I've read from several sources that simplifying the flop and turn to one single bet size is not a big deal, but it's advisable to be open to two sizes on the River.

Why is this?

This article by GTO Wizard explains one bet size river IP of 75% for all spots loses 0.18% EV median:

https://blog.gtowizard.com/dynamic-sizing-benchmarks/

Doesn't sound like much to me, or is it? Curious about the reason for this recurrent idea.

What do you think?

Thanks!

Correction, a pot bet size IP loses the least EV on average, 0.36%.

If you picked the best optimal bet size to any single river scenario, then you could lower that to ~0.16% EV loss compared to a complex bet sizing strategy.

In general, we split sizes because there are different hands in our range that want to bet different sizes.

This is also true on the flop and turn, but here it’s more important to make sure the small bet range is protected, otherwise villain can put a ton of pressure on you across the remaining streets. In other words, the further you are from the river, the larger the cost of splitting your range.

On top of that, when you split your range on the flop, you create many more turn/river spots that you have to study. Which is not true on the river because the hand ends there.

That said, it can be quite nice to have multiple sizes on the flop against passive players. Eg when we rangebet for a small size, our strong hands require villain to raise us at a high frequency, to make up for the value we lose. If that isn’t happening then we’re better off betting big with strong hands, and small with marginal hands.

Thanks for this!

Question, will implementing a river overbet strategy while keeping a 3/4 size range, compared to just betting 3/4, increase or decrease our overall betting frequency?

I assume it will increase our overall betting frequency and overall number of bluffs, while keeping the total number of value bets the same?

As long as we keep the 3/4 size too, we should just move part of the strongest hands and bluffs from such range to the bigger bet size range, where we could also add more bluffs.

Am I correct?

Thanks!

Having less strong hands in the 75% size might mean we can’t valuebet as thin. But still, you’re probably correct that frequency goes up.

Worth mentioning how big of an impact these simplifications is relative to you and your game. Part of why simplifying is often recommended is because multiple sizes on early streets will usually make the game tree complicated enough that most players will make enough errors to offset the EV gained from the multiple sizings. Considering your opponents, will your opponents recognize the simplified strategy and will they do anything about it? (Usually no). So for most low stakes players simplifying is better, but if you’re playing non micro online, you probably are sacrificing significant EV by not being able to execute a more advanced strategy.

The river is always going to want multiple sizes even in the softest games because
a) multiple sizes on the last street adds exponentially less complication to your strategy compared to multiple sizes on earlier streets
b) if you aren’t bombing the river with nutted hands you’re sacrificing a lot of EV in low stakes games where exploiting over calling is half the game.
c) if you’re not going for thin value with hands not strong enough to bomb it and get called by worse, you’re sacrificing a lot of EV in low stakes games where exploiting over calling is half the game

Actually, I’ve always thought the opposite - that splitting sizes is more important in softer games.

In tough games, players know that they need to be very aggressive vs small bets. So having 2 sizes doesn’t really add much EV.

In softer games however, players seldom raise enough vs small bets. So your marginal hands realise more equity than they should by betting small, and your strong hands really want to bet big (since your opponents aren’t building the pot for you when you bet small). And it’s impossible to capture all this extra EV without having 2 sizes.

Agreed. I would MUCH rather simplify versus the best opponents than versus the worst opponents.

If splitting sizes on the earliest streets added EV versus the best opponents, we would see HS pros splitting sizes preflop, but they don't, because the EV it adds is barely measurable in GTO. And when they do split sizes pre, it is almost certainly for exploitative purposes (hoping the opponent hasn't studied the strategy to properly counter a 2x BTN open, for example).

But versus a whale I would happily split sizes pre. For example, if the whale limps I may raise like 8bb with KK (as much as I think he will call with random trash), but when I have J9s I will iso only like 4bb (enough to get others to fold so I can play HU vs the whale). Assuming the others are not good enough to punish me for this, of course.

Agree to disagree I suppose. But fwiw:

- Preflop is entirely different

- There are zero HS pros using one size on flop turn or river.

- It’s a simple fact that if your opponents are playing closer to GTO, which will be the case in tougher games, your deviations from GTO (like simplifying to one size on flop) will lose you more EV than it would in a weaker game where opponents are themselves miles away from GTO anyway

Let me put it this way:

Say Linus and a Solver are playing HU and Linus is allowed to pick between 8 sizes on every node, and the Solver must simplify its decision to one size per node.

Would you bet on Linus or the Solver?

*********

Or put another way:

If Linus was challenged to create the most unexploitable strategy possible, using only his mind, with as many or as few sizes as he likes. His strategy is then node-locked and counter-exploited by a solver, calculating the exploitability.

Do you think he would achieve the lowest exploitability using 1, 2, 4 or 8 sizes per node for this challenge?

I don't really see how this relates to the point. My point is if you use one size per node against Linus like players, the EV you lose from playing a suboptimal strategy will outweigh the EV you gained from being able to execute it close to perfectly. If you use a one size per node strategy against a common live 1/3 pool, the same wouldn't be true.

This is not a true statement. There are a ton of situations in which very good players simplify to one size on many nodes.

I agree with Zamadhi's posts and he is trying to illustrate the point that executing a simple strategy near perfectly outweighs executing a complicated strategy even slightly worse.

You can run your own sims and draw your own conclusions, but generally speaking adding complexity (especially more than just a couple reasonable sizings) has diminishing returns to the extent that it isn't worth adding the complexity. Again, generally speaking most good players are using pretty simple strategies where they are only using a max of two different sizings on a node. If they use more than that, then it is generally as an exploit.

From what I know, buttonclickr uses 1 size on the flop and turn (not sure about river tho).

I'd imagine river he has more, but that is a very good example of someone being an extremely good player and using only one sizing for flop/turn.

The reason why simplifcation early works better is because multiple lines can work well as long as you "land" them correctly on the river. On the river, you actually gotta land the plane

Can he get away with 1 size probe bet oop on the turn per node?

I feel naturally inclined to having a small and OB size there.

And is there any good poker streamer I could watch playing this style?

Thanks!

You probably can. That isn't something I've compared EVs in. I also use two probe sizings in a lot of the turn probe spots. This is also a node where you can play relatively exploitatively in vs. many players imo.

This thread appeared at the perfect time. It is much better to make suboptimal bet sizes where you actually can visually construct your ranges in your brain so you aren't leaving tells everywhere and making bad call downs/folds, because you don't know which hands you would have made that play with. Recently got into the bad habit of doing too many bet sizes on specific streets. In some ways it can be liberating, but it really started to affect my results negatively overall.

On another note, how much more EV does one gain from having a standard 3/4 pot turn bet sizing versus a standard 1.5x pot turn sizing? I was toying with the idea of joining the turn overbet club, but at the same time, it seems people overfold in general so I don't really see much benefit from going to 1.5x.

In many instances where you are utilizing a small bet sizing on flop--you gain a non-negligible (~1%) extra EV for also including a turn over bet instead of just another small size (75%). I would recommend including turn overbets in your strategy. You can just opt to either go into 75% or 150% depending on the board texture/turn card.