LJ vs BB, 100bb, SRP.

Flop Jd7d5s.

LJ bets 3/4, BB calls.

Turn Ac.

LJ bets 3/4.

This is a hand analyzed on a video from the youtube channel "Finding Equilibirum".

https://youtu.be/IP6IueiW4H8?si=kwzcyIWOfCxiS4Bk

The author tell us the solver prefer this size on the turn over bigger ones because we put more hand on a difficult spot. Like second pairs and weak draws villain has plenty, which would have an easier fold against bigger sizes.

In my mind, this idea is clashing with the theory for overbetting, which we tend to do when we have a big nut advantage with our range (this same channel has videos talking about that), and it seems we have a considerable nut advantage here:









Is there a way to conciliate this apparently two contradicting ideas, or is something wrong in the ideas or my understanding of them?

Curious to hear your opinions.

Regards!

I owuld say it's because hte advantage mainly comes from weak Ax

Look at the equity distribution graph, you have a much bigger top-mid range advantage than nut advantage, that's why.

There are many ways to approach betsizing - a lot of players do think in terms of what hands they can make indifferent, but I've never been a fan of it.

Here I would agree with aner0 that it's important to bet our Ax, and the only way to do that is with a medium-sized bet, since Ax is not strong enough to overbet.

Our nut combos are of course strong enough to bet bigger. But in theory, if we size up with too many of them, the medium bet gets raised too often. Which in turn makes us want to size down with our nut hands.