Opponents don't generally defend well against it. They fold all sorts of hands that have the correct equity to call, because the bet is so low. Stuff that you probably wouldn't think is obvious for a defend. People also don't play back against it that well.

I am not sure why you would want to narrow villain's range by betting bigger. If villain thinks your bets is a "blocker bet" and decides to raise it then that can be good for you in certain situations.

Also like I said people don't defend against the size well including raising.

I think some of the solvers have shown that sometimes a smaller bet can be appropriate on boards like that. The reason being is that on the flop even a solid hand may have low equity and thus is less likely to be the best hand at showdown. So the solvers bet for some protection/EV and then ramp up the bet size the closer you get to the river and the more likely your hand is to hold up.

Well the other thing is this. If you are betting like 1/4 to 1/3 pot size bet as a default cbet... how are you going to try to play for stacks then if you are like 100bb deep or more. Unless you are overbetting the turn and river... that probably won't even get stacks in.


But are there players that cbet like 1/2 pot or a bit more and bet like 1/2 - pot size on flop, turn and river a lot? I mean if you are scaring nobody with those 1/4 and 1/3 size bets. Also how are you going to play a big pot with those bet sizing then? I mean does anyone here think cbet 1/3rd pot and then sizing up to like 2/3 or 3/4 on turn and 3/4 to pot on river... just probably not good? Why not just 2/3 pot size on all streets assuming you are say 40bb or deeper. You are getting more fold equity this way.



Also when ppl talk about getting like 2 streets of value. Or even 3 streets of value. I mean if you are cbet 1/4 pot on flop, then 1/2 on turn and like 1/2 on river... how is this even 3 streets of value? I mean you could get 3 streets of value with 2 bet and call if you size it up to say 1/2 pot and 3/4 pot on flop and turn right?

That is interesting, I wonder if you could get similar fold % with significantly less risk, say 125%, would that reduce the FOLD% much? And you can bet that more often for both blanks and backdoor draws.

At the microstakes, a 75% turn CBET gets such a high folder percentage that I am rarely to risk more, but I assume higher stakes have a higher turn calling frequency

There's no real need to go huge on the turn if you have success with smaller bets. 125% probably gets almost the same result as 180%. But, FWIW, I find that microstakes villains don't fold the turn very often (my turn c-bet success is 37.5%), but then I rarely use 75% of pot. I tend to go for half pot or smaller, or I overbet.

On the times that 180% turn gets called-- what does river play stats look like?

I don't have a large enough sample size to give meaningful stats. Firstly I don't overbet the turn at a particularly high frequency, and secondly the overbet often causes villain to fold the turn, so I see very few rivers*. On the river I keep betting my strongest value hands, and then try to pick the best bluffs to balance them, but I tend to "underbluff" the river if a turn overbet gets called, as most villains in my games have a pretty strong range if they don't fold to a turn OB.

* FWIW, the last 20 times I overbet turn BTNvBB after underbetting flop, I only saw 4 rivers but no showdowns. (I got donked into once and folded air, and happened to have monsters the other 3 times, but my river shoves didn't get called). In my microzoom games, the fold equity is real.