If we are in some spot where a standard bet size would commit us to calling a shove then we ought to just jam whatever bets we have right?
Otherwise, if we made a non all-in bet with some range of hands then villain(s) would be able to decide to either call and see the next street or jam and we would have to call so we give villain an extra strategic option without giving ourselves one. And that seems bad. It can't be a good thing to just let our opponent decide for us if we get it in on this street or wait till the next card to decide the fate of the rest of the effective stack.

Im pretty confident that this holds in all pre-flop situations (accept, obviously, for exploitative reasons) but I'm a little less certain about how this works post flop.

So, for starters, is it the case that we should just jam all-in pre-flop in any spot where we will not be able to raise and fold?

Does that hold for any spot post flop where we would be stuck to calling a shove with most/all of the hands we rep with a bet?

If that is the case, or if it is sometimes the case, then what does that do to our betting range? If we are in a spot where we would usually bet a lot of hands and use a smaller sizing, say something like half pot or even a bit shy of half pot on the flop but making that bet would commit us to calling it off and so we are going to just shove our entire betting range in that spot instead; does that force us to use a more polarized range than we would otherwise like to bet with and pass on thinner value bets and some of our bluffs since our sizing will have to be relatively large
or
would we end up betting the same range of hands but using a bigger sizing for our depolarized betting range than we would like to use if stacks were bigger?

#1) is my assumption correct pre-flop?
#2) is it something near correct post flop or are there at the least situations where it is the case?
#3) if so, what affect does that have on our betting range? Are we forced to use fewer hands than we would like to use if we had a bigger effective stack? Or are we going to bet the same range we would bet with a larger effective stack size but end up having to use a larger bet sizing that we would really like to with our betting range?

Or am I confused about something? Maybe that above example in OP is something of a mirage that cannot actually come up in the game space of NLH?????

If your range is polarised the theory says you should choose your bet sizing such that you are betting an equal fraction of the pot on each street and are all in on the river. This maximises EV.

Depending on the SPR your equal fractions of the pot can make for very large bets relative to the pot or very small.

So to answer your question(s) I'm guessing you need to split your betting range using different bet sizes:

- Bet your nut hands (balanced with bluffs) using the above theoretical bet sizing.
- Bet your non-nut hands using a smaller bet size (or check).

In both cases you will keep your strategic options if you get raised.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

So, what if we get to some spot where we have maybe $90 behind and an $80 pot on the flop.

We would obv want some hands that just jam for value, and we would obv balance with the correct number of bluffs/semi bluffs.

But do we think it makes sense, then, w some ranges on some flops, to have a range of hands that bets the flop for value planning to fold to a raise with a sizing of maybe $25 into $80?
We'd have to have some nutted value hands or at least hands that are happy to call a jam within this range and we would also need to have bluffs so..

firstly, Am I understanding this correctly?

and a side question would be this;
If we are going to have multiple value bet sizings then we should, theoretically have bluffs in both sizes.

In practice does it make more sense to generally bluff with the sizing where we would have the most number of value hands?
If we are truly going to have two different bluff sizings how do we select what hands we bluff with in each sizing?

This seems somewhere between super hard and outright impossible and I'm not sure how pragmatic it would be to chose the bluff sizing that represents the value range that has the fewest hands in it and especially if that range is the smaller sizing and has hands that will bet and fold plus outright bluffs.

THoughts on that?

80 pot and 90 behind out of position heads up? I'm checking or shoving. Only with a good read that I'm very rarely getting raised will I attempt to exploit a loose passive player with a small betsize, in which case there is no need to neither bluff nor have nutty hands in my range. Of course this will fail vs anyone decent, but that's why I bolded the bolded stuff.

Your understanding of what I'm saying is correct.

For the 80 into 90 jam your value range can consist of your top value hands coupled with your best semi-bluffs (NFDs and OESDs) that keep their equity when called.

With the 25 into 80 bet you can bet those hands that won't mind calling a re-raise / shove (TPGK...) as these become good bluff catchers, especially when the board is dynamic. In this case you can bluff with your lesser draws and air that won't mind folding to a re-raise and have the most to gain when your opponent folds.

To your point I'm not sure if this approach maximises the EV of your entire range or whether it makes sense to group your value hands together into a single bet sizing as you suggest....need to think about that.

no

Can you pls expand I'm not good at guessing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well it's completely subjective unless in you're in a spot where you have enough equity with your draws to call.

But, it could easily be that you're in a river spot with $72 behind in a $60 pot and otr the optimal sizing with most of your range is something like $45. Just because your sizing is 3/4 your stack does not mean you have to call a jam. It means, yeah, you're much more likely to call a jam because you do have good pot odds (this is common sense), but idea that you HAVE TO or ALWAYS call is simply incorrect. It would depend on the equity you believe you have vs. villain's range in that particular spot and the pot odds you are receiving (as it is with any case).

Now, GENERALLY speaking if you have a psb behind otr your sizings for your range otf/ott might have been suboptimal or you may just want to jam, but that isn't always the case. It is called "NO LIMIT" hold'em. You can bet what you want.

Agreed you don't have to call a jam and that the pot odds simply make it likely that you will call.

And yes NLH says you bet what you want on any street....but the more polarised your range the more you should size your betting according to what's optimal. Meaning you bet equal fractions of the pot as you progress from flop to turn to river and only if your nutted hands continue to be nutted with each new card, or your bluff improves to the nuts, or your bluff is in the range you want to continue bluffing with (can still improve, has blockers).

Anything outside of this (such as the examples you gave) I agree bet what you want and what makes the most sense in that particular spot and how you got there.

This is basically the Raise/Shove game, but being played on the flop(or on later streets, you didn't really specify). Will Tipton's book Expert Heads Up No Limit Hold'Em, breaks this toy game down.

That being said there are going to be hands that you want to bet fold, as the EV of betting is going to be better than check folding. Obviously it depends on stack sizes and our opponents strategy.

Also, I'd say you're wrong in regards to giving your opponent an extra strategic option and taking one away from yourself. Do you think he's more likely to make a mistake if he has 2 options or 3+?

I can't tell you how many times I've got into spots similar to what you described and by betting on the smaller side, instead of trying to put them all in, I induced them to hand me the rest of their stack.