Yeah I mean when I ran this spot I saw something like 5% frequency in that sizing's node so technically not suboptimal but the kind of sizing that, almost surely, he's using too frequently.

And I think it makes sense when you consider the range of hands he's really, truly comfortable taking that sizing for value on this texture (It's obv QJ, arguably 88-TT and AT, maybe AK (though doubtful AK) and that's really about it). And then when you consider that his bluffs can still get folds and that hero likely still has the range advantage anyway, what bluffs want to take this sizing when they can otherwise go smaller and get the same results?

What does he truly like balancing his value with for this sizing that otherwise is not comfortable going smaller?

So I think if you consider how thin his fat value range truly is and what his bluffs wanna do, his sizing is gonna end up being too big.

Eggs I think there is some confusion in your thought process (and prolly you stick to PIO default equilibriums too hard)
I cant go deep into your posts right now.

Basically this is very good texture for OOP player (nut adv at least, equity divides close I guess) so IP (3bettor) shouldnt cbet much thus OOP should check this turn card a lot too thus IP shouldnt delay it (delay cbet) too wide. If his delay range is narrow (which implies best value hands) he should/can use larger sizing (bc best value hands have very good equity vs OOP c/c range) so he can use large sizing w/ semibluffs/bluffs as well (to maximize FE).
Then you can deviate from default logic based on opponent profile.

Delay small ott seems suboptimal bc IP cant comfortably go wider than Ax for value and OOP range you target isnt 66-22 but all those pair+draws and weaker Ax thus going larger makes sense.

Also doubt OOP has more Ax ott or r/c lots of Ax when he got 3bet utg in other words.

OP, this runout is much more befeficial to OOP player, if both players understand this then OOP shouldnt expect Ip to have wide river betting range thus IP should expect Oop to trap river a lot.

Wait, shouldn't it be the other way? Like, if IP isn't betting much then OOP should be donking a lot more?

Thanks, yeah that makes sense.

So just to be clear, you're saying his sizing is indeed to equilibrium sizing?

I swear after running a preflop tree to get a sense of what OOP should have here in theory then running the postflop tree I was seeing what I described.

I'm gonna have to try recreating that tree.

It's especially confounding for me because, having run a second tree with a bit narrower range for OOP than the one I used previously, I'm seeing exactly what you're describing.

Yes obviously
* should not expect OOP to trap a lot


No, he bet half pot, you called it large and stated its suboptimally large.
Im saying betting large is more incentivized than betting small (which you suggested) and generally makes sense.

Half pot is the sizing people (including me) mainly use when they dont have a good feeling about whats going on

^^Thanks a lot man