One example of this situation pops up in a recent "Poker guys" video at the 26:40 mark when Ehsan picks up 55 and gets 3bet by Dan with AQs and the board comes 223r. I'm not too interested in the particular hand/the way it was played more like spots like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw5Yu71KQso

I'm talking about spots where the 3better has a clear range advantage and the board is extremely static which again favors the 3better after the caller has capped his range. In this spot the 3better is in position but we just also consider situations where where there's a UTG raise vs. B call on a 222 board. Lets consider Dan's situation for a moment.

So, a few questions:

- Usually I'd be going for a small size as the 3better on such a static board, but with hands like AK and AQ if we get called we're likely not good and need to consider turning our hand into a bluff.

-If the run out just doesn't change anything (lets say another 2 on a 223 board) how are we selecting which combos of overs to bluff with?

Alternatively, we could just go for a large sizing on a 223 flop and put the caller's entire range in a not fun spot.... This approach intuitively doesn't seem too bad for me but it seems to run counter to theory which seems to prefer small bets in this situation.

Anyways, what's your approach to this hand or situations like this?

Stuff that likely blocks the top of villain's flatting range and/or the most significant parts of his showdown bound range.


I would be curious what theory you're referring to that says this.

I think most experienced players prefer smaller sizings here because opponents tend to way under defend to a smaller sizing so it's an exploitive adjustment not necessarily theory.

If anything I have heard solvers prefer much larger sizings on flops where they have a significant range advantage, especially early in the hand. Your opponent is forced to defend in spots and pay maximum to your value bets. Plus you can fit more bluffs in with a larger sizing.

> I would be curious what theory you're referring to that says this.

https://upswingpoker.com/bet-size-strategy-tips-rules/

I've been reading poker theory for a while and quite typically the theory that I read instructs around 1/3 or maybe 1/2 pot bet size on dry, static boards like this one or, say. A72r.

That's an "exploitative" adjustment that has worked in real life for years, but in some spots, solvers suggest doing the exact opposite. i.e. They sometimes go large on static boards, but small on dynamic boards.

E.g. An example from Snowie. SB 3-bets vs a BTN open, and BTN calls. Flop comes 522r. Snowie wants to pot it with 94% of its range. Since SB has all the best overpairs, it wants to get max value with those, whilst also leveraging huge amounts of fold equity with its airballs. It's really hard for BTN to call a large bet with AJ or 87s on 522r, when it could just be paying off QQ+.