So this is something I've thought a bunch about, but I still feel kind of clueless and obviously nothing solver related is going to help.

Standard 1-2 with 6+ limp calling randoms and you are in the BB, so that's pretty good as you'll get to see a flop like 50% of the time with 85%+ of your range. Then:

3 limps to hero in BB with XY

Pot: $12

Flop: QT7

Or

Flop: T62

And the SB just bombs it for $15 ... except do they even know they are overbetting? What kinds of hands do we defend with? How different is it from if it was raised and they bet 150% pot?


Like if a couple of limps and then a raise to $15 have happened a few times preflop, does that make people think $15 is the first bet size?

I'll see people who are basically never overbetting any street postflop, unless they are shoving the nuts or x/r a big bet with the nuts, but will happily bet 2x pot on the first board with Q9o.
I've also seen enough people evaluate a $3 bet as basically a check, or decide it means I have nothing and so raise to $20 or something.


Do you just pretend the pot size is bigger when evaluating raises? What about bets?

What I think you're asking:

In small pots are Vs thinking so much in absolute sizing terms that we must deviate and also think in absolute as opposed to relative terms?

Should we call a 15$ bet on the first board with J T when we wouldnt call a 100$ bet if the pot was 100$ already?

I don't know the answer. Obviously implied odds are much larger at such large SPRs so hands with mortal nut value certainly want to realize.

24 into 12 has a way different meaning than 200 into 100. In limped pots people way overplay top pair. But since the standard is to overbet, we can get away with doing that with our big hands.

Average Villains are just thinking in absolute bet sizes, not bet sizes in relation to pot. I see this all the time too. Youll have 5 limpers at 1/2 and someone bets flop for 25 into 10. So that 25 bet into 10 means less than 100 into 200 in their eyes.

Obviously our defense frequency doesnt have to be that high and its great when we have a real hand.

I just defend w the strongest top pair+ hands and strong draws. In your JT hand example i would fold the first flop and call 2nd flop. Sometimes i fold flop even with top pair when its unlikely to be a winner by the river. Say i have T9 and flop is 975 two tone and theres a 2x pot bet plus a call, ill just fold it without the flush draw. Villains have all the better 9x, all 2pair, all sets, and straights so theres just no reason to call 2x pot there.

At lower stakes, and with smaller pots, we just need to look at bet sizes in absolute terms, not pot-relative terms. So a $15 bet into a smallish $12 pot is just a $15 bet, not "OMG, he bet 1.25x pot!"

I used to bet 2/3 or pot it on the flop at 1/3 all the time, whether I was the PFR or checked my option as the BB in a limped pot. So many low-stakes players are inelastic when it comes to calling. If a guy will call a $20 bet with a weak top pair, he'll call a $25 bet. He's not thinking about my range based on my bet size relative to the pot.

I was usually doing it for value, but I'd balance with my best draws. If some wing-nut is just "seeing where I'm at" by donking into multiple opponents from the SB with a weak top pair, he's terrible, so we should look to exploit his checking range by betting mercilessly. Here, when he bets, we're basically folding or raising as a bluff all our hands with little to no equity, and flatting or raising with our better value and higher equity draws.

Likewise, I also view EP min-bets as checks in multi-way pots, because they have so little fold equity. The reason we shouldn't c-bet too frequently in multi-way pots is that we're less likely to get our bluffs through, which means we should usually just be c-betting for value - because there's so little fold equity.

If someone min-bets, unless it's a "stone nuts or nothing" type board (like AAA, 888, KJTccc), I almost feel like raising is obligatory.