As I have experimented with smaller c-bet sizing (30-35% pot ish) in the micro stakes, especially w/ a wider range from the BTN vs blinds, I have found they rarely achieve the desired effect (of a wide c-bet often used to fold out equity). I know that the blinds will be continuing w/ a wider range vs a smaller bet sizing's + the BTN's already wide range, but It's not become rare for me to see players end up at the river w/ ridiculous hands (seemingly 100% of the range they get to the flop with), often w/ no flopped equity or SDV. I am regularly using these small c-bets in 3b pots on dry texture's, or even in a normal pot (from any position), entirely dependent on range's, board texture, and obviously how those ranges interact w/ that texture. I have also spotted micro/small stakes streamers come up against player often spazzing vs small-c-bets.

Therefore I propose the use of smaller c-bets for an entirely different purpose at the micro/small stakes. Instead of the more traditional use of folding out hands w/ equity OTF/OTT (delayed), and perhaps using the smaller sizing to exploit ranges on certain textures, and give yourself a 'good price' to take down the pot. Perhaps we can begin to extract maximum value, and exploit an overly wide continuing range, as well as to allow opponents to 'spaz'.

For example, vs a 50% pot c-bet V is continuing with 40% range, whereas vs a 33% pot c-bet, V is continuing with 75% range. To really exploit this strategy players will need a much more developed post flop ability than with the traditional c-bet (in order to optimally play turns/rivers vs such a wide range).

To further detail, I am suggesting these smaller c-bets w/ a stronger range OTF/T in order to exploit wide continuing ranges. This is as w/ a wide/light c-betting range OTF (as traditional), the suggested sizing often does not produce effective results at these stakes. Now I am not saying these sizing's cannot be used for the more traditional purpose in certain spots, as they definitely can (in-fact I recommend the use of these sizing's for both purposes, not only to exploit different spots, but to remain balanced).

Not sure if a similar strategy has been suggested in the past, just find this quite an interesting strategy, and I am further interested in how these smaller c-bet sizing's can be used effectively.

Also interested to see how players utilize these smaller c-bets in their game, and how you can potentially use them to exploit opponents (in what spots, from what positions, vs what ranges etc.)? And how do you find players react to these sizes in different spots?

P.s this was also (originally) posted in the micro stakes NL section. Wanted to post it in a more strategy based section - not sure if this is correct spot (I am new to the poker theory section).

Protection becomes an issue on certain boards for sure, especially in multiway pots. But choosing your bet sizing according to the desired outcome is always going to be the way to go. Sometimes an overbet can accomplish the same thing as a 25% cbet though so I wouldn't box yourself in to one way or the other. Either way, villain's love to level themselves when facing unconventional bet sizing and non-standard lines... it's why a lot of fish play completely erratic. But when you take these lines with actual logic, the rewards are sweet.

You definitely bring up a good point in mentioning protection, was looking for flaws in this strategy, and that may be one of the more prominent ones.

This is a good point. That said, there are definitely elastic and inelastic hands in all ranges vs a c-bet. For example on A82r, 210s is going to be much more elastic than any Ax (obvious but worth mentioning).

Agreed. Thanks for the input.

if you bet flop with a very high freq you need to check turn a lot

+1

I am not sure I understand the advantage of your strategy. If they call wider vs. a small cbet why wouldn't you use a wider value range so that you can get value more often? Or are you suggesting that you bluff less with small cbets?

Why is this exactly?

@D Villain if you cbet flop a ton and cbet turn with the same frequency, villains can then call down profitably with a very wide range... especially when sizing is smallish as proposed in OP.

There's a time and place for sizing cbets very small but it's not a blanket strategy by any means. As I alluded to above, choosing whether to cbet and the sizing depends on the dersired outcome when factoring in villain's range and postflop frequencies.