Sometimes I hear about good players who say that he bet a certain size so he doesnt have to overbet on the next street.

For example, heads up, Hero has A9, flop is 974ss. Bet 5, Checkraise 20, so turn Hero can shove last 50 (into pot 55). If Hero checkraise 15, then pot is 45, and hero shove 55 overbet.

The only reason I came up with was that overbetting makes it less likely you are bluffing?

Overbetting makes it less likely you'll get a call. People are usually much more willing to call 50 into a pot of 55 than 55 into a pot of 45.

^what he said.

Actually when you overbet you should be bluffing more. Overbet theory is super interesting.

I think it also depends on what stakes you are playing and what villain types you are up against.

In micros (and against bad villains) I find that players are less concerned about the size of the bet, and more concerned about the cards.

I think what you are referencing is the relationship between equity, implied odds, and pot geometry.

So when you have high equity, but low implied odds then you want to get max value out of the earlier streets, build a big pot and get opponents pot committed so that when you make your hand or know that they missed their hand the pot odds are lower therefore making it more likely that you will get a call.

often you are more likely to get the big part of your stack called with cards to come so betting more early keeps him from going out later on. also if you are going allin no matter what it is better to get it in when you are best and not after he hits where he might not have called.

Although this is correct (to an extent afaik) do you really think that's the type of post that's going to be helpful to a beginner? Or something that's going to confuse him and start making him overbet every time he's bluffing?

Fair point.

If villain has an inelastic range for calling dependent on bet sizing then ofc you should go max value.

Like if you have 32o HU and the board is 22Axx you can overbet the river because villain never folds a good ace.

the reason you want to tailor your bet sizing is so that you can manipulate the situation so that you get the desired result. Whether that desired result is to get stacks in or to preserve fold equity so you can bluff later streets is irrelevant. The main point that applies to everything betting related is that you want to manipulate the situation such that you get the desired result.

In regards to overbetting. We need to ask ourselves why overbetting is "wrong".

But before we get to that we have to ask an even more fundamental question and that is, "What is overbetting?"

Contrary to popular belief, overbetting has very little to do with the actual size of the pot. What? How in the hell can that be true?

Well, the truth of the matter is that overbetting has almost nothing to do with the size of the pot but everything to do with your villain's continuation range vs bet sizing.

If our villain will stack off 500bb preflop with 72o then is betting 500bb preflop with TT an overbet? No. No its not. Its actually the perfect bet. Its just that in reality, as the size of the bet increases in relation to stack sizes and pot sizes that increase tends to narrow our villains' ranges. Once the range narrows such that it is ahead of our hand then we find ourselves in a situation where we bet too much.

that is the real heart of the matter as far as "overbetting" is concerned. The problem with a lot of players is that they stick to rigid inelastic betting criteria instead of adjusting to their opponents and situations.

There are some villains I know that are biologically incapable of laying down a flush draw. So I can shove turn for 80bb when the pot is only 30bb and they will still call on their draw. So is that an overbet? No. No its not.

Anyways, I'm starting to ramble, hope you see my point. And my point really is just trying to get you to think on a deeper level in regards to this question.

great points and right on there dgiharris once again.

i do think the definition of overbetting varies with the player. some look it as betting over the pots size. others think more of it as beting too much when you wanted a call and they go out because of it.

i think of it as a bet thats way to high and i want it to scare out my opponent, or i want to make sure he doesnt get pot odds to bust me when i am not so sure of what he has. or finally i think it will induce him to call my bet or he likely will call it anyway.

I may be incorrect in my analysis of the question, but I think there's another possible "line" here that's possibly being overlooked.

The discussion may revolve around pot geometry and having a "game plan" to get your entire stack in on the river without having to overbet on a later street.

Let's say you're on $500 and the villain is on $180. You need to control the pot geometry so that you can get all $180 in the pot.

Let's say you look down at pocket aces in a 1/2 game. Assuming no dead money and an expected heads up pot, villain raises preflop to $5. If you flat for $5, then on the flop, there's $10 in the pot. A pot sized bet puts another $20 in the pot, so $30 on the turn. PSB for $30 and the river has $90 in the pot. A PSB of 90 gets a total of 270 in the pot, but you want $360 in there (villain's stack and your contribution).

Now, let's raise it to $15 pre-flop, so there's $30 on the flop, $90 on the turn, and 270 in the pot when the betting begins on the river. You can get to $360 easily. In addition, you no longer have to worry about pot-sized bets on every street, so you can induce a call more easily.

There's a better way to "figure" the amounts, but this will give you a baseline for playing hands where you want both "effective" stacks in the middle. Playing deeper stacks means that you have to control the pot geometry even more, or you'll be playing for $200 pots instead of $1000 pots.

I kinda see what you are getting at but I believe you are making a fundamental mistake in regards to betting...

A lot of players tend to think of betting situations as binary, something along the lines of "I'm ahead of my villain thus I want to get 100% of his money..."

In my opinion that is a Level I way of thinking about betting. And to be fair, I believe that we are all susceptible to this line of thinking, myself included. I think, "Man, I have AA and want to stack this fish..."

Contrary to popular belief, this is not entirely accurate and the wrong way of thinking about it. The right way to think about betting is that we want to extract max value from our hand and situation such that we are getting great value based on the strength of our hand and the situation.

Lets look at a few situations, in each situation Hero has AA and effective stacks are 200bb. Hero is on the BTN and V1 is an aggro donk that overvalues top pair top kicker and loves to draw. V1 limps from MP, 2 more limpers, Hero raises 7bb, V1 calls heads up action.

Scenario #1)

Flop(17bb) 8 7 6
V1 chks, Hero bets 8bb, V1 calls

Turn(31bb) 9
V1 bets 15bb, Hero????


Scenario #2)

Flop(17bb) A 9 4
V1 chks, Hero bets 8bb, V1 calls

Turn(31bb) 4
V1 bets 15bb, Hero????

Scenario #3)

Flop(17bb) T Q 6
V1 chks, Hero bets 8bb, V1 calls

Turn(31bb) K
V1 bets 15bb, Hero???


************************************************** ***

Just because we have AA does not mean we should be itching to stack off. A better way to look at each situation is to ask ourselves what is the maximum value we can extract from each situation? Or better yet, what is the maximum value we SHOULD try to extract from each situation? What range of hands can V have in each situation and what does our action (raise, call) do to villains range? How much equity do we feel we have and how will our turn action impact our equity come river? SPeaking of river, what impact is the various rivers likely to have on our equity?

We need to engage in this type of thought process as the hand progresses. Maximum value is NOT synonymous with stacking off. No. Maximum value means extracting the most money given the situation/circumstance. And sometimes that will actually mean checking back, blocking betting, or even folding.

anyways, just food for thought

Perhaps I was misunderstood. My point was that you want to control the pot geometry so you CAN get his stack in the center if you want to. On a monotone straight flop, then you definitely want to re-think running "balls to the walls", but you need to size your pre-flop action so you have the opportunity to barrel every street for (as you correctly pointed out) maximum value (which in my post, was assumed to be his entire stack). Clearly, the board can get very scary and give reason to back down as the hand progresses.