Quote:
Originally Posted by DooDooPoker
I've been going back and forth on using big sizings vs small sizing's on boards like these. I see the benefit of smaller sizings because
1) We exploit Villain's under XR tendencies/over fold tendencies from weaker players.
2) It is easier to play because we are mostly betting OTF so we don't have to keep track of our check back range as much
But the bigger sizing's also have benefits as well:
1) Higher EV theoretically
2) We get to bring players to parts of the game tree they haven't studied as much, mainly turn probing.
3) Villain's will most likely either probe the wrong sizing or probe too much/not enough.
4) We also get to the river more often when we X back the flop which population will be the least comfortable with.
Those factors make me want to play more GTO in spots like these, since population will most likely play worse OTT/OTR than OTF. Also bet sizing's are bigger in later parts of the game tree on average. So OOP's mistake will be magnified.
Any thought's on that?
FWIW on this flop playing a strategy of 33%/check or 46%/check have the same EV so the bolded isn't true regarding this hand. However, betting 100% of your range for 33% is higher EV than 100% of your range for 46%.
Regarding the flop being easier/more difficult to play as IP, if we bet 100% of our range, we don't have to split any checks/dilute our flop range at all, whereas our opponent now has to split their x/r, x/c, x/f ranges regardless of what bet size we choose. However, if we check, they take an unsplit range to the turn instead of IP, and it is now the IP who had to split their range. Therefore in no way do I think that playing a bet + check strategy is easier for the IP player than playing a bet 100% of range strategy.
So, if a strategy collects essentially the same EV, and is easier to play, why wouldn't we play it? The only reason would be that we think the opponent will exploitatively play worse versus a certain strategy. Unfortunately that is subjective and could only be proved with extensive database analysis of a player group, and even then, would only apply "on average".
Regarding those potential exploits you outlined, you're making a lot of assumptions about villain's/population's future ability to make mistakes in the hand compared with potential flop mistakes and there's no way to quantify or prove anything, or even discuss which mistakes might be made and why, so there really isn't any point discussing it as it's very subjective; while we could debate the objectivity of what the proper response vs a deviation might be, we can't debate the subjectivity of what a person, or population's, tendencies would be. For example, I could argue that it is more likely for villain to play more poorly vs the small bet line across future streets/decisions than it is for them to play poorly vs the big bet, but without any proof or data.