Wondering if someone could give me some insight on new theory when it comes to these sizings. Generally I just 3! 3x the open. For CBs, I generally 1/3 or 1/2 pot depending on the board/opponant, etc. I have been doing fairly well with the above but I wonder if there is just a much better approach. I know it gets fairly complicated considering all the factors that go into the hand, so I guess a good question would be, when is it advisable to 3! 4x or higher, and when is it advisable to 1/4 pot or 2/3 pot CB?

3x'ing the open IP is fine, but I'd go a little bigger the deeper that you get. I wouldn't be 3x'ing OOP, though. I default to 5x OOP - in a vacuum we really don't want to be playing pots OOP, and you'll get more folds with 5x vs 4x.

As far as c betting goes, you can get away with range c betting 1/3 on every texture HU versus the population; obviously versus more competent opponents this isn't a good idea. If you're just playing 1/2 - 1/3, then you probably can versus every opponent. If you're playing 2/5 you can get away with it versus a majority of opponents. The idea is that they call way too wide pre flop and won't properly defend, so we print.

Now, you can also get away versus most opponents with 1/3 your bluffs and marginal hands, and betting a lot bigger with value. Almost no one will catch on.

This isn't theory at all. Live poker is so far in exploit land, that there's almost nothing theoretical about playing live.

Personally, I find all the nx stuff complete nonsense. The nx stuff all revolves around immediate odds and completely ignores stacks sizes; whereas a better strategy, imo, would completely revolve around stack sizes and IO. It's all about the IO you're offering, especially if you are likely to end up with a hand that just makes one pair, and even more so if you setup an SPR where your opponent can trivially get you to play for your stack postflop. Now if you're really deep (where you will always be playing a high SPR pot) or really short (where you will always be playing a very very small SPR pot) this won't be an issue (use whatever sizing strategy you want, it probably won't matter much). But a lot of the time (at least in the 1/3 NL games I play in) you'll be playing a stack size such that if you don't size things correctly you'll inadvertently get yourself in those spots where you offered too good of IO while also (sometimes uncomfortably) committing yourself.

For example, we're playing $360 stacks at 1/3 NL and someone opens to kinda lol $10. If we just by default 3x our 3bet that means $30. Which means our opponent will be getting IO of about 18.5:1, which ain't too bad considering the SPR will be 5.5 (where he can trivially make us play for stacks postflop which ain't great if we have a hand that typically just makes one pair). So instead, I would aim to offer poorish 8:1 IO (this is my own preference but you can aim for whatever IO you're willing to offer when likely committed postflop), and thus would 3bet to $55 or so. The whole notion of sizing (at least at these in-between stacks where we're going to create a commitable SPR) has nothing to do with nx and simply all to do with IO we're offering.

As for cbetting, most of my sizing revolves around commitment. In general, the less committed I am then the smaller I would be cbetting, whereas the more committed I am the larger I'm cbetting. Of course other factors like your opponent, your hand, the board, position, not turning your hand face up, etc. all have to be taken into account too, but commitment is the key factor for me.

Gjustmy2cents;othersmayhavedifferentopinionsG

Great posts so far, definitely gives support to the 4x and higher camp of things, especially the thing about IO.

On the ugly flip side of the IO argument that gg has put forth, you make it incredibly unlikely that your opponent continues with weaker hands OOP when you 3! to 5.5x, and you also make it unappealing to raise any part of your own range that isn’t nutted. So you end up becoming very face up to anyone with half a clue (which isn’t most live players admittedly). A smaller sizing makes it enticing for V to call with the weaker hands in his range (which you want), and also allows you to 3! far more hands (which you also want).
OOP is a different story for obvious reasons.
I vary my sizings depending on several factors.