Small Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

I

What's your range for the fish?

draws, few 9x, Jx, tt...

+1, leading air into a fish and a regular represents a depolarized range more often than not, so you're raising for value vs both the reg's range and the fishes range when you do this and you should expect both of them to call you very often (the reg always, the fish depending on how he evaluates his hand strength and pot odds).

Anybody have any thoughts on shoving the turn, I think it may get all 3 stacks into the middle immediately at 100bb (I know you have more than 100bb obv.)? I actually prefer betting the turn bigger and underbetting the river, reason being the fish is probably bet size insensitive and if the reg has 2 pair or a pair and straight draws he'll probably pay the max hoping the fish over calls and then crying calls on the river to a small bet with show down value.

I mean I guess under betting the pot on the turn in order to bet the pot on the river is "standard," but I think there's some better exploitative bet sizing to consider here. Villain doesn't really have that many flush draws he'd check/call with the fish behind here vs a small(er) bet that are +EV with a paired board IMO so there's not a lot of his range we're getting value from by trying to include them into his turn calling range?

don`t agree that betting small here is good OTT.
Sure you would wide his callingrange, but not to the poinit where you wanna bet small instead of big.
Fish will call often enough w worse 9x, stuff like QTs, QhXh and Jx (exspecially Jx + a str8draw)

Unless my brain is malfunctioning, my post is A) recommending to bet big on the turn and bet small on the river in paragraph 2 and B) why betting small on the turn and betting big on the river is bad when the fish is bet size insensitive and we're not concerned with maintaining any fold equity for the river or expanding any ranges vs. the reg in paragraph 2.

When I said "standard," I meant it's normal to bet a smaller percentage of the pot on the turn in order to be able to bet a larger percentage of the pot on the river in multi way pots or 3 bet pots or check-raised pots etc., and while I completely disagree it's board texture specific it's definitely villain specific here.

When I said "standard," I meant it's normal to bet a smaller percentage of the pot on the turn in order to be able to bet a larger percentage of the pot on the river in multi way pots or 3 bet pots or check-raised pots etc., and while I completely disagree it's board texture specific it's definitely villain specific here.

Why is it NOT texture dependant to bet bigger OTT where people will call with their draws anyway no matter if you bet 50% of the pot or 75% of the pot? When we bet smaller OTT and draws miss we don't get value anymore OTR often, unless villain will turn his missed draws into bluffs. So we get extra value OTT with bigger bets when people are still calling with those holdings. What am I missing?
Thanks!

Why is it NOT texture dependant to bet bigger OTT where people will call with their draws anyway no matter if you bet 50% of the pot or 75% of the pot? When we bet smaller OTT and draws miss we don't get value anymore OTR often, unless villain will turn his missed draws into bluffs. So we get extra value OTT with bigger bets when people are still calling with those holdings. What am I missing?
Thanks!

Let me ask a question, if the board wasn't 2 toned in this case, would you actually bet any smaller here? We're not targeting the board texture with our bet sizing, we're targeting the opponent's range and his bet sizing insensitivity for calling.

We have the nuts vs a fish, therefore we're betting big for value vs a wide, bet size insensitive range and the board texture has nothing to do with our decision IMO.

Let me ask a question, if the board wasn't 2 toned in this case, would you actually bet any smaller here?

No, there are still a lot of hands we get value from, especially multiway. But the fact there are 2 hearts on the board increases the possibily someone is drawing to a flush and will call a bet OTT and probably fold OTR when he misses. So we get more value versus those type of hands with a bigger turn bet. My question was more in general and not about this hand. This hands is pretty clear IMO. In general people call a turn bet more often then a river bet so I don't get why we should make turn bets smaller to have a bigger bet left on the river in general.

No, there are still a lot of hands we get value from, especially multiway. But the fact there are 2 hearts on the board increases the possibily someone is drawing to a flush and will call a bet OTT and probably fold OTR when he misses. So we get more value versus those type of hands with a bigger turn bet. My question was more in general and not about this hand. This hands is pretty clear IMO. In general people call a turn bet more often then a river bet so I don't get why we should make turn bets smaller to have a bigger bet left on the river in general.

Obviously board texture,positions,equity and villains tendency dictate betting sizes and frequencies. The fact that villain is a fish and is playing his hand strength only our sizing does not matter. Villian is either going to call or fold simple.

I think this is not correct. When villain is going to call or fold our sizing matters. Versus his folding range it doesn't matter since our EV remains the same but it does matter versus his calling range.

Lets say i put villian on a range of hands weighted towards TPTK, and i think he is not capable of folding TPTK on X board, then i will bet pot with my nut hands.

Now if i put villain on a range that i think is weighted towards busted draws, and i think he is going to play very true, i will bet very small with my air hands.

If villain is playing his strength, (meaning if he wants to see a showdown he will see it wether he has to call 1/2 pot or full pot) Then our bet size DOES matter. We will simply bet larger for value.

draws, few 9x, Jx, tt...

Can you be a bit more specific?

Our stack size is a bit awkward in that OTR, we're going to be making a pretty small bet regardless of our turn bet size unless we overshove the turn. So we need to look at his range and figure out what it's mostly comprised of and what would call our various bet size options. If he is going to call an overshove on the turn with draws, two pairs, or TPs along with FHs and better 9s, then it seems we have an overshove (can't stove to be sure).

No, there are still a lot of hands we get value from, especially multiway. But the fact there are 2 hearts on the board increases the possibily someone is drawing to a flush and will call a bet OTT and probably fold OTR when he misses. So we get more value versus those type of hands with a bigger turn bet. My question was more in general and not about this hand. This hands is pretty clear IMO. In general people call a turn bet more often then a river bet so I don't get why we should make turn bets smaller to have a bigger bet left on the river in general.

If your answer is no, then you're betting against his range and his bet size insensitivity, the fact that his range contains flush draws because the board is two toned is irrelevant. If the opponent has sub-ranges that are bet size insensitive to a turn bet (top pair) and bet size sensitive to a turn bet (a flush draw) then you have to determine at what point you DECREASE your bet size in order to lose value vs top pair and gain value vs his flush draws for an optimal EV bet size.

Frankly, it's difficult to know, difficult to do and will likely create a bet sizing tell, so you may as well say "fuck it" vs other regulars and just standardize your pre-flop, flop and turn bet-sizing regardless of board texture and error on the side of bigger is better just to be done with it. On the river, you have a little more flexibility on choosing your bet-sizing (i.e under and overbetting) as well as a lot more flexibility on choosing your bet-sizing when you're in position and you can better determine the villain's range and effectively leverage your stack depth.

Honestly, the only thing we're doing here is targeting the fish with our bet sizing, we seriously don't care about the board texture at all.

Regarding board texture vs regulars, all we have to do is bet enough as a standard bet size in order to either discourage him from calling or profit from him calling with his draws. If you're betting more than like half the pot you're pretty much already doing that. The only things you really need to be concerned about is having a consistent bet size that can't be read by your opponent and that allows you to get all of your money into the middle by the river without a gratuitously oversized shove. I'd say at higher levels it's really the number of barrels that you fire and whether or not you're bet is attempting to close the action that matters.

Another reason is that even tho' you profit more from their turn calls you have less fold equity on the river when you want to bluff the river as well. You typically want to either be overbetting the turn all in or making certain you have a bet size that can maintain fold equity on the river vs. his bluff catchers as a rule of thumb. The other problem is that if you start hanging out a ton of dead money on the turn and leaving small bet sizes behind for the river, your opponent can't start jamming your turn bets and clean house because your not pot committed to bet calling with your draws still.

IDK, I don't think I'm explaining this well, maybe somebody else wants to give it a shot?

Can you be a bit more specific?

Our stack size is a bit awkward in that OTR, we're going to be making a pretty small bet regardless of our turn bet size unless we overshove the turn. So we need to look at his range and figure out what it's mostly comprised of and what would call our various bet size options. If he is going to call an overshove on the turn with draws, two pairs, or TPs along with FHs and better 9s, then it seems we have an overshove (can't stove to be sure).

Obv. if he calls his entire range to our turn bet regardless of our bet size it's an overbet, however if he folds his draws to an overbet knowing he isn't getting direct or knowing he isn't getting implied odds to suck out (basing decisions on implied odds is pretty much the halmarc of a reg fish IMO) than it's better to pot the turn to get value from the flush draws and then have a small bet on the river to induce a crying call from all of his bluff catchers with this hand.

I mean granted fish are terrible, but they'll still probably fold their draw to a shove fwiw plus you're absolutely getting 100% folds from the reg on his draws as well because he knows he doesn't have direct odds and can't convince himself to call a PSB while the fish is behind for retro-active direct odds from the fish over calling and any implied odds on the fish anymore.

I wasn't advocating an overshove, it was just an example. Although I will also say that if your shove gets called by the fish it doesn't matter if the reg folds because you make more money than you would keeping him in

I wasn't advocating an overshove, it was just an example. Although I will also say that if your shove gets called by the fish it doesn't matter if the reg folds because you make more money than you would keeping him in

the reg folded already OTF.
Vs. the fish I think a slight overshove is not optimal b/c the average fish will just fold then too often his pairs+str8draws and draws and in some % TPs.
But all this parts of his range will call a big bet, so I think you can bet here at least 3/4 PS.
Vs. a fish I obv. do not care bout sizeingtells and not having a proper SPR for a possible riverplay OTR left.

the reg folded already OTF.
Vs. the fish I think a slight overshove is not optimal b/c the average fish will just fold then too often his pairs+str8draws and draws and in some % TPs.
But all this parts of his range will call a big bet, so I think you can bet here at least 3/4 PS.
Vs. a fish I obv. do not care bout sizeingtells and not having a proper SPR for a possible riverplay OTR left.

+1