CB Sizing on paired boards
Posted by Matty_G
Posted by
Matty_G
posted in
High Stakes
CB Sizing on paired boards
I usually CB 50-60% pot on paired boards with a 100% frequency until given a reason to adjust. I notice most bosses do the same, but why is this good?
Is it because we are in position and thus can play good against someone who will x/r us often?
Is it to give us self a good price on a steal when no one ever has anything?
Is it to get a larger SPR so there is more room should someone x/r us?
Is it something completely different?? :)
Thoughts are much appreciated !
Loading 10 Comments...
I´m more curious as to why you believe betting those boards 100% is correct though?
Since our opening range from BTN is wider than BB coldcall we can rep more combos of trips on almost every board. Furthermore, the positional advantage enables us to win the pots where none of us have anything.
Villians obvious adjustment will be to x/r paired flops more, but we will obv realize this and play back at him. So now he is faced with x/r us as a bluff or just give up the 6bb pot...
I am not sure if this is correct, but that is the logic I follow :)
if this betsize is good depends totally on your gameplan and you opponents bb range. but there are certain advantages it will have in most scenarios:
1. better price for bluff - 8 high just cant continue
2.higher bluffing frequency possible
3.even if opp calls and floats these boards a lot, you can still rep stronger
4. sets up future bluff opportunities and streets... if you see an opponent regularly getting to the river with ace or king high, this enables you to bluff and vbet very frequently and successfully
or the opposite. they dont get to the river light ever. also a good thing. now the flop bet is probably profitable in itself
Say the board comes 994r or something like that, how light are you willing to get in against someone who check-raise a lot.
I feel like if you want to play back by 3betting as a bluff a bunch, you dont have enough made hands if you only 3b/get in trips.
I used to defend my range by flatting ip pretty wide rather than having a 3bet range, but am starting to think that isn´t optimal..
Keep posting theory, it´s more interesting to talk about!
In this case, a smaller bet-size is the most difficult to handle given that most of the range facing the bet would prefer either a much bigger size, or no bet at all (to make it easier to defend the entire range). Thus, it's typically the most difficult strategy to counter.
Thats close to an openender/gutter vs a made hand...
Anyways, I´m not sure that i´m convinced about what you are saying though. Obviously it´s cool to not face a bet at all, but the lower the button bets, the cheaper a check-raise also becomes in relation to the pot. Button will also end up with an exponentially smaller pot against the calling range.
My guess is that splitting your range and having a bigger betsize will end up being better. Can´t prove it though ;)
That´s not true - from a strategic point of view. The smaller our bet, the less often we can bluff - unless the board is such that we´re sure we can profit a ton from future cards, but on a board as dry as say 882 this is rarely if ever the case.
Teddy: it´s not about the equity T9 has vs. J5, it´s the equity that either 77 or T8 have on 882 vs. AA - or the other way round, the equity that JJ has vs. AT / 98 on the same board. The smart thing about small bets on paired boards is that most non-trip-made-hands hands can´t really call a big bet, but are compelled to call a small bet. Yet, they really have no clue if they can stand further heat - so they´d love to just face a psb and being able to fold (as we can have tons of trips in our wide range).
And if Villain decides to x/r our small bet, stacks (100bb) are such that he can´t check/shove, but we can 3-bet-shove (and most likely will, instead of calling), so bluffing is quite hazardeous, especially with a hand that has some equity left.
As mentioned, the smaller bet theoretically allows less bluffs in our range but that doesn´t matter too much unless we give Villain the chance to realize his equity.
Be the first to add a comment