This is actually why I think small c-bets are so efficient at 1/3 (and 2/5). Population tendencies overall are fit-or-fold so people tend to *overfold* hands like 2 overs.

On a board like 772r, a small c-bet is great for my whole range.

I find it interesting that you say that, as it is the opposite of my experience. I find population tendencies at 1/3 to be overcalling, not overfolding, especially on paired flops. Where do you play that you note most players to be fit-or-fold?

Here's an example from my 1/3 NL session last night for us all to laugh at / pick apart regarding small postflop bets.

There's a limp and then the most active guy at the table raises to $13; his range is super wide. I have the nittiest of nit images (and he is extremely aware of this) and I 3bet to $40 with KQo in LP. I'm actually not a fan of 3betting light in my game, but this one is *almost* for pure value and the rest of the table is tight enough where I expect to get this thru enough of the time or perhaps fold out A high on a cbet.

He eventually calls ("OMG, you finally woke up with a hand! Man, you're the one guy I shouldn't be calling here. I call.") and we're HU in position in a ~$85 pot to a 865r flop. He checks, and I cbet just $25 (< 1/3 PSB).

My thinking is that he's not going to float overcards OOP to me and will fold dominating Ax hands pretty much to any "reasonable" bet (which $25 is, although it's obviously pushing the small end boundary). But he's pretty loose, and if he's made a pair on this board then he likely has a draw to go with it, so he's not folding those to any cbet. So I limit my damage when way way way behind and meanwhile if he has just a pair I give myself turn options. I can think of double barreling with my great nit image. Otherwise I can simply take my free card UI if I desire, and I gave myself 4+:1 to do so (more than I need to chase my overcards to the river for free).

He folds, and it's likely the case he had a big Ax.

I'm just not sure I see the benefit of going the "standard" 2/3 PSB cbet here when 1/3 PSB gets the exact same thing accomplished for a far better price.

Gbut,that'sjusthowIseethings;otherscandisagreeG

This is my experience at most east coast games I play in.

1/3 players overcall w/ pairs and draws but overfold high cards. Basically I rarely see people float w/ just two overs. Some specific players do, so I don't bother c-betting against them.

Downbetting on your bluffs as an exploitative adjustment is not only completely understandable but also was part of the original COTM on bet sizing (that's about 8 years old now).

I'm interested in the idea that if we are going to pick one sizing for our whole range, that it is OK that this sizing be small enough that we are not extracting value with our value hands.

As I'm sure you already know GG, downbetting with bluffs and betting big with our value hands is extremely transparent. Though I guess that works for you if people aren't cognizant of that.

Yeah, obviously the more aware your opponents are the more this will be a problem.

But one thing to always be able to add to the mix is stack size / commitment, and hopefully that is enough to throw people off the scent. Like if I have an overpair I'll play (and bet) totally different in an SPR 3 pot than I will an SPR 12 pot. And I'll commit a lot sooner / bigger SPR against the loose fish than the tight nit. And plus I'm just one of 9 opponents (who are possibly rotating from table to table) which the villain is trying to get a handle on. It's not a straightforward task, but yeah, the better they are the more they'll get a handle on things.

GcluelessbetsizingnoobG

This is probably going to sound rude, but this is not the right approach.

Your bet frequency and sizing should be based on the strength of your range vs your opponent's range, not based on figuring out implied odds with your exact hand. Also I can't think of a worse example to illustrate overbetting (there is no way you can possibly have a reasonable range for betting that size), but congrats on coolering someone with a hand that was going to gii vs any action.

Since I’m just getting back into NLH after a 5ish year off period I’ve been studying a lot of the recent trends. Down betting seems to be one that either 1) I’m miss applying or 2) most other people are miss applying. So that being said here are my thoughts and please let me know if these are correct or not.



Keep in mind my thoughts are framed around low steaks live games. Things might be different at 5/10 and up.



What is down betting?
Down betting is when we be the flop much smaller than a standard c-bet. Example we 3b to $30 in and see a flop HU. The pot is $60 and we elect to bet $15-$20.



Why do we down bet?

Down betting is a form of “volume betting.” This meaning that we down bet with the intent of betting like this on an extremely high percentage of boards. Boards that we’d normally check back because villain has a range advantage we would consider down betting, but we’d also be doing it on boards where we have a range advantage. In down betting the name of the game is volume.

The benefits to down betting are it provides us an extremely cheap bluff price. If we can put pressure on an opponent to fold for $20 in a $60 pot, why would we want to risk $40 if the result is the same.

Also with thinking opponents they likely know that we will do this at a very high frequency, so they should call/raise at a higher frequency. Thus when they do call we have kept their range wider, and assuming we have a range advantage that is good news for us. Example we 3b AK on BTN to $30 and get 1 caller. Flop comes T52r and we get checked to. If we know betting $40 will only get called by KT+, but betting $20 we get called by 66+ maybe even 33 and 44. What this does for us is villain has many more weaker hands in his range, so it allows us to get more folds when we do elect to fire a 2nd barrel. Now if we had AA in this spot we are getting keeping villains range wide so we can get value from more hands that we beat.



When should we down bet?
To me this one seems to be drastically misunderstood. Given the intent of down betting is to 1 get a cheap price on our bluffs and 2 keep villains range wider when they do continue, we should NOT be down betting in multi way pots. Ok, I’m sure someone could put together a scenario where it’s best to down bet a 3 or 4 way pot, but in general this is a bad idea. Down betting should remain an option only (ok 99% of the time) in HU situations. Another thing to note is that down betting is best when SPR allows you to make a down bet and still put pressure on villains entire stack (ie villain knows that facing 2 more normal sized bets all of the chips will go in). This is almost always the case in 3b pots, unless stacks are uber deep. That being said it is still possible in single raised pots when stacks are shallower. Example $1/2 game with $200 effective. You make it $20 and get 1 caller. You get checked to on the flop and you bet $15, so if villain calls the pot will be $70 and he will have $165 behind, so back to back 2/3-ish pot sized bets will still get stacks in here ($45 on turn pot is now $160 and he has $120 behind).

Lastly around when, position. Does being IP/OOP matter? Like in every other decision in poker, yes position is important. When do you want your opponents range to be wider when you are 1st to act or 2nd to act? Obviously you want villain to have a narrower range when you are OOP and wider range when you are IP. Playing against a narrow range is a lot easier and you want your life to be easy OOP. So given what the intent of down betting is, should we be frequently down betting OOP? No probably not at low steaks.



What villain types should we downbeat against?

Down betting has many benefits that I listed above. That being said we probably shouldn’t do it against everyone. Down betting can be very effective against passive villains. The tight passive ones will likely fold too much giving us a super good price on our bluffs and the loose passive ones we are allowing them to keep their trash in their hands because they feel we are giving them a good price. Keep in mind the looser opponents we might need to fire on good turns for our range to get them off some of that “trash” we “priced” them into calling our flop bet with. Against more aggressive opponents sometimes down betting can lead them to sense weakness and raise. If our villain is a good aggressive player they might realize this isn’t a “weak” bet as we should be making it with pretty much our entire range, but some bad agro players will assume weakness and play back lighter. So keep this in mind when you decide who you are down betting against.



Other times to not down bet.
So I’ve mentioned some above, like being OOP, multi way or against a dumb agro player. Again keep in mind these are general situations and I’m sure you can create situations that lie outside of these generalizations so take with a grain of salt. Outside of those if you don’t like firing multiple barrels don’t start down betting, your opponent is going to continue lighter so you are going to be forced to 2 barrel bluff more often when good turns come. Don’t only down bet good hands and not your bluffs, or vice versa. Sure you might be able to get away with this for players not paying attention, but in my experience people pay more attention to bet sizing “tells” than it appears especially when it’s an “odd” bet size they don’t normally see.



The last thought I have is just a general concept. Given that down betting is intended to allow us to increase the volume of our c-bets we need to understand it’s not going to work all the time. You have to be willing to give up on the hand, just as much as you are willing to fire 2 and 3 barrels. You need to understand your profits from down betting come from quantity not quality. This is profitable because of the frequency at which you can do it, not the frequency that it is successful. So if you are comparing down betting to checking you are going to have to give up after putting MORE money in the pot way more often when you are down betting. So if you aren’t comfortable with that I’d recommend not down betting.



So are my thoughts in line with everyone else or am I just some rambling crazy man?

Your thoughts are pretty solid. Honestly a very good write up. You are also a crazy rambling man.

I'd have to think more about oop vs ip sizing, I'm not sure that's correct. I guess it makes sense but I'd be curious to hear from one of the solver guys.

I'd disagree with downbetting being bad multiway. But its almost a different topic at that point. Its not really downbetting in the same sense of what we are doing when betting 1/3 hu in a 3b pot. I'm not sure of the exact reasons why small sizings work well mw, but they do.

I'll spend some time to read the whole thing later, but my 2 cents:

I don't think there is any difference in calling frequency to any "reasonable" bet. Since I believe this (and not everyone does, so it can be a sticking point), I mostly aim my bet sizes to accomplish what I want to do. So if I want a big pot / aiming to stack off UI, I do a "big" bet. And if I want a small pot / not aiming to stack off UI, I do a "small" bet. Of course I might have to try to switch things up against more knowledgeable / aware / hand reading opponents, but overall my average bet in the two cases should be end up being big vs small.

GcluelesssmallbettingnoobG

Your thoughts seem to make sense but I will also put a vote in for rambling.

One you thing you did miss because you have been out of the game is that much of the down betting is not part of a thought out cash game plan. It's tournament players bringing over their tournament strategy without thinking about how it should change in a no limit cash game.

Down betting works better in a tournament because small bets have more FE. In a tournament you can't afford to dither off your chips floating, bluffing, calling with garbage made hands or chasing bad draws. And as the bettor you are more committed with one pair and just need to trust that your TPTK hands will hold up if you give opponents better odds.

The tournament players bring this over to cash games and make badly timed down bets.

There does tend to be more scared money in tournaments than in cash games, hence downbetting as part of a bluffing strategy being more effective. The obvious correct adjustment is to call and raise these bets with a wider range, but few are capable of it.
Like QuadJ said, they're afraid to dither away chips floating and chasing. But getting run over by small bets isn't any better.

Downbetting is definitely part of a lot of GTO poker styles. Although this style of play is mostly self focused on your own range, ensuring you stay properly balanced with the bluffs, value bets, and calls you are making given your range and price. At low stakes I still think a lot of the older logic of focusing on your opponents range and betting sizes that get them to do what you want them to do given their likely range is best. We don't have to worry as much about being exploitable because are opponents are simply not good enough to take advantage.

That means I'm usually downbetting when I think my opponent is very weak. Either I want to bluff them and don't need to risk much, or I want a call, but have to bet small to get one. I'm not necessarily trying to increase my bluff frequency from a theory point. If I think I need to bet bigger to get a bluff through, I will. It's still very situational poker given my opponents tendencies, but I do think conventional logic of 1/2pot+ bets is too rigid, and downbetting makes a lot of sense regardless of your approach to the game.

Bobby Hoff talked about a similar concept in Harrington's books on cash games. Players just fold for a small bet because they get tired of paying you off. I'm reminded that mpethybridge reported in his massive database years ago that the success rate of cbets was almost a constant 47%, no matter what the level of stakes, ranging from 5nl to nosebleed. Without going completely overboard, cbetting more frequently with less is going to be just about printing money.

The key in my mind is that you need to do it consistently. As soon as you start only doing it when you're bluffing or just on dry boards, even mediocre players are going to pick up on your tendencies. It is also going to work better with a sLAG to LAG style of play. TAGs just aren't going to have the ratio of lighter hands that are going to benefit from getting cheaper folds.

Thanks El Barbero! Appreciate you explaining this in such detail.

I'm going to disagree with this particular sentence. Most mediocre to avg players never pick up on that stuff. They just play their own hands.

Don't take it as the gospel. As with everything else in poker it is situation dependant. These are just the things I think about to determine what situations are good for down betting.

I merged this in to the recent COTM on betsizing, as we'd been looking for some discussion of down betting ITT. Thanks for getting that conversation going.

I have a contribution that I've never seen mentioned in this forum. This is something I've learned studying game theory. It is talked about a little in Applications, but the formula isn't in the book. This betting strategy works on the river against villains who defend at MDF and won't raise with worse hands (if they don't defend at MDF they can be exploited by over-bluffing, with some exceptions). Of course, for exceptionally strong hands it may not hold, because villain may raise worse value hands against a smaller sizing. It might not make sense to bet 4x pot with a hand that is best 98% of the time. It also might make sense to exploitatively bet 4x pot with a hand that is only good 90% of the time, but never bluff for that sizing. This formula is just for the best balanced sizing.

The formula is derived by finding the local maximum of the EV function and using MDF as the opponent's defense strategy. f(x) is the fraction of pot we should bet as a function of 'x', the frequency we're behind against villain's river range.

f(x) = 1/sqrt(2x)-1

It might be counterintuitive to many that we should actually bet a different size with each hand in our range, balanced with bluffs. Of course removal effects can change the answer a bit, but this is still practically useful.

After duking it out in the online streets and then trying out some live games, noticed that no one ever overbets, which is definitely something that I tend to do and think is part of a good strategy.

Those who overbet in low stakrs live games, what are the tendancies of players? Do people overfold like they do in low stakes online?

That's a pretty generic question that depends on a ton of factors, so I merged it with our COTM on bet-sizing.

Generally, I use flop overbets to build a pot when people see the number as "small," even though it is an overbet. People overcall, not overfold.

+1

I see people over calling more than over folding.

Example just last night I shoved $135 into $115 on the river on a K8754 board with 54 and got hero called by TT.

But it's villain dependant. I did it because I felt it really polarized my range in villains eyes and I thought he could find a call. Against other villians this is a massive spew because they are over folding here.

I know this is an old post, but thought I would chime in for anyone reading it later. This type of bet generally happens when the following situation occurs:

1. We have a range advantage throughout the ranges
2. We have lots of marginal hands in our range
3. We can get hands with equity to fold with our marginal hands

Classic example is K72r BTN vs BB. Both ranges are extremely wide with lots of trash, but BTN's range has an advantage at the very top (KK) and the way down to the bottom. The bulk of our advantage comes from hands like 88-QQ that the opponent would have 3 bet preflop (this changes in low stakes live games, but we will get to that).

You can see here that the green line (BTN) has a big equity advantage from around the 80-70% mark and this is from these types of underpairs on this board.

If we have a hand like 99 and we bet small and get a hand with lots of equity, like QTo to fold, that is a win. If we doesn't win, we have at least denied him the equity of seeing a free turn card.

When we have a lot of marginal hands in our range, like these underpairs, it doesn't make sense to size up, because we isolate ourselves vs the nutted part of villain's range. It also sucks to check back a hand like 99 that is vulnerable and hates nearly every turn card, so betting to deny equity makes a lot of sense.

The main line on these boards is to bet our entire range small on the flop and really polarize most turn cards by playing an overbet or check strategy. We check some hands like weak top pairs and underpairs, along with a lot of trash. We overbet our best hands, even as weak as something like KT at some frequency. Depending on the runout, we sometimes keep polarizing our bet value hands by jamming river or we size down some with our hands that are still beating most of villain's range, but aren't the nuts.

That's the theory, now let's get to practice. In practice, especially at low stakes live games where no one knows what we are doing, we can size up with our value and bet smaller with our marginal hands and bluffs. Villains don't XR enough, so we need to bet bigger with our made hands that don't block villain's continues, like AA and some bottom sets. When we have a marginal hand or a bluff and we bet small, we get to overbet lots of turn cards and put villains in a tough spot, since they started with a very wide range and likely didn't fold much of it to the small bet.

Also, the equity advantages change quite a bit when villains don't 3b enough, but at the same time, they are probably calling way too wide preflop, so this increases our equity advantage, so they sort of cancel each other out.

You discussed some of the issues with transferring that theory to LLSNL (such as Vs under 3-betting), but I think you're still missing some massive ones. The biggest of these is that your "classic example" almost never happens in LLSNL. I can't remember the last time I saw a hand go HU BTN vs BB where everyone folded to BTN, BTN opened, and BB defended. LLSNL is more like 2 limps to BTN who raises, BB cold-calls, at least one of the limpers calls.

Another is that a call of a small bet OTF doesn't really define V's range at all, at least on a board like that in your example.

Multiway dynamics will force you to bet smaller in most spots post flop, not bigger, and your betting frequency goes way down. Your equity share goes way down as more people enter the pot. Betting bigger just strengthens their ranges even more multiway. In your example, lets say HJ and CO Limp, we raise BTN and BB calls. Now when it checks to us and we bet, the BB has to consider the fact that two players are left to act and will be playing much tighter than a heads up situation. The defense vs your cbet is now shared by 3 players instead of 1.

Also, the EV of your lower equity bluffs goes way down, as now you are betting to get multiple people to fold, which won't happen that often.

Again, this is all theory. You need to know the theory before you exploit. Vs most low stakes live players, again, you can just size up when you have it and bluff smaller (or not at all vs 3 additional players).