For me, acceptable elasticity in flop cbet sizing (or betsizing in general maybe - though @ micros we usually don't need to worry a huge deal about balancing our betsizing too much on later streets within reason...):

Vs good players, board dependent (and villain's range and stack size dependent ofc) elasticity is correct (cbetting wetter boards bigger or w/e), but obviously we can't give away sizing tells on whether we have it or not.

Vs bad mass multitabling regs and fish, we play exploitatively and exploitably based also on our own holdings, because they're not going to know what we're doing.

wanna apply that to elastic and inelastic ranges?

^^ ok, maybe I don't know what you guys are referring to by elasticity - I'd assumed it referred to standardisation / variation of betsizing in particular spots. Please explain more...

Is it a matter of having a balanced range while varying betsizing or what?

ps. who coined "elasticity" and "pot geometry"? The latter term rather sounds like it was invented by a coach to be used as a lesson concept/video title (doing a forum search it looks like a micro / small stakes Full Ring Thing) - surely people have been talking about this stuff forever without needing to use these sound bytes?

Example Poker 5/10:



UTG: $1000
UTG+1: $1000
UTG+2: $1000
MP1: $1000
MP2: $1000
CO: $1000
Hero (BTN): $1000
SB: $1000
BB: $1000

Hero is BTN with AA

6 folds, Hero raises to $30, fold, BB calls $30

Flop ($65): T 8 5
BB checks

against a super nit here, if we half pot it, we get called only by overpairs and sets.

if we pot it, his calling range stays the same. that's inelastic.

against a meh bad reg, if we pot it, his calling range is about the same - OP's, sets, probably TPTK. however, as we change our betsizing, we can change his calling range.

For instance, we can bet $55 and get also called by J9 and KT. Bet $50 and also get called by 79, QT, 67, and JT. bet $35 and get called by 77+ and maybe even some gutshots. you get the idea.

so basically by changing our betsizing, we can sometimes change what our opponents call with - thus avoiding narrowing their ranges too much and getting value out of weaker parts of their range.

against inelastic ranges, we should obviously bet only a little when we have air and alot when we have the nuts. yes, it's exploitable. no, they're not going to adjust. that's why inelastic ranges usually go with bad, non-thinking players.

elasticity is an economic term:



(where price = bet size on a 1bb-effective stacks, and quantity = % of calls on a 0-100% scale)
====================

pot geometry has been around forever. i read about it years ago when i was playing PLO8 and it became a cornerstone of my edge in that game

Ah that's a good term, thanks guys - when I said cbet small on wetter (but not very wet) boards vs bad players a couple of pages ago, I suppose I was referring to the villain's large "inelastic" range.

Probably giving away too much info here, but am I the only person who uses an RNG to introduce a little bit of randomness/unprectability to my betsizing in different spots?

are you using it to like RNG the decimal? (for insance you say "ok, i want to bet $18, and ill RNG the decimal to make it $18.2 or $18.7)

or RNG in a range? (for instance you say "ok, i want to bet between $10 and $14.5, and ill just rando choose a number in that range")

i personally veer away from RNG-ing any of my decisions...because I almost always have info to lead me to a more correct and exploitative decision...bet sizing included

How have I not thought of this!!! Profit, here I come.

In some spots (not going to write about how I pick which spots, because it would be long, plus I just don't want to) I roll it on an 80-10-10 scale--80% I pick my own size, 10% I bet small, 10% I bet big. I only do this against regs, never against fish.

As I've freely admitted in the past, I play poker more because it's interesting than to make money, and enjoy experimenting with a lot of stuff...

I used to use a random number generator, not only for betsizing, but also for choosing actions (à la HoC). I'm just not as good as Split in finding exploitative lines. So I would look at a situation and decide to, say, bet pot 30%, half pot 50%, and check 20%.


But I think the main benefit was that it forced me to actively think about each decision - coming up with a reasonable distribution takes some more thought than just hitting the bet pot button.

I certainly had more success with that approach; maybe I should get back into it. Of course it slows you down and thus restricts the number of tables.

lol at using a rng for anything at the micro's. Spend the time spent doing that on picking the most plus EV descision.


I definetly have a bunch of thoughts on this topic, but its really late here, so ill leave it with this:

Especially against fish and bad regs, when you know thier range is weak, I've had surprisingly good results making as small as 1/6 pot river bets IP. Since no one is river c/r bluffing at the levels we play, I think a lot of players are missing a ton of thin value by not making this kind of bet, especially vs players that are lookingf for an excuse to pretend they're Ivey, and make a ridiculous A high/btm pair etc call. tbh, you also see quite a few curiosity calls with hands that are never good as well.

iirc I think threads13 has done a video using an RNG for 60/40 80/20 type spots.

It just produces a number between 1-100. If you decide you're betting 80%, checking 20% in a given spot, 1-80 = bet, 81-100 = check.

Yeah... I don't use an RNG for making decisions, though, unless it's a spot where I decide it's equal EV between two options. Then I'll 50-50 RNG it. But that's very, very rare. Maybe it's more beneficial in regwars than I give it credit for, though... I think there's value in staying somewhat unpredictable with betsizing, though.

This thread would not be complete without this post from Pokey. Sorry if its burried somewhere and I missed it.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/69...player-273571/

I realize that's an old post but it's pretty wrong about overbetting, even at the micros. There are plenty of nits that try to pot control and overbetting is a pretty good way to be like pot control this ****er.

I like this but I like to bet bigger for protection on these boards when I actually have a hand, and I like to C-bet the same when I have it and when ive missed to minimise the info Im giving away. I think this is fine though as long as you know your opponent wont pick up on it and you keep track of what info you've given away to the better players on the table who may notice your tendancys. You may even get better FE with your normal 2/3 bets vs the reg if they spot this as your not doing it to them lol.

i'm confused on optimal turn raise sizing. i end up raising to weird amounts or at least it feels weird to me.

for example say we have this hand. we obv decide to take him off his hand on the turn as we turn the fd.

Full Tilt Poker $0.25/$0.50 No Limit Hold'em - 8 players - http://www.thehandconverter.com/hands/885389
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

UTG: $64.00
UTG+1: $33.05
MP1: $50.00
MP2: $52.10
CO: $20.00
Hero (BTN): $52.75
SB: $49.00
BB: $114.00

Pre Flop: ($0.75) Hero is BTN with Qc Kc
UTG calls $0.50, 2 folds, MP2 raises to $2, 1 fold, Hero calls $2, 3 folds

Flop: ($5.25) 4c 8s 6h (2 players)
MP2 bets $2.50, Hero calls $2.50

Turn: ($10.25) Jc (2 players)
MP2 bets $7, Hero raises to ?

i know it doesnt answer your raise size question...but why not just double float, take the draw for cheap, and make a more correct river decision than he will?

Well that J should prevent me from value betting hands like 67, A8, 78, 89, 99, TT on the river. I would've 3bet QQ-AA pre. If I had something like a set or two pair I would've raised it by the turn. I wouldn't be surprised to be snapped off by a lot of pairs or good ace highs like AK or AQ on the river.

youre giving too much thought process to someone who probably doesnt deserve it

I'd like to see more discussion on elasticity vs inelasticity.

Elasticity is a measure of how much someone would be willing to call when you vary the price.

The key factor imo is the board texture. On a drawy board, people will have more hands with which they can call. The more hands with which they can call, the more they are willing to call.

The drier the board, the less hands they have, and the less likely they are to call bigger bets.

I understand elasticity in big bet poker as follows: We have a certain range of hands and face a bet. Let's assume that we will never raise. Then we will call with part of our range and fold the rest. Elasticity describes the degree in which our calling percentage depends on the size of the bet. So if you look at Split's images it's the demand rather than the supply that we consider here.

The classic quote "I haz top pear, I callz" describes perfect inelasticity. No matter the betsize, our calling range is TP+. Consider on the other hand a dangerous board on the river with deep stacks. We may call a shove with FH+, a pot-sized bet with straight, a half-pot bet with with trips, and a minbet with Ace high. This would be an elastic calling range.

Some villains are rather inelastic, especially on the earlier streets - say, when facing a steal in the blinds. In that case you can just minbet as a steal with junk, and bet more with better hands.

Board texture and elasticity are orthogonal concepts imo.

probably need to look at the eigenvector

WARNING: FOR PEOPLE WHO LIKE THE MATHS ONLY
I've found that a good way (for me) to visualize it is

Elasticity = Board Texture X Opponent's Call Tendencies

Where elasticity is a two-dimensional graph, and board texture + call tendencies are the axises (is that the right word?).

For example, a T 6 2 board would be high on the board texture axis, because hands that are going to call that board will call close to any reasonable bet size.

On the other hand, A K Q would be low on the board texture axis, since the board is scary and calling ranges will be largely determined by bet size.

If you're really into the mathematical visualization: Board Texture = Draws + High Cards (+ Scare Cards on later streets).

The Opponent's Call Tendency Axis is easy enough to figure out...the looser the player, the higher they are on the axis.

(Or calling tendency = Looseness*Position)

Thus, the distance from the origin would be a rough visualization of the inelasticity of our opponent.

Given this rough estimate, we can then think through the opponent's range, and decide what we want in a given situation. Do we want calls? Folds? Using this visualization can give us a pretty good idea of how to proceed. (We want calls, our opponent's predicament is pretty inelastic, we can bet big. We want folds, our opponent's predicament is very elastic, a big bet has a good chance of taking it down).

This is why c-betting with air OOP on low boards is often a bad idea, because most opponent's will float liberally IP (high calling tendencies), and the board is very dry (high on the texture axis). This leaves us with a very inelastic opponent, and we should usually bet big for value or check with air.

Of course, elasticity is just one component of our decisions on actions and bet sizing. But as a Math and Econ student, I love visual representations like this, and I thought a few of you might find this useful.