I'm confused about the question because there are certain spots where we have a range advantage but also have a high betting frequency.
For instance, in Nl100, we open UTG and BB calls. Flop comes AK6 rainbow. BB checks, now we should bet big around 3/4 pot because we have a significant range advantage. However, I think the best play would be 1/3 pot bacause of the high betting frequency?

Now I'm not sure that we should bet bigger when we have a bigger range advantage.
For instance, MP opens and we call in BB. Flop comes 26T rainbow. We check/call cbet. Turn comes 7, check check. River comes 2. Now we have both range advantage and nut advantage. But should we bet big since we don't have so many bluff combos and we want to get paid?

Please enlighten me. Any link or book that I can learn from is appreciated. I really want to find some range study stuff to learn. It's essentiel for poker, but seems like there's no video for this on RIO.

Thanks.

For cbet sizing, bet small if you bet your whole range and bet big if you go for polarization. In fact, on AK6 I don't think high frequency cbet is the right play.

The bold is impossible unless the ranges involved are identical.

I'd start it by exploring hands one by one in the betting range, and think, what size does make sense for this type of hand considering the overall ranges, map out advantages, and disadvantages for hand groups in the range of them betting certain size. And then think of the frequency of these hand groupings in your range, and examine what size makes sense for your overall range, with the advantages maximized and disadvantages minimized. Or does the spot actually call for 2 betsizes due to so many different type of hands in your range.

Yeah its pretty non specific overall advice.


About the example, betsize on river spots are very simple, flop and turn sizings aren't. On river spots all you need to consider are equity and blocker effect, and you can deduct betsize from there. Though I can't come up with formula that takes blocker effect into account now on the fly, though it should be possible with a bit of thinking. But there's a formula that gives you good indication of what betsize you should use OTR.


I think you misread this.

It depends on frequency, which in turn depends on equity and nuts.

For flop:

Equity advantage + Nut advantage -> range for small size
~Equal equity + Nut advantage -> polarized for big size (but even then including some bets with second and third pair just for board coverage on turns)

These are generally the only two cases that happen when an IP player opens and BB flats. For OOP opener and IP flatter it's much murkier and complicated. OOP cbetting is one of the most complex aspects of NL.

frequency doesn't lead to small sizing, small sizing leads to high frequncy.


Yes and no. This is a simple approach that works on many spots, but isn't always ideal.

What's the reasoning (math + logic) behind the 4x 3! sizings from sb and bb, does it have to do with SPR and being 100bb (just making random assumptions), but i usually just raise to a normal 3x if i want to 3! preflop...

Anyone please answer thank you!

To a purely exploitative player, frequency isn't an issue.

The only time we consider our actual range is when we're creating a general strategy to adopt against an individual opponent. It would be almost impossible to work this out perfectly for every opponent. So instead we only consider a very rough strategy. For example; If the opponent attacked every pot, our strategy would be continue with all kinds of weak hands. Easy.

To us, bet size dictates how much we make or lose and it also changes our perceived range. And that's all there is to it.

On a flop like AK2, if we held AQ, we might not make the most money from a big bet because by the river we might well fold out most of the hands that we beat. We might make more money with a smaller bet. Opponent dependant.

In response to the OP,
I am not sure the relationship works exactly like; I have more hands in my betting range and so I should bet smaller
or
I want to bet smaller in this spot and so I should use more hands.

I think it is more like; In spots like this I should use a wider betting range with a smaller bet size.

One does not exactly cause the other. They just go hand in hand.

"Correlation does not imply causation" comes to mind.

There are spots where one player may advocate a more polarized betting range with fewer hands and another player could prefer a smaller bet sized and more merged and wider range and the EV of the two strategies could be the same.
You could take one range and bet sizing and add some hands as long as you reduce the bet size or visa versa.
I think what is important is that we make sure that the two factors; the range we want to use and the sizing we decide upon, make sense together.

I believe you would have to solve a problem in the following manner;
determine the range you want to use and solve for the optimal bet size
then adjust the bet size up/down and see what the optimal range for that sizing is
then see which strategy yields the highest EV overall.

I could be wrong and I have, admittedly, very little experience using solvers but this is what seems to me to make sense just intuitively.

If I was talking with a player about his button opening range and he was using something like 3xbb (full ring, 100bb, NLH cash, online at NL100 for instance) with a reasonable range for the sizing and he said, "I would like to start opening more hands from the button, what do you think?" I would say something like "I think that would be fine but you may want to reduce your sizing some". I don't think it would be that much different if that player said "I would like to start using a smaller sizing, what do you think?" in which case I may say something like "Yeah, that seems fine, you'll probably want to start opening a bit wider though".

Not sure it's all that clear that the chicken came before as apposed to after the egg.

One consideration is that if one has nut advantage it means one can bet bigger more frequently than without the advantage, and in turn can/should bluff more. Those combined will mean higher overall equity compared the equity with smaller bets.