Hi, villain is regular and I dont know what bet size use with weak hand like 67s and what size with hand like K-K and why? or do you use always same bet size? thanks

Poker Stars, $0.05/$0.10 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 6 Players
Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager - The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.

SB: $26.33 (263.3 bb)
BB: $10.64 (106.4 bb)
UTG: $6.36 (63.6 bb)
MP: $10.23 (102.3 bb)
Hero (CO): $10 (100 bb)
BTN: $6.15 (61.5 bb)

Preflop: Hero is CO with X-X
2 folds, Hero raises to $0.25, 2 folds, BB calls $0.15

Flop: ($0.55) A 6 K (2 players)
BB checks, Hero ??

Never change your bet sizes based on your hand strength. This will be picked up on by anyone paying attention and they will punish you for it. He likely doesn't have an ace or king so you could bet small forcing him to call with a wider range or bet big to get value from him the times he does have an ace, king or flush draw. But the bet needs to be the same size whether you have KK or whether you whiffed the flop.

with hands like 67s we need bet only for protection so bet 2/3 of pot is ok? Is it not too big bet size for protection? or it is standard?

Like @dynamite2006 said, we don't want to go x with nutted hands and y with draws and z with air, etc. because that's ridiculously exploitable. Having multiple betting sizes on a texture isn't necessarily bad but you don't want to compartmentalize your range against a thinking player.

This is a board where I'm going to have a pretty large checkback range of weak Ax's, all my Kx's, and strong pocket pairs. Dunno if I'm turning things like 76s, 77, etc. into bluffs or if I just check those back too.

Since this is a board where we should have pretty significant range advantage, we don't have to go super large OTF even when we do have a checkback range IMO. I probably bet around 40-50% PSB with my whole betting range.

I'm checking back a hand like 76s here. The biggest benefit I see to betting it is maybe getting 77-99 to fold. We are in an awkward spot when we get called or raised though. I'd much rather go for the delayed cbet if he checks the turn too and don't mind calling once if he bets it.

If you are going to bet it I agree with the 40-50% that James recommended.

but I read everywhere that we have to PROTECT our weak hands. I understand why we dont need protect hands like K3 but I dont undestand why we dont need protect hands like 67s. On flop can come a lot of overcards etc. So why not cbet 67s too? thanks

All that you are doing when you bet a hand like 76s here is allowing him to play perfectly. He will fold anything worse and only continue with hands that are better than ours. The only hands he will call with that we beat are unpaired flush draws and even they have good equity against us and will probably force us to fold the river after we checkback the turn. We're building a bigger pot and putting ourselves in an awkward turn spot.

Sure, you can get a hand like T9 to fold on the flop and eliminate the chance that he spikes a 9 on the turn. That's the argument for betting. But for me, that's only a 12% chance of happening and even when it does he can't love his hand after we checkback the flop.

To be honest, that's where I struggle drawing the line. I know what I'm doing with most of my range, but hands like 76s are weird. Do we check because our hand has some small amount of SDV and because we have better hands to bluff? Or do we bet for protection against his 6-outers because we dislike half of the deck OTT? I used to lean toward the latter but over time have started checking a lot more.

Would be interested to see what others have to say.

I'm probably betting about 1/2 Pot here. I like checking back 76cc and betting the rest 76s.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I have filtered those spots with weak pairs when I cbet and the hands are +EV. I think cbet is good move or can it be variance? sample is 100 hands from 100k

It makes sense either to
1. bet way small with a ton of hands (full range?) with every ace and most kings being slam dunk bets.
2. Polarise you range immediately and pot it. Most aces would probably still be good bets but definitely check back kings.

Don't think sizes like 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 make as much sense here. Option 1 is definitely extremely good vs micro population.

I think we generate shed loads of folds on these flops so we want to bet very often, and bet small ie. 1/3 pot with our weak hands and many strong hands. We might also want to bet small with AA, A6 as these block villains Ax. I might bet big like 3/4 or pot size with KK, K6s, 66 for the opposite reason. Small aces I frequently check because we don't mind giving free cards as much whereas 6x and 88 etc are vulnerable so should be bet. Your sample is interesting, if it is +ev to do this then continue doing it, though another line may be more +ev of course.

Where I struggle is deciding how big to bet our draws, I think we can mix it up a bit, maybe 45ss bet big to generate more folds, QT, QJ go smaller etc etc. So it does look like 2/3 or 1/2 pot arent that necessary.

If we check only QQ, Kx this would leave us vulnerable imo so another reason to check some aces.

You can turn 67s into bluff because it blocks his 66 A6 K6s combos which is the top of his range so in that case go big.KK can go big as well then small with AA and some AK because they block so much of his calling range.
You can and you should use more then one bet sizing on same board texture.
67s cant bet for protection because he dose not call with anything worst.88 can bet for protection because he can call with 7 and fold hands like 9J 9T ect.

Betting for protection does not require you to get called by worse. The primary purpose is to defend against being outdrawn by hands that would have folded had you bet (e.g. T9/98)

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

If we are betting AQ, AJ, AT, A6s and KK for value we still get to have plenty of bluffs here. I think with QJ, QT, JT and flush draws as bluffs we can probably throw in 67s and 56s without being unbalanced. Obviously it is hard to define these hands as purely for value or purely bluffs, but we are on the flop so I don't think it is necessary to have all our hands defined so clearly.

I like what @Haizemberg said about going big with KK & 66 and I'm curious what everyone thinks about how we would then balance our range. If we bet pot with those hands and then also with our gutshots w/o flush/backdoor flush draws. Then we can bet like 40% with our stronger aces, the rest of our obvious bluffs, and maybe our 67s (depending on how you feel about betting that hand). Then check everything else. Seems like the most optimal ranges to me, what does everyone think?

Does anybody use Piosolver to solve this hand?

Pretty much this, 1/3 in the case 1 (including 67s), but I do think the potbet is not particularly necessary in the case 2.

It make sense. What do you think?

Sure it is possible to balance 2 different bet sizings but it is hard in practice (for me at least ). Also if V knows that you always pot 66 and KK here, then you rearly have a nutten hand making you easier to bluff off your hand.