Apart from 3B pots: In which situations can you cbet 1/3 whole range without sacraficing significant EV?

paired boards, with arguably the exception of 55x/66x vs the button (who happens to have arguably more 5x/6x than other positions)

microstakes in general, where you dont have to worry about balance and you want to draw cheaply ie flop fd/oesd

edit, tho i wouldn't get in the habbit of cbetting atc on a paired board

What about UTG vs BB ?

Pretty much any spot where you're IP vs the BB. Maybe avoid doing it on boards like 986 and 875 though, as you'll have almost no fold equity.

So you do make expections.
Do you know if its fine to not make exceptions?
Basically my idea is that we have 60%+ equity vs his defending range.
If thats the case the EV loss by betting range 1/3 is negligible and also can be +EV vs poor reacting human beings.

But I´d have to check if it applies to boards like 986, 875, but I can only do it tomorrow since its solving a lot of trees atm.

Do you know if the EV loss is massive??

On most boards the EV loss will only be small, but it will be bigger on the boards where you have no connection to the board and low fold equity.
e.g. It's pretty silly to c-bet AKdd on 7h 6h 5s, as you're basically firing money into the abyss, when your AKs would do better to check back in the hope it binks top pair and gets value from Ax/Kx hands that fold to a c-bet.
Anyone that c-bets 100% of the time is going to be exploitable, but it's harder for villain to exploit you on the boards that are much better for your range, like KT4 or AJ6.

Is cbetting 1/3 completely standard nowadays? It seems like rarely you even see ppl cbet 1/2 pot anymore. If you cbet 1/3, the opponents will rarely fold... they can get a good price, float etc. Who started this 1/3 cbet sizing by the way? To me, it still looks like you are asking to get raised/played back at with this bet sizing.


Also i seen players raise utg or early position and flop comes like aj6 and cbet 1/3 pot and then bb would check raise etc. I mean shouldnt bb never check raise there unless they have a value hand? I seen many times bb c/r boards like this which makes no sense. It looks like some flush draw or even air and putting opponent on say underpair. Thoughts on this?


Couldnt utg just reraise the c/r since the value range for boards like this for bb is 2 pair or ace with big kicker? Also say you have aa and raise utg and get called in the bb. So its standard to check back on the flop when it comes like 8 7 6 almost always? Because if you get c/r, its bad right? However when board come j 10 6, you still cbet 1/3 pot size? That is just giving such a cheap price if the bb has any pair or draw. I thought you should be betting at least 1/2 pot at least. Thoughts on this?

It's very common/standard these days to bet small. The trend was started by the best players in the world, and everyone else is gradually catching on. Solver software has "proved" that betting small is often the best strategy.

Micros for ever

?

You asked for thoughts on this. This was my thought.

Aren't we supposed to be betting higher on paired boards? To generate more fold equity against overcards which will have a difficult time calling?

Well if you are cbetting 1/3rd the pot with an overpair in a paired board, why would you not bet a bigger size? If the other players has top pair or a smaller pair, they are most likely not folding to the cbet. Why not size up higher? The thing is unless you both have small stacks after the preflop bets are in, shouldn't you be betting much bigger if you want to get stacks in? Because if you are betting 1/3 on flop, you are planning to bet like at least 2/3rd pot or more on turn on river right? But when you do this, you can't get all in if you are deep.

That's the idea. You force your opponent to defend with a weaker range. If they don't, your cbet immediately makes money when you are bluffing. If they do, then they take a wide range to the turn, which isn't a bad outcome for you.

Sure you could. If you know your opponent's mistake is calling too much with one pair, then it makes sense to bet large on the flop for value so you can fire large bets on the turn and river. But the point of betting small on the flop isn't just the flop, it's the big picture.

Do you ever bet flop and bet turn with a hand like TPGK, then get to the river and think "I can't bet again, villain will only call with better. And maybe I am not good after being called two streets?"

Well what if you are deep stack or super deep stack. Say 80bb or 100bb or 150bb or deeper. Say you flop a set whether you are preflop raiser or the caller. You raise 2.5x and get a caller. And you flop a set, you bet 1/3rd pot. Then you size up on turn and river. Even if you bet close to pot on turn and river, you are not going to get stacks in if you are 100bb deep in a raised pot. If 3bet pot, well you dont need to bet that big and can get stacks in. Thoughts on this?


Well yes with TPGK, you might think you are not good after two streets. But if that player calls much loose or worst, then isn't betting big on 3 all streets good/


The other thing is this. People talk about how certain hands are 1 street or 2 street or 3 street value hands. Obviously if you flop a set or 2 pair or flush/straight, you want to get value on all 3 streets. But when you bet 1/3rd pot, then 1/2 pot on turn and 2/3 on river, sure you get 3 streets of value. But also would be 1/4 pot on flop, 1/3 pot on turn and 1/2 pot on river. Yet say the player bets pot on flop and turn and get called twice and folds river... well that player got more value in 2 streets than the same player who bet and got called in 3 streets with smaller bet sizing. So betting 2/3rd on flop, turn and river is usually not correct? But if you have a big hand and the only way to get stacks in would be like that... you still going to bet 1/3 pot size on flop? I seen ppl say the issue in many hands is a player bets so small on flop, like 1/4 to 1/3, they need to bet like pot or close to it on turn and river etc. But when you go this sizing, many players would fold to bigger bets on turn and river. So why not just 1/2 pot, 2/3 turn and 1/2 to 2/3 river then? Obviously a player will more likely call a flop bet that is 1/3 pot than a 1/2 pot.

Thoughts on this?

Micros are a sick place to be.

Cheating a third will price in pairs with 5 outs to improve. 2/3 pot bets don’t (unless there are redraw possibilities)

are you implying that there are people folding pairs vs 2/3 flop cbets?

i really like the big all in cbet. 1/3 has no fold equity.
just get it all in. its no limit holdem the Cadillac of poker.

I don't even know where to begin with this thread.

maybe start with 1/2 pot sized bet.

my thinking is against good players 1/3 makes sense because they see it as a meta play and will act accordingly also these guys have to do tricky things to get action from other thinking players. in micros if you do 1/3 pot sized bet everyone is going to be calling anyways whether it is 3/4 or w/e it be so you may as well size way bigger in micros for value.

Most sims where you do 1/3 also has a small frequency of pot or 2x pot sizing, so you can always just mix it in. Also it's okay if they call too light on flop; it still defines their range and you can overbet turns.