One thing I've been thinking about is mixing in overbets into my game besides just overbetting value against whales. I don't know how people react to it exploitatively so I was looking at spots where Pio chooses to overbet to get an idea of what is theoretically sound.

This could be a terrible idea on my part but my logic is that we can identify spots where we have a stronger range than our opponents and with our solid overbet strategy they will find themselves in unusual and uncomfortable spots and make too many mistakes.

Here would be one hypothetical example:

1/3 Live

Hero is the effective stack with $400

Hero opens a tight range from LJ to $12, a seemingly standard loose passive type rec calls in late position.

Flop: AhTs6s

Pot: $26

Hero continues for $20 villain calls.

Pot: $63

Turn: offsuit 3

Thoughts on betting 1.5-2x pot on the turn with a range of most TT+ATs+AK and 1/3 combos of KQo (preferably with one spade) QJs,KJs?

Probably like the play a little bit more if he limp called and we are IP.

What are the arguments for or against it? If you think they overfold we can adjust to add more bluffs and if they overcall we can adjust to add more value.

Avarita likes doing this kind of stuff and I like it as a strategy. I like the overall thought process of polarizing yourself on the turn when V is very unlikely to have a strong hand.

Just a couple thoughts.

Be careful when interpreting pio results. Remember it assumes your opponent is also playing GTO which in reality is usually super far from the case. So don't take the results as verbatim gospel. Use it for general guidance.

If villain is likely to be weak you don't need to bet that big. Like when I'm using a polarized range my sizings are smaller because my bluffs are just targetting the trash and I want value with my value range.

I used overbets often for a long time and haven't found it as profitable compared to other strategies. My experience being that I didn't get paid off often enough to make up for the times my bluffs got picked off. Outside of using it vs whales that don't adjust I don't really see that much merit to it especially if my opponents are good.

Typically you want to overbet in spots where you are polarized and/or have a range disadvantage, since you either want max value or max fold equity. The HH in the OP seems a bad one to overbet on, since we have a range advantage on it, with lots of medium strength value hands.

Some other situations where i might choose to overbet:
- I have the nuts but villain has a strong overall range, or a polarized one.
- i have a polarized range that is weighted towards bluffs.
- equity denial in chop pot situations like a AKQJT board where i have the A.
- Hyper exploitative spots where my opponent just calls no matter how much i bet. (or is money scared enough to make random herofolds).


Random HH from last night:
I pfr from MP with AJs, calling station flats BTN, i bet/bet/overbet on A922K rainbow.
(I have AA/KK/AK/99, he has mostly Ax which now has to call 1.5x pot in the hopes to chop).

How are you going to know the villain is weak? In your example he called a standard raise and then called a standard Cbet. There's no reason at all to believe he's weak. Rec players can easily have TT/66/AK/AQ/AJ/AT...and of course other weak aces, gutshots..ect.

The short answer is you are right, I won’t.

I understand that he’s not capped but I wouldn’t be doing this with my entire value range and with every bluff. I would stick to doing it with the top of my value range other than most AA and a few bluffs.

Sure we get our AK trapped against AT or 66 every now and then but overall my range is way ahead of his on this texture and betting large seems to me like a way to capitalize on this advantage. Even if he traps his big hands he still has way more weak Ax than I do, dominated flush draws, more Tx, and more gutshots.

Betting more when you have a range disadvantage seems counterintuitive. Do you remember where you read that or the rationale?

^Not sure where i got it from, probably some RIO video, but the general thinking behind it is:

- Hero has some strong hands that can get called when we overbet
- Hero has a relatively high % of bluffs that benefit from fold equity.
- Villain has some strong hands that can call our valuebets
- Villain has a higher % of medium strength hands that would call a smaller bet, but might fold now.

Just overbet turns for value in ordinary 1/3 games when the majority of your opponent's range will be air on the river.

Exploitative river overbetting will be 100% value in spots where you identify the majority of your opponent's range will be strong made hands.

Count the # combo's f TT/66/AK/AQ/AJ/AT vs the combo's of weak Ax, Tx, gutshots. On average, villain is gonna have a fairly poor hand.

So, on average, we shouldn't have to bet big to make him fold. Most villains will fold the weaker part of their range in this spot vs any sizeable 2nd barrel. So perhaps we can size up somewhat with our bluffs vs our value sizing, but there is definitely no particular reason to overbet in this spot imo.

That's my point.

I use overbets all the time in river spots. We generally shouldn't be overbetting flops and turns too often though.

Overbets are most useful when you have a nut advantage, not necessarily a range advantage.

Having a range advantage means you should bet at a higher frequency, but you shouldn't necessary make large bets.

So let's say you flat a 3bet pre and the board runs out T9666. Your opponent should be betting this river at a high frequency, since they have a range advantage (they have all the JJ+), but we can pick a polarised range and make a huge overbet with it, since we have more nutted hands (TT, 99 and 6x).

See, this is the rare moment where I just think that the average llsnl guy isn't really thinking about this stuff at all. They aren't even considering range as a whole, they're just thinking about what they have, and what it kinda sorta makes sense for you to have. I think if you overbet river as a bluff on a board like T9666 you're just getting snapped off by JJ+ nearly always.

This is an interesting topic though because I'm not sure how to balance it out in a general live setting. I've run some overbet bluffs recently and got the folds, but the V's REALLY tanked, doubted me etc., then ended up showing very weak hands before folding. This makes me wonder how often I should just start pounding really dry boards with nutted type hands, but in the past when I've done this it's just generated like 100% folds. Probably just sample size issues though.

Overbets work best early in the hand when the absolute size of the bet doesn't attract as much attention.

Most poker players actually don't keep track of pot size. So a "half pot" etc. bets dont in and of themselves mean much.

E.g., betting $75 into $40 on a AT8ss flop with TT or 88 has a high likelihood of being called. An overbet here generally is well received by the audience. The bet is lol huge compared to the pot and the draws are unlikely to have a correct price. But the absolute size doesn't raise any eyebrows.

E.g.2, betting $300 into a $190 pot on a AT8ss4r turn with TT or 88 isn't going to get called much at all. An overbet here doesn't get much value, generally. The absolute size of the bet makes an immediate impact on the audience.

In these types of games bluffing is amazing, but you don't need $300 to do the trick, you can just bet $200 into 190 and watch them fold 80% of their range.

Yep. This is one of the keys to lsnl imo. When you want action, bet very big early and, sometimes in the same hand, very small on the river.

This is especially true on A high flops. It's very rare for someone to fold top pair on the flop, regardless of amount. Build the pot then. By the river, you might be shooting for a crying call with a tiny bet.

I don't overbet bluff much at all, except preflop. But if I were to do so, it probably wouldn't be OOP against a player who called a preflop raise.

Overbets are usually terrible for bluffs.

In your example, if they are going to fold for $200, they will also fold the same range for less. So the extra chips used in the bluff are superfluous.

The extra chips are not superfluous to an OMC like me when advanced theorists are trying to push me off the nuts.

What's the probability that you arrive at the river with the nuts, even if you play super tight on all earlier streets? Like 1%?

So 99% of the time, you're allowing yourself to get bluffed off the best hand, just so you can call 1% of the time with the nuts and laugh about these young whippersnappers trying to bluff you off the nuts? Makes sense.

I think he means "effective nuts" not "actual nuts".

The great thing about GTO is that it doesn't matter what our opponent's strategy is. We can guarantee a certain level of profit for ourselves.

This makes no sense. It's actually not possible for your bluffs to fail too often at the same time that your value bets generate too many folds, assuming your not getting trapped by slow-plays a bunch at a big sizing.

If you are not sizing all-in with both bluffs and value, the sizing on your value bets and your bluffs should be different. It wouldn't make sense to use a small sizing as a bluff because the opponent has a weak hand which will often fold, and use the same sizing for value hoping a weak hand will call. When you're perfectly polarized the optimal sizing for a balanced range is all-in (or to end up all-in by the river with equal bets on each street in proportion to the pot)

I don't think you get it. For example there are spots where pio will advise you to call with Q high because that's the way the balance of hands works out in a particular spot. But in practice that doesn't mean you should, just because it's what pio said and that it's gto.

For the second part, why would you size more with a bluff when targetting folds from a weak holding? it's unnecessary in most instances.

Like if I have 7 high on A K T 8 5 and I only wany folds from hands like Q high and 22-44. Why would I 2x pot when I could jist bet 1/2 - 2/3 pot? Doesn't seem great to me.

I think we're on the same page here. It obviously doesn't make sense to ignore reads and population tendencies just for the sake of remaining unexploitable. When we venture into unknown territory where we have no reads or priors, GTO becomes ideal because we can guarantee that we can capture a certain percentage of the pot at a minimum, and we can still win more when the opponent makes mistakes. Game theory (not GTO) can also be used to show that certain strategies dominate others or provide conditions under which each of several strategies is best.

My point isn't that 1/2 pot can't be the best bet sizing for a bluff there, but that it can't be the best bet sizing for both value and bluffs. Let's say our villain's range is capped at Kx or whetever on that board and never slow-plays hands stronger than this, but we have stronger hands in our range. Betting a balanced range at 1/2 pot is a dominated strategy because betting a balanced range all-in is mathematically guaranteed to be at least as good. It is still possible for an exploitative strategy that doesn't involve betting balanced ranges to be even better, but betting both value and bluffs at 1/2 pot is a dominated strategy.

But if you have 3:1 value:bluff and bet 1psb on the river then you can't be dominated right?
Why can't you have some higher ratio of value:bluff where 1/2psb is also not dominated?

3:1 is optimal for half-pot. I think you meant to say 2:1 when we pot the river?

You're right, I forgot about that scenario. I think it's extremely rare to arrive in such a spot outside of a theoretical discussion, though.

Also, while half-potting the river when we arrive there with a range of 3 value combos for every bluff combo is not a dominated strategy, using a larger sizing with our range allows us to profit more if villain makes the mistake of ever calling. Villain can not counter us for being value heavy by over-folding, because he's supposed to fold 100% of the time to a smaller sizing anyway. IIRC, if we arrive at the river with enough value hands that an all-in range bet makes villain's bluff-catchers unprofitable, villain should fold his entire range to any size bet.