficult task to assign a range of hands to someone in a given situation. Even in an incredibly common situation such as 3-betting PF or c-betting, it's going to take awhile for our opponent to have a idea let alone a solid read on the strength of our range. And if you consider spots that are shown down even less often like turn c/r, river, c/r, even triple barreling, it becomes a tall task for an opponent to figure out the strength of your range.

Second, once I realize my opponent is making adjustments to his calling/raising/folding ranges in certain spots and I have reason to believe it is related to my betsizing, I will obviously adjust my range accordingly as explained in the video.

The bigger you bet the more bluffs you can have in your range relative to the number of hands that beats villain's calling range. That could lead one to think that betting big on the flop is the right strategy but on the flop the threat of future bets allows you to bet smallish with a weak range. This is especially true when we are IP.

What you are saying is correct in theory, but I would argue incorrect in practice. For example, let's say we cbet K72r w/ air and are deciding between betting 1/2 pot or the full pot. Most competent opponents can and should focus more on the range of hands you will be c-betting in this spot and are less concerned w/ your sizing, which admittedly should play a minor factor in their decision making process.

So if they think your range is weak enough, they won't fold a certain group of hands (say A high and better), even if we bet 3X the pot. But if they have J9 high and a ton of other similar hands, what can they do, and more importantly, what are they actually likely to do in game?

They could c/r, but if this competent opponent knows the strength of our hand is the same whether betting 1/2 or full pot, they actually have more incentive to make a play when we bet more as there is already more money in the pot.

They could c/c w/ no pair no draw looking to bet the river, sure. But 1) A lot has to go right for this to go according to plan aka, we have to check the turn and fold the river, something unlikely to happen against a good % of opponents. And of course if we are any good, a pattern of our opponent taking this line will be reasonably easy to pick up on and even easier to exploit. And 2) Many players simply don't have this play in their arsenal. Interestingly, however, I have played in some unique matches against talented but unique players where they will do things like cbet 90%+ w/ a sizing of like 1/3 pot and I will implement this very strategy infrequently throughout the match. But I just don't think many players can or really should rely on it often as it is clearly very exploitable.

And yes part of the reason we can bet small w/ a weakish range on flops and turns is the threat of future bets. The river is more complex. In some ways much of what I wrote above still applies to the river, mostly due to the fact that poker players are far from perfect and as such will have exploitable river calling ranges (even the very good ones). In other river situations, it does make a lot more sense to bet smaller w/ stronger ranges. Coincidentally, I discussed this very concept and applications for it in the video I made that premieres next week.

The turn size should depend on the turn card (the range you rep when betting). The more draws you rep and will actually have the bigger you should bet.

We just approach betsizing differently, and some of these differences I would consider stylistic. I feel like you give opponents too much credit for playing very close to GTO than I do.

If a flop comes QJ8dd...5s and I know my opponents game to know he is never folding a pair + GS on the turn, I think it is simply poor logic to bet bigger so he folds his 89 when I have dd or 67 because it simply isn't going to happen.

And this is against very good players. Most DC members playing lower stakes would really be doing themselves a disservice by using a betsizing strategy that I feel works best against an opponent playing v close to GTO.

But does that mean we should bet smaller rather than larger on the flop, considering our continuation bet size on the flop is more important than on any other street for pot geometry "bigger is better" if our intention is to be able to leverage our stack and/or close the action without ovebetting at some point on a later street.

As mentioned in the video, in a SRP we aren't getting stacks in without using a very large and unorthodox betsizing strategy on every street anyway, thus making it even more applicable to bet based on the strength of our range.

And in c/r SRP and 3B pots, we are going to get stacks in comfortably anyway, which is why I recommended the sizing I did in those situations.

So im not sure if im getting this:

at about minute 28 you say the less villain folds on flop turn and river the smaller is your sizing.

but im atm playing like this:
if my villains folds alot i bet smaller with a wider range.
and if he is calling alot im betting bigger with a stronger range.

could you explain please why you approach it the otherway?

So im not sure if im getting this:

at about minute 28 you say the less villain folds on flop turn and river the smaller is your sizing.

but im atm playing like this:
if my villains folds alot i bet smaller with a wider range.
and if he is calling alot im betting bigger with a stronger range.

could you explain please why you approach it the otherway?

You may have misunderstood what I was getting at. For example, if my opponent was someone who OOP c/c, c/c, but folded the river a lot, then it would make sense to change my river sizing to something smaller as I will be bluffing more often in that spot. With that said, I would certainly be experimenting with checking the flop and/or turn a bunch when I was weak to:
a) See how he responds to those lines and potentially figure out a line I could take w/ air sometimes where I have more FE or
b) Avoid putting a bunch of money in the pot with nothing all that often, as relying on a triple barrel to win pots with any sort of frequency seems like a recipe for disaster.

The way you are playing is good and what I would advocate.

thanks!

We just approach betsizing differently, and some of these differences I would consider stylistic. I feel like you give opponents too much credit for playing very close to GTO than I do.

If a flop comes QJ8dd...5s and I know my opponents game to know he is never folding a pair + GS on the turn, I think it is simply poor logic to bet bigger so he folds his 89 when I have dd or 67 because it simply isn't going to happen.

And this is against very good players. Most DC members playing lower stakes would really be doing themselves a disservice by using a betsizing strategy that I feel works best against an opponent playing v close to GTO.

The motivation behind my post was to bring attention to the fundamental game theory behind bet sizing. Once that has been understood it is easier to understand what adjustments we should make once we can make assumptions about our opponents.

In the example you gave betting might even be a mistake - unless we include the river into our EV-estimate and expect the opponent to fold often enough. In that case the bigger bet actually has a higher EV.

In many ways the flop and turn are much harder to play than the river.