Note: I don't play any NLHE. Only PLO / PLO8 and various limit games. I may be misapplying some PLO stuff to NL stuff.

Clarification: I still make smallish bets if flops are dry. But, I'd size a bit larger OOP than if I were IP given the same board texture. So really, I'm really trying to argue cbetting smaller when IP. the corollary would be to cbet bigger when OOP.

Solvers have shown that most players have been "doing it wrong" for years. (Although the old strat may well have been better exploitatively against weak opponents that called too much pre-flop, such that their flop ranges were also very weak).
It's actually very common (if counter-intuitive) for the GTO solution to involve betting big on dry flops, but small on wet boards. And optimal OOP c-bets are generally smaller than IP c-bets, and are made at significantly lower frequencies.

The reason is more complex than this.
PIO just focus a lot more on protecting hands. For exaple in the spot you mentioned if you force PIO to bet strong hands (only node locking those) PIO would end up with closer to 60% of a cbet.
The reason is simple it is hard to achieve reasonably high cbet without undercuting yourself where your checking range is so weak it is impossible for you to defend it. So while the EV of your bet increase a ton by high cbet your checking range is just getting destroyed( remember PIO play is 2 players that know each opther strategy and constantly adjust).

Remember when I was starting with PIO and was looking for OOP strategy the surprising thing was that in terms of EV OOP it was low cbet>high cbet>>>>what people are doing (betting strong hands and checking medium hands+top set/quads or something like this and their weak hands). Vs what people are still playing strategy PIO just overbets like crazy on every street.

Another tip is when you note lock IP play to raise less (e.g. to what people are playing when they still don't raise enough some dry boards etc.) suddenly PIO increase the betting frequency 2x or sth like that because the value of seeing another card for free (because you already bet) is substantial. People are still very bad at denying equity with raise (well I still remmeber when like 3 years ago people were saying you should only raise for value/for bluff if you can't you should call/fold and the mocking of "Raising for information" )

This. It is proven by solvers. To bet large with polar holdings is an exploit, reserved for specific fish.

Very good analysis. Thank you for posting.

Thanks for the post, learned a lot reading it was quite interesting.

The 1st bolded part your saying if you node lock hero's OOP strat to bet a polar range say TPTK+ and strong draws Pio changes it's sizing to favor 60% instead of a 33% sizing, am i understanding this correct?

Also in regards to the EV's of say a particular range like checking majority vs betting x% how do you figure it out which strategy is going to be the most profitable/+EV vs a particular villain, guess we node lock assumptions for villain hit the solve button and whichever one has higher EV is more profitable?

No you misunderstood me. Say you have a game tree in which PIO only bets like 20-25%of the time but you have a fair amount of nutted hands and a lot of the time stronger range (e.g. many Single raised spots OOP where Villain 3b the high cards so any Qxx,Kxx or Axx boards). If you node lock your strategy and force PIO to bet strong hands (all your top) suddenly the cbet PIO suggest will go all the way up to something like 60-70% of the time (assuming you are on EV advantage of course).

So basically I was referring to the frequency of the bet and not the bet size.

Whats even more interesing is that Vs that type of strategy PIO suggest IP to fold a lot more to cbets (sometimes like 60% or more) which is contrary to what most people do but PIO suggest to go berserk vs check and stab and then overbet like a ton.
You shold probably play a lot more aggro and bet a ton more when Villain check to you OOP and he is always betting his top....
In other words don't get to aggro on many boards vs high cbet guys but go nuts when they check to you

The rule of thumb is that we look first who is at EV advantage. I mean if we are at big EV advantage e.g. Kxxr boards for the most part or A52r or something like this and we are on the CO and we play vs BTN it makes no sense for us to Check because Firstly he is not going to bet like crazy in this spot, 2ndly we want to bet a ton of our value and best bluffs to put a ton of pressure on the Villain.

Another Rule of thumb I like to use when looking at OOP play is node locking IP raising range to what the pool play. For example being guaranteed to see the Turn on many boards where the pool doesn't raise cbet enough or just very litle PIO will cbet super high frequency doesn't matter the sizing.

So basically you should look first what Villain raise cbet frequency and make decision based on that.

Do you know if these also apply to PLO?

Thanks, when you talk about EV advantage you mean nut combo advantage right like we'll have more nutted combos then villain on a particular texture given positions?

So we do more checking esp OOP as the board texture becomes wetter/more draw heavy so something like 872tt solvers prolly advocate a higher xing frequency OOP then A25r/K56r? And obviously boards like 5d6d9s EP vs LP we x range etc.

Frankly speaking high cbet OOP is an exception not a rule and is based mostly on exactly this say QTJr OOP when we don't give IP any AKo combo (because we assume he 3 bets them) PIO will go berserk and cbet close to range knowing Villain has no nut hand while we have plenty.

Just to give you another example I evaluated myself recently AKJtt There is a dramatic shift in cbet frequency when you give or not Villain QTs into CC range.

Still you shouldn't think about high cbet OOP as a default but treat it as an exception. Going with high frequency cbet should be only the rule when you play vs someone without ability to punish you (low raise cbet and low stab when X to him).

You shold also think about it in terms of defening your range e.g. how aggresively Villain can raise say on 986tt before you have to start defend say AA or something like this and the answer is **** ton and it gets next to impossible to defend (he has a ton of hands with 50%+ equity against our AA )


When you go with high cbet for example you know Villain is not raising flops aggresively and call some nut combo too you should start to Check Turn a ton more. I mean when working with PIO when noding Villain not to raise my cbet (A52r is a good example where I literally never see a raise from regs even with sets) PIO is going to start to cbet flop like 70%+ of the time and then Checking Turn majority if not most of the time (between 20 and 50% 2nd barrel with average being sth like 30%)

I'm afraid I know next to nothing about PLO strategy (I don't have any idea what a "standard" c-bet frequency is in PLO), but I always presumed the concepts/strategies are similar. e.g. don't bet a lot OOP when you're gonna get raised or floated by high equity hands that punish you on the turn.

Thanks again, yeah having nut combos are very important in basically every situation.

Well whenever i try to use software/solver for these scenarios like you mentioned a GTO solution and then a solution where villain deviates and then run the solver, i can't tell the difference in the EV's like i always get some weird EV # that doesn't make any sense.

Do you think you could post a few pictures to highlight how the EV of betting & checking ranges change when villain deviates?

I am sorry but I already posted a lot and this is just too much of work especially that posting just screenshot won't realy help you. OOP it won't be that super obvious but the most glaring it is going to be in 3b pots to give you an example in 3b pot BTN vs CO when BTN 3b and cbet 1/3 pot (0.33%) sizinng PIO encourage OOP to x/r 20%-30% and sometimes more and there are spots were PIO has almost no calling range only raise or fold.
It is because letting BTN bet and being guaranteed to see T and R unpunished is that terrible for OOP situation.
When OOP bets it is not that drastic but very simmilar. I mean not being punished by aggro raising should encourage you to bet more.
The smaller your sizing the more PIO is going to raise (there are exceptions but thats the rule) to not let you gain EV by seing another card cheap (-ish)

I am sorry that I can't post more but I am just super busy and focused on grinding,diet,working with PIO and other stuff to improve my game and just not really in the mood to make a ton of answer to strategic question . Hope you will not take it personal but I am just not going to post here too much. Just to busy and making post like that takes a lot of mental effort I would rather spend on things that improve my own game.

So I am really sorry but I am not going to post more here in this thread.

You've already done your share imo. Thanks.

I think the big takeaway is this:

On boards that the opponent should raise, if they don't raise enough then we should cbet at a higher frequency.

Thank you man i really do appreciate all your posts seriously.

Question on using Pio: do you just have to guess and check sizings, and see what size yields the best ev?

Sizing doesn't change EV very much in most situations