Yeah I agree. The 1/3 pot sizing was something I brought up in my original post that OP should have in his betting arsenal, especially on Bonition for other reasons, but that this board texture was not the time to bet that small.

Nothing is written in stone and it will be interesting to see if OP got any definitive strategy out of a sim or if it was more of a mix. But for an ace high board or two broadway board, I'm going bigger more often than not. Pulling numbers out of my butt, say like a frequency of betting large for a frequency of 65% of time, 1/3 pot with a 25% frequency and checking the rest.

You're trying to give your opponent a neutral EV spot with range, not specific hands types, and sometimes that means accounting for stuff that aren't draws but weak showdowns as well.

Technically that is not accurate, we're just trying to create a strategy that has the most EV, which often means taking a line that has the most EV, but not strictly true, which in turn, and be somewhat simplified to making their decisions with their range difficult, but that's not strictly true either. It's a reasonable simplification given you accept it's only a simplification.

You're getting close, but still have a long way to go ..

Please re-read the 2nd sentence of the quote. We should be targeting holdings that got through a 4b PF scenario, especially on a Board like this one. At this point of the hand I'm not really interested in waiting for an opponent to catch up. There's already enough chips in the pot for me against bottom range holdings .. I want to charge opponents an appropriate price that may pass on by me (or at least think they will if they improve).

Bet sizing 101 .. bet $1 more than a Player is willing to pay if you want them to fold and $1 less if you want them to call. GL

I don't think you read what I wrote, and honestly it's embarrassing.

I didn't say you're not supposed to make your opponent's decision neutral. I am saying you're supposed to make their RANGE neutral, not any specific hand or hand category. This means we should not be charging a combo draw if a combo draw is only a small % of their range.

If the optimal charging price of a combo draw is, let's say, 300% pot, and let's say the other hands have 0% equity (to simplify), then we would want to pot as long as the combo draw is more than 66%~ of their range. Again a simplification.

As such I am not saying that it's wrong to pot, only that the calculation is more complicated than "you need to bet an amount that a draw cannot call".

I read what you wrote .. and I like how you wrote it .. and perhaps we're beating down a well taken path, but ..

1) This is a 4 bet pot
2) This Board smashes what should be a 4 bet range
3) Charge accordingly .. and 3 to 1 on a call is not 'correct', it's -EV for the bettor IMO

I'm of the opinion that a limp/flat range is much different than a 4b range. And thus, the 'mean' (neutral point) range is also (drastically) different which means we should charge the narrower, most likely connected range a higher price to continue when we get a Board like this one. GL

My point there is independent of whether we should pot here. I just think people make a mistake of the thought process and therefore will apply this wrongly and pot in spots where a different sizing plan is better.

There are also a lot of situations where we want to mostly pot but have a small section of our range that goes 33% (often low equity hands with very good blockers, or super nutted hands with nut redraws).

I believe that solvers prefer a one sized approach and goes with something like 75% on these boards OOP the deeper it gets. This is less the case IP, but can still generally be applied. We generally like to use smaller sizings IP.

Okay moving on from that strategy construction point, and onto the actual hand.

This board is rainbow. Like, idk what to say, this is NOT a super wet board, where everyone definitely has a strong piece.

The equity graph in this spot is going to be non linear. That is to say: 3b/call ranges should have a ton of A567ds T976ds A776ds AK67ds type hands, all of which would fold to the smallest of bets, but then a section of very strong hands. When you have a board where a significant portion of your opponent's range just straight up folds to almost any bet, it makes a lot of sense for us to have a smaller bet size, especially when we also have a lot of those same hands that don't really want to pot. In general our range doesn't really want to think our opponent's range to.

We have a 4.5~ SPR. We most certainly would bet big less frequently deeper. A few looks at some mildly connected sims confirms this, though again they are extrapolations. These are general enough ideas, though, that I think it's fair to use as a trend.

Even if we did apply a mixed strategy, this is a hand still shouldn't pot, because we have top two as well as a draw that dominates/covers draw they can have. We want to make sure lower wraps continue, as well as naked draws that we crush. Those hands should be folding against a pot bet.

In fact, now that I think of it we don't have a polarity advantage. OOP should have way more sets than we do, especially if we 4b a lot of AA (solver likes to flat a lot of AA IP, so our range is even less nutted since AA heavy range has weak polarity on this board). Pretty sure SB should have a reasonably significant donk range here in fact. Again, because most players do not donk enough this spot, we should be betting even less, and use smaller sizings. You just generally don't want to bet big very much vs a range with polarity advantage.

Again, I am pretty sure solver quite likes a one size approach (GTO would actually split, of course, but the EV change of having multiple sizing is very limited, so it doesn't make sense to apply a split range). I'm pretty sure also that one size is most certainly not pot.


AND NOW!


Breaking out some old school live reg calculator tactics:

As you can see, almost double. SB almost certainly is supposed to have a significant donk range in this spot. If you filter and add in wraps, this will be true as well. I briefly checked and it is also the case (very similar freqs, couldn't be bothered to do forumla again).

We do not bet big, especially IP vs a range with polarity advantage, especially when both players have a jagged equity graph. That's... just how it is, I could expand on that but I think it should be fairly obvious. Also note that polarity is different at different stack depths. The deeper it is, the worse an AA heavy range does.

A waaaay simpler way of doing this is getting a 4b pot flop sim and finding the equity graph but I don't have a computer that can run this now. Also if we nodelock us to 4b all aces, that'd be more accurate. Admission here: I flat very few AA btn vs sb myself. Think it's generally a good strat, just saying this would change our frequency further against our polarity advantage.

Okay I am annoyed I did the wrong screencaps and sims, so:

And YES, the stack depth is way off, but it's still closer than anything anyone else put out there. I am sure you can use PLO trainer or your own sim to show your work, but I doubt it'd be hugely different. The point about AA heavy range still stands.

For reference, when 150bbs, we 4b 4.9%, whereas 100bbs we do 5%, and the ratio is 1.83:1 vs 1.91, a fairly minimal difference. Note also that we don't need a polarity advantage to start having a donk range, which further strengthens the strength of a non or low donk strategy, and again, the comment about flatting AA.

I've done all this math work here, so unless someone actually show some working or some reasonable extrapolations that disproves this, I don't wanna argue with "I feel" and "I think"s.

Okay, to stfu and actually post a reply to the OP's question:

I would suggest a strategy of splitting between 50% and 100%, with this hand making it into the 50%. a 33% and 75% or 33% and 100% split is also reasonable. If we go one size it'll likely be 50-66% range. If you do a 3 way split, something like 33% 66% and 100% is fine. I think in all these sims a very very small frequency will use the pot sizing, so I think I'd personally just use 50% as my single sizing.

Damn I quoted myself yesterday and today. I promise not to quote myself tomorrow. However, for the love of the High Stakes PL Omaha sub-forum and the TLDR crew (especially when the convoluted post and convoluted bet sizings kind of agrees with the other person), it appears my butt is good at estimates.

The above posts is some straight up convoluted stuff.

Let me start by saying, I must admit I'm on my 2nd margarita of a Thursday version of Taco Tuesday. But the way I'm reading this is that one person said, "bet bigger." And as far as I can tell that "bet bigger" never said bet 100% pot. I could be wrong, but I never saw it written as bet 100% pot, if anything I saw it written as bet bigger than 50% pot, like 67% pot. Pardon me not posting the quote, but post #20 says bet $240 into the $360 pot which is 67% pot.

But somehow, if I'm reading this correctly, another person is trying to attach the "bet bigger" with meaning betting 100% pot. And this other person primarily ran sims at 50% pot versus 100% pot and is going see see 50% pot is better. I'm laughing my ass off, but it might be because of the alcohol. What the hell kind of sim is 50% pot versus 100% pot in a situation like this? And more so since the first person was advocating 67% pot not 100% pot.

If you are running sims without 1/3 pot here as a choice, then you are doing it wrong. So the extreme choices are check, 1/3 pot and pot. A reasonable grouping is probably something like check, 1/3 pot, 2/3 pot (which the first person suggested) and pot.

But basing a novel on 50% pot versus 100% pot seems absurd, especially when no one suggested 100% pot as a bet size.

If I read all this wrong, I'm blaming it on the margaritas

Please stick to constructive feedback and strat conversation without playing silly games. Last warning.

There is a strategic reality of playing on Bonition that some might know because they don't play there. Bonition is full of short stackers. There is no rat-hole timer on Bonition. You can buy-in for 30bb, win a hand for some bb’s, leave the table and immediately buy-in to that same table for the 30bb minimum. I’ve seen players buy-in for the 30bb minimum, win a few bb’s and when they are on the button, if it isn’t a playable hand they leave the table and immediately rejoin for the table minimum in time for the big blind. They ratholed and made it back to the table without even missing a hand!

Since Bonition is a short stacker's paradise, to combat them you need to know their strategy. And because of the nature of a short stacker’s stack size, the most commonly used bet size on the flop for short stackers is ⅓ pot. Therefore, even though we are full stacking, the game is played with effective stacks on a hand and you will be using that ⅓ pot sized bet a lot. If you play on Bonition and if you do any type of studying of the game of poker, the strategic play is to have a ⅓ pot bet size included as an option in your game plan.

Let’s come up with a reasonable strategic way to play as the preflop aggressor on Bonition. Everything written below is to be taken as you are the preflop aggressor and deciding about cbetting on the flop. As I’ve already pointed out, if you are playing on Bonition and not using a ⅓ pot sizing, then you are doing it wrong. The ⅓ pot bet size as one of your betting options is non-negotiable if you play on Bonition. So you are the preflop aggressor, you are now on the flop and the betting has come around to you with no one betting in front of you. What sounds strategically reasonable as cbetting option?

Check
⅓ pot
⅔ pot
Pot

That is as simple and as complicated as most human players could handle. If you want to change the ⅔ pot to ½ pot or ¾ that is fine and still have 4 betting choices. But good luck having more than 4 betting choices and being able to implement it well. Here is a good time to point out that on any given board like a paired board or a mono-toned board or whatever, at any given time, the proper play for check, ⅓ pot, ⅔ pot or pot might have a frequency of 0%. But you play a hand and ask yourself as the cbettor should I check, ⅓ pot, ⅔ pot or pot. You play another hand and ask yourself as the cbettor should I check, ⅓ pot, ⅔ pot or pot. Rinse and repeat. Or before you even get to the poker tables, while you are studying you are running sims, where the strategically logical cbetting sims for playing on Bonition are check, ⅓ pot, ⅔ pot and pot.

Wow you have listed four fractions between 0 and 1

Calculate the short-stackers SPR on the turn after calling a 1/5 to 1/3 flop bet. What will it be? Then list cards 2-A that can come on turn and how you will proceed as a game tree.

(yes fractions get even smaller, and yes you don't have to do what everyone else is but interesting anecdotes and points on Ignition you shared).

You don't really seem to read posts just get excited. Since you are now advocating for 1/3 pot it appears under the excuse of "but short stackers' as opposed to understanding how it manipulates SPR

From post #3 dated the from the day this thread was made.

Advocating now?

This thread is almost a month old. I brought up having a 1/3 pot bet size in a Boniition player's arsenal on day one of this thread.

I don't know what the heck the rest of your post is talking about because it doesn't make much sense. People put time and energy into their decisions. And part of that time for many players today if so inclinded is to run sims. The question becomes what bet sizes to you to make it manageable, reasonable and logical. The extremes of cbetting decisions are checking and pot. What you do between that is up to preference and some reasonable logic. Between that check and pot, if you play on Bonition, is a reasonably logical use of middle bets of 1/3 pot and 2/3 pot.

I don't know if your, "advocating 1/3 pot" comment is limited to me saying it should be in your playbook of options or if you think I am saying it should be your decision on this play. I wouldn't bet 1/3 pot here, I would bet 2/3 pot here.

I play on Bonition. I know what the heck I'm talking about on this site. I know exactly the SPR in play. I'm not going to spoon feed everything to short stack play, therefore I'll use 50bb instead of 30bb. But The 50bb short stacker in a singly raised pot is going to end up on the flop with about an SPR of 6. And the play is 1/3 pot on flop, pot on turn and all in on river.

If it were a preflop 3-bet pot it would be an flop SPR of about 1.75 and be a 1/3 pot bet on flop and all in on turn. And it doesn't matter if it was the 50bb short stacker or you that was the preflop 2-bettor in a singly raised pot. Or if you were the 2 bettor or 3 bettor in a 3-bet pot. The bet size strategy is the same and...wait for it...uses a 1/3 pot bet size.

If you play on Bonition, then a 1/3 pot bet size is part of your strategy. it would be fool hardy to not run sims with a 1/3 pot bet as an option. And I said so about a month ago in this thread.

Preflop: Probably a punt to use KTJ9$ds to balance your Double-suited AAxx heavy 4-betting range (most AAxx call vs 3bet here, this deep). Looking at 200bb sims in the same spot, you mainly use slightly lower and better connected cards to give your range more board coverage on mid-low flops.

Hands such at T986$ds or QT98$ds can have some real benefit in your 4betting range, even this deep. They also retain more equity vs a 5-bet than KTJ9.

Anyhow, flop sizing, given the high SPR and holding position, I can see anything between 50% - 75%. I think your specific holding is a legit check-back. Few reasons:
- you don't give up that much equity, as his flop continuing range will be quite strong and have your draws dominated frequency (especially on backdoor flush runout)
- your check back range needs some coverage on straight completing cards, to help out the AAxx that check back

Just my 2 cents

Hope this helps, JN

so the verdict is in...



this combo is split 50/50 4B or call v 3b..


Flop is like everyone who said bet big..

monker actually prefers to mostly pot with this exact holding. i imagine because we only have 1 bdfd so there are less favorable turns?

Queen of spades
Jack of clubs
Three of diamonds

Queen of spades
Jack of diamonds (different from hand history?)
Three of hearts (diferrent from hand history?)

I'm a little bit color/gradient blind and the light gray and darker gray blend together. But it looks like your original hand history was different suits thereby making the Monker different but still accurate. So if I'm reading it correctly with the colors in the Monker we should be looking at the

Monker
KT hearts (red)
J9 clubs (light gray?)

So are Monker numbers are?
08.30% 2/3 pot
38.50% 3/4 pot
52.70% pot

So it is clearly "bet big." But if the choices were more limited for human usage to only using 2/3 or 3/4 then that one choice probably is close to a frequency of 50% and frequency of 50% for pot and would need a little bit longer to see which one is the better choice, but clearly "bet big" here is the right choice.

And to answer your question, yeah I'm thinking us having only 1backdoor flush draw and in no way blocking the other two suits on the board makes us want to bet bigger and pressure our opponent into folding some of his equity.

Also we have a 17 out straight draw, but only 11 nut outs. Damn I hope I counted that right. So since we only have 11 nut straight outs we benefit by betting bigger and getting our opponent to fold out some of his straight equity. If we get him to fold his non-nut straight draw that would have split the pot with us, then that is a huge win for us.

If any of that seemed confusing, I was answering thegibson "exact combo" question. The sim used different board suits, therefore the "exact combo" of the sim is different than the exact suits from the original hand history.

The Gibson's exact combo bets pot with a frequency of 52.70% to the whole sim at 55%. And the sim had 6 bet choices a human would have a hard time implementing. Now that you know that betting big is the answer, if you ran the sim again with less bet choices (most people aren't using 2/3 pot and 3/4 pot), pot doesn't stay at a frequency of 52.70%, the whole thing get recalculated based on bet options. This exact combo might be very close between

2/3 pot versus pot

or

3/4 pot versus pot

But either way, you bet big.

The board suits are irrelevant. Monker uses a bucket system so only the relevant suits are displayed.

The bdfd from the OP matches the 3 (which in the sims case is hearts) so my exact combo relevant to the sim is KhTh(J9 grey).

Which bets
2/3 8.3%
3/4 38.5%
Pot 52.7%

I believe your analysis is correct too. Denying chop equity etc..