Ok so just recently ive been experimenting with creating ranges with different bet sizes implemented. For example I am currently doing flop Q72 and im RFI in CO vs BB scenario.

My initial assessment is that betting at a high freq is often right here because we have the stronger range on this flop(assuming BB 3bet his premiums AA,KK,QQ,AQ). Most of villains continuing range(depending on bet size) will have 7x weaker Qx, FD and some PP. Villains strongest hands here are 77 and 22.

So my first reaction is to have two bet sizes .75 PSB and around .33 to.4 PSB.
So when constructing these it seems to make sense to put some of the strongest hands in the larger bet size since that range does better vs a stronger continuing range(because of larger bet size). All though i decide to put QQ in smaller bet range because of removal effect. Now does this thought process make sense??? Now i add this with some specific FD and some BDFD combos and i think i am about finished with this range.

Now I am trying to construct the smaller betting range. I usually will use some of the weaker Qx(Q10,Q9s,Q8s) hands here as a c/b so my checking range IP will not be too weak but it seems that i can also choose to bet really small with these hands since i need some TP hands for the small bet sizing,also allowing us to bet at a aggressive freq altogether. The weaker Qx seem to do well vs the BB continuing range, since i assume it should be wider than usual because of the bet size. Does this thought process sound correct and if not what are the flaws in it??

I could write more on my thoughts but dont want to overload this thread
ANY HELP IS APPRECIATED

SPADEZ

Range-splitting is too complicated and confusing for me, but I don't use a solver. I'd rather pick a medium size for my entire range, and just build one bet-size strategy for each flop I study.
In game, I might randomly go large or small with a particular combo, but I don't think this particular board is one where your strategy gains significant EV by using 2 or more sizes. (I can't be sure though. I haven't looked at a "solution"). You could build a good strat that bets pot at a low frequency (and has a lot of check backs) or you could build one that bets small at a high frequency (including just about every Qx), or anything in between really. As long as you're not potting it with hands that really don't do well if the pot gets big, and you're not checking back the nuts like a fish, you've got a lot of freedom with this spot. There are likely a lot of mixed strategies, so just about everything you do will be "correct" at some frequency. e.g. Sometimes bet Q9dd for 2/3 pot, sometimes check it back, sometimes bet 1/3 pot etc.

Theory question:

If you build a balanced strategy for one bet size, what purpose is served by a second bet size?

What is the purpose of your bet? One size or the other will accomplish your intended result more often than the other.

My intended thought is that if i create a range that i can bet small is that i can be betting at a higher freq. Alot of hands that i initially consider as c/b hands. Weak Qx, hands like 88 and 99 and hands that i wouldnt normally bluff like a 98dd or J9hh might be able to bet small here and force the bb to make difficult decisions with some of his range.

The purpose with the bigger bet size is to build the pot so that when villain calls vs a larger bet size(which should be a stronger flatting range), I feel like the hands that are in that range do very well vs their continuing range.

Thats just my thought process here. I have barely been experimenting but i assume some flops will do better with just one bet size and having a strong c/b range.

Oh, I see now. Thanks for clarification.

I see the difficulty since you will need to have some strong hands to balance the smaller size so it is not always weak, but you need these hands in the larger sizing because you want to build the larger pot with the best hands.

Hmmmm.

Obviously the most important factor is the size of the two bets in the strategy.

I think possibly making the larger size full pot will help you find ways to mix the two ranges randomly. With a larger polar size, you can randomly select the top value and top draws from the range of the smaller sizing, use these to build large pots, and never be exploited.

If the two sizings are closer together, such as .4 and .75 pot, then it becomes too hard to decide which combos go where and how often, unless you intend to memorize ranges over several dozen example flops.

There's a modicum of additional EV to be gained by having multiple bet-sizes in each spot, since some combos would do better with one size than another.
A common example comes up in short-stack situations in SNGs/tourneys. There are spots where it might be profitable to open jam over 50% of hands, expecting to get a fold, but if you have aces or kings you don't want to get a fold. You'd generate more EV with your best hands by limping or minraising to induce a shove. If you're minraising some monsters to try and get action, you'd also need to minraise-fold some hands, while others (e.g. small pairs) might do best by open jamming. Hence the best short-stack strategy is one that features open shoves, limps and minraises. (3 different bet-sizes). Cash games with deep stacks are much more complicated, because the shoving option isn't there, but it stands to reason that some hands play better in bloated pots, while others do better in medium or small pots, so there may be slight EV gains by c-betting 4.5bb with some hands and 2bb with others.

The problem is that each bet-sizing range needs to be "balanced" appropriately, which means some/many combos might need to be in every bet-size range, in order that each bucket isn't face up and exploitable. e.g. If you always went big with your nutted hands on Q72, then villain would know you are capped/weak when you bet small, so to avoid exploitation you'd have to use that smaller size for stronger hands sometimes too. If you're using multiple sizes, and mixed strategies, it's incredibly difficult to compute - let alone remember - the optimal frequencies.
I mean, hero in CO has about 300 combos on Q72tt. I'd be more concerned with working out which combos should generally be bets and which should generally be check backs, instead of trying to calculate how often to bet large and how often to bet small with each of those 300 combos. (I can't store 600 numbers in my brain for every possible flop!). Giving yourself two sizing options doubles the immediate complexity of the game tree and presumably doubles your chance of making a mistake. :/
I could be wrong, as I haven't looked at solvers to see how much the sizing can alter the EV of each combo, but I don't think it's really necessary to study range-splitting in depth unless you're playing in extremely tough games, where every fraction of a bb is important.

Excellent point, it does make the game more complicated and it might not make too much of a difference unless playing vs tough competition. I am still in microstakes so might not be applicable...yet.In theory i feel like it makes sense.
Thanks for all the input

spadez

I definitely see your point it in splitting the sizes more. It should help create a more baseline idea of which hands go where and should help to memorize some of them.