I am reading through ‘The Grinder’s Manual’ for a second time (honestly didn’t comprehend it the first time) and in the C-bet chapter while discussing sizings on dry boards; it says a small sizing is 1/2-3/5 pot. I have yet to buy a solver so I can only go off second hand information; however, I always hear the “the solver prefers smaller sizings” and I see 1/3 pot being used all the time in the high rollers and hand reviews of the pros. Can someone break this down Barney style for me?

33% and even 25% cbet are commonplace now. In a low SPR siultuations like a 4bet pot, even 10% is used. Bet sizing theory is evolving quickly.

Small bets get the best price on fold equity, so the small bet is designed to take advantage of the inelastic parts of their range that fold virtually regardless of size.

If the opponent's range is elastic / price sensitive, then you may want to try a larger more polarizing bet.

Thank you for clearing that up!

and pisses away a ton of value in the process

Then only bluff for the small sizing.

Then why do solvers prefer them on most flops?

You lose value on your strong hands but gain value on your bluffs, maximizing the value of your entire range.

I have no idea as I don't use such ridiculous tools that only work in theoretical situations which never appear in real life

"Theoretical situations" IE... Btn v bb with 30bb. That situation never comes up in real life and isnt worth studying at all. Oh wait.... its one of the most common situations to have in MTTs

Then you can node lock to study how to exploit players who don't play according to a solver.


Its pretty arrogant to make such declarative statements about small bet sizes pissing away value and then just hand waving evidence that its better because "I dont use such ridiculous tools". Almost makes me wonder if I am just getting baited by a troll.


Its like having an argument whether 2+2=4 or 5 and you whip out a calculator showing that its 4 and me not accepting a calculator as valid because its a ridiculous theoretical tool that doesn't actually count things in real life.

No
You never give up EV with one hand to give it to another, this is true intuitively and also true in GTO

The reason to bet small is when you have an advantage in the middle of the equity distribution and a big part of villains range is composed of very low equity hands that are put in an indifferent situation when they face a small bet.

If a nutted hand bets small in GTO it's because it induces enough raises to make it the same or better EV than betting big

I can understand people who hate solvers or GTO because no one has explained to them that those things are the same as what they do every day at the tables exploitatively, only on steroids.

---

On a sidenote, I don't think "inelastic" is a thing in theory, it's only a thing exploitatively based on how humans play. GTO will never be "inelastic" in any sense. If it was, it could get exploited by its opponent betting bigger for value than as a bluff, and that doesn't happen.

You are completely missing the point, but there you go, keep playing defensively not to make mistakes rather than abusing the opposition

You're just ignorant of the value of GTO and solvers... It's not for "playing defensively." Your hate boner for them is ridiculous and maybe you should be studying with them if you're making inane statements like "small sizings piss away value." Aner0 explained perfectly where they are most applicable.

Are you really in a position to lecture about pissing away value? You've wasted YEARS of your life on this site. Look at your post count. And you don't even have more than mediocre knowledge of poker to show for it.

no more