Concept : over betting

Most of us, if not all, have heard it time and time: " bluff less, value bet more" in LLSNL. Why? Because they call too much. I am all for this advice and advocate it myself, but let's take this one step further, and make them pay dearly for their mistakes.
Time and time I see that the advice given on this subforum revolves around betting a correct amount relative to the size of the pot (1/4, 1/2, 3/4,...). I am all for this and practice it every time I play, but I also always look for the right moment, and the right opponent where I can bet big/ over bet to extract more/ max value. I do not advocate doing this with every hand or with marginal holdings, just one/ two time per session. I*know that doing this have increased my win rate by a large margin. Let me clarify this by an example. I played this hand recently:
1/2, eff. Stacks ~$250
MP ( weak tight) raises $7, LP makes it $15, hero BB (AsKs) $47, MP Folds, LP tank calls
(there is history between hero and LP. LP is a light 3 bettor, and views hero as aggressive)
Flop ($101)
Kc Jd Xc*
(hero committed and plan to get the chips in at some point)
Hero $52, LP tanks and calls.*
Turn ($205) $151 behind.*
Kd*
(This is a great card for me as it reduces the chances of me having KK/AK) I have LP squarely on QQ, maybe AJss, KQss)
Hero tanks and shoves, LP tanks for a long time, calls w/ QQ.*
Later, he told me he figured me for *AQ trying to push him off the pot, and didn't understand why I'd shove. He also indicated he was planning to fold on the turn if I had continued betting.*

One of the key factors about executing this properly is to be able to get into your opponent's head and figure out what they think. It is basically a 3rd level thinking of 1) what I have*
2) what does he have? 3) what does he think I have? And what does he think I'd do with me perceived range?*

A few conditions that need to exist to make this work properly:

1) YOUR IMAGE
If you have a nitty/ vert tight image, this will not work very well. It still works against a very small number of average LLSNL, but for the most part you will get folds, not calls. Have an aggressive image.
2) THE RIGHT OPPONENT
Executing this against the table's nit is basically lighting money on the fire. They fold too much. Pick the opponent who does not have the fold button, loves to make hero calls, thinks you are full of it.*
3) THE RIGHT HAND
Do not do this with the 3rd pair. You are bluffing, not value betting. Do it with the top of your range.*
4) THE RIGHT BOARD
Choose boards that are not scary. A 4 card to a flush board is not the board to do this if you are holding the nuts.*

Try it next time you are at the table and see your win rate go up. Do not worry about the occasional folds you get. In long run, you will make more profit by the calls you get.*
*

I agree with this and have found myself winning a lot more at 1/2 by playing aggressively rather than using the "just sit and wait for superpremiums at 1/2 becausethe fish will pay you anyway." A lot of my profit comes from playing aggressively in late position with drawing hands, and using c-bets and semi-bluffs to take down pots I've raised on the flop, or else stacking someone who can't understand how I hit the flush when I bet the "Ace" on the flop. This also gets me more value because when the guy in EP who's been waiting all night to 3-bet my $12 lp raise goes all-in just to "put me in my place" I can fold the $12 if I have T9s, or I snap him off if I have AA or KK. Or when I raise LP and get an EP flatter who tries to trap me for a c-bet and I check (I usually c-bet about 75%, based on villain's tendencies and board texture) - villain doesn't really notice the 25% non c-bet and is totally flummoxed when I don't walk into his trap.

An important key here is something Harrington points out in HOH: Unconventional play works best pre-flop and on-the-flop. By the turn, too much of your stack is involved to get frisky. Most villains will not realize that you are playing differently after the turn, so when you semi-bluff the flop and you have an aggressive image, they will pay you off in full when you hit your draw. Then they stalk away going "The one time the guy actually has something is against me!"

Two notes - I think of an overbet as a bet larger than the pot. Your example seems to describe "strong betting" or "aggressive betting," but I don't know if it's technically overbetting unless I misread something.

I've also recently run into a few players that are out-aggressing me and I'm finding it terribly frustrating and expensive - I just posted a thread about dealing with hyper-lags that takes up this question in the sense of 'how aggro is the right amount?' that relates to what you are discussing.

I think there was a section in NLHT&P on this. There are opponents who are more likely to call a big bet interpreting it as a bluff. You may get fewer calls over all but the times you get called should make up for it.

Overbetting as a bluff is not used enough.

I gave up on this long time ago except against very few and selected opponents who have a clue. And those with clue @ LLSNL are few and far between.

You are not missing anything. The concept really revolves around betting more than what villain is expecting you to bet.

If that amount is more than the pot, it is commonly known as "overbet" . If you are betting big, but it is smaller than the size of the pot, it is technically not an overbet. It is just a big bet.

I've used this over-betting strategy to good effect. It is very player and board dependent, and, generally, better heads-up. One thought to add to the mix: it doesn't usually allow you to bet-fold, so you need to have the best hand nearly every time. I mean, would you advocate this strategy with just a TPTK hand?

if I am committed to the pot, yes. If I am not commited to the pot, no.
Example...(I played this hand last month)
1/2
MP(~ 70 bb) limps( total station), hero CO covers AKo $11, BB calls, MP calls.
Flop ($32)
A 9 3r
BB checks, MP checks, hero $24, BB folds, MP calls.
(hero committed, plan to get all chips in)
Turn ($80)
8 s
MP checks, hero shoves( having MP on a weak A), MP calls w/ A7ss

That's a good example of a safe TPTK hand, since only A9, A7, 33 and 99 beats you. On a slightly wetter board, say, AJ9r, are you likely to make the same play with AKo. I mean, here there are more two-pairs, straight draws to contend with (assuming same player types and effective stacks).

I agree completely. Especially in huge pots, fish do not consider pot odds, as they have completely lost track of the pot.

I dont think your example is great though, because it isnt even an overbet.

Example:

Deepstacked ($600 for both players)

MP raises to 15, a few callers, you reraise to 55 with TT from BTN, MP calls.

Flop A 6 3 (pot 145, eff stacks 545), he checks, you Cbet 90 (fish is passive folding station, will fold KK-99 on flop, so Cbet is EV+), he calls (based on nature of fish, fish either has AK or AQ and nothing else)
Turn 2 (pot 325, eff stacks 455), he checks, you check behind
River you bink a T (pot 325, eff stacks 455), he checks, you shove 455. He is JUST as likely to call a shove as 200 bucks. The guy has no idea how much money is in the pot, or how much he has behind. He is only thinking "does he have my AK/AQ beat".

I see so many relatively good players leave far less than this behind (like, $120 in pot on river, and I see a player value bet $60 into a guy with a $100 stack. Just shove it.)

ya, i agree, overbetting for value isnt considered enough as a viable strategy.
it can look really fishy, which is part of why it's so great (and gets you calls).
sometimes the real 'correct' amount to bet is as much as they will call when you have them crushed.
online players have a hard time grasping this, because they cant fathom ppl playing so bad that they have no idea of the pot size, so if they are calling, it doesnt matter how much to them. (unless it's over X dollars, which is their comfort theshold for one bet). they think in terms of the absolute size of the bet, not its size relative to the pot, or they dont think from a risk/reward perspective at all.
thinking that bad villians think like you do is a major leak, and overlooking value that you are being offered because you want to play by the book more than profit, is also a terrible leak.

overbetting a flopped set on a drawy flop into a FPS player with top pair no kicker can get you more action than betting the 'correct' amount a lot of the time.
its actually a great way to disguise your hand, as well as get max value.

This all depends if I am commitment to the pot or not regardless of the board. If I am playing 250bb deep, I am not committed to the pot with a TPTK hand, but if the eff. Stacks is as such that I am not folding at anytime during the hand and I am up against the right opponent, my chips are going in, one way or another.

I agree with the point you're making but...

1. 3/4 pot bet to all in isn't an overbet.

2. If nits are giving your "big" (not really big at all) bets too much respect, that means you should bluff more, not bet less. Yes, you can bet less sometimes, when you know how your image currently is, but I consider this to be a much more advanced play than most people in this forum realize, because it's very easy to fall into the trap of making that become betting less all the time, and then you're constantly betting 1/4-1/3 bets when you should be betting 2/3-3/4.

Good post.

I think the summary would be to over bet for value when:

1. Villain likes to call down
2. You have an aggressive image
3. You have a narrow value range/your perceived range is polarized to mostly bluffs
4. Your hand is ahead of the majority of villain's bluff-catchers

Did I miss anything?

5. Villain is just as likely to call a pot sized bet as they are to call a 1/2 sized bet because you put them on a good hand that is worse than yours (overpair, bad end of a straight, etc.)

Not necessarily. I think what you are saying can be true, but that's a different point. Like saying bet more when someone has a strong/inelastic range. What I am talking about is closer to range merging than to betting a lot when you cooler someone.

+1 - Most villains are more likely to call a $50 bet into a $100 pot than a $100 bet into the same pot. The issue is whether or not they are twice as likely to call. If they are exactly twice as likely to call $50 than $100, then you will make the same profit either way. I think you are right in thinking that they will not fold to the full pot bet often enough to justify a smaller bet. For example, let's say they call a 1/2 pot bet 70% of the time and a full pot bet 50% of the time. And let's say pot is $100:

70% X $50 = $35
50% X $100 = $50

I think 70% v 50% is a pretty reasonable estimate for opponent w/ TPTK on river, and this demonstrates that the bigger bet will be more profitable.

Actually this isn't always true. For example, if you have a set and you put your opponent on an overpair on the flop, and your opponent will always call a half pot bet, or call a full-pot bet 50% of the time, you should make the bigger bet because it is slightly more +EV, since those times your opponent folds he can't suck out, but those times your opponent calls you will sometimes get oversetted. The only time the two profits are exactly the same is when your opponent is drawing completely dead.

1) what you are missing is that you are looking at the size of the bet based on your understanding of the game, not theirs. To you and me, an $80 bet into a $100 pot when we are holdiing a very strong hand/ the nut is not an over bet. To the average LLSNL, it is an over bet. Have you seen them making a small tiny bet into a huge pot when holding a big hand so they get called? To them, if you had big hand, you wanted a call so you'd bet like they would, a small bet. Average LLSNL does not look at the size of the bet relative to the size of the pot. They look at it based on dollars involved, regardless of how it relates to the size of the pot.

2) I never said not to bluff nits. I said not to use this approach against them since they fold too much and when they call, it is because you are crushed. The whole idea behind this approach is to exploit average LLSNL tendencies.
What is the tendency of a nit? They fold too much, so to exploit them you either bluff them or make your value bets small enough to get called and yet big enough to extract max value.
What is the tendency of a calling station? They call too much, so you exploit them by not bluffing them, and making your value bets big/overbet to extract max value out of them.

I could not have said it better myself.

They think its a lot of money, but they dont fold to it because they also think the money in the pot is a lot of money. an $80 bet is standard in a $100 pot.

i like this line with a nut hand (hopefully on a draw-heavy board):
bet small OTF
bet small OTT
overbet shove river, even 2X the pot, whatever.
gets looked up a lot by pretty weak hands, at least when it's me vs. a suspicious stationy player who called twice cuz he thinks his hand is good.

if you overbet shove the turn w/ AQ on a Q994 board, you can get paid off pretty light if you have them trained to think "this guy doesnt have a 9". (by 77 ect..., ive even gotten paid off by AK hi on this board by a FPS player who put me on JT when i overbet shoved.)

a lot of other players think just reflexively think "he's either got he nuts or nothing", when you're value betting the piss out of less than the nuts, which is something that they can't grasp that you would be doing, because they never do it. (they are terrified of value owning themselves).

the ppl on 2+2 who claim that overbet shoving is turning a hand into a bluff, (ie. folding out worse/ getting better to call) prolly never have a sick image, (they are rocked up), so can't imagine getting it paid off, and are also likely to pay off these same kind of bets, because they view them as bluffy.