Multiple flop sizes are incredibly annoying to implement and doesn't add much if done perfectly, so I'd say looking for the simplest is a good idea or the one you think performs the best vs the populationon you play against. I did some practice a few months ago to see if learning to use 2 bet sizes and check would be possible to implement, and even with the best practice methods, it's a huge pain to get everything correctly. There is also a possibility that the difference you see can come from suboptimal XR size against one bet size or not having ideal turn or river bet sizes.

I'd say as long as you not play toughest lineup or regwars with extremely competent opponents, trying to implement 2 sizing's pretty useless in EV point of view.
Yeah you can go further and use 2 sizing's pre or so and it will damn complex as hell. If you use 2 sizings on the flop, likely you have 3rd option which is a check. If only 2 options 33% and 70% for example it doesn't seems as hard

Additionally you freeroll yourself for considering being a bot haha

Using 2 sizings often won't inherently increase your EV however if you want to understand the EV of it being harder to play against node lock your opponents strategy so that they play against each individual sizing like it's the only one that you use. So essentially if you're playing a strong player that can reasonably emulate a GTO response (for a human) you will gain EV from them misunderstanding the strategy that they are playing against and as a result playing differently. For example if someone assumes that you only use a 60% sizing in a certain turn spot but you also have an overbet sizing then they will assume that your 60% sizing is uncapped when in fact several of your strongest hands will actually be in the bigger sizing. As a result of this they may play back against your 60% sizing less aggressively than they should from a GTO standpoint thereby capturing more EV with your marginal hands that want to bet for value but hate facing a raise.

All good points. Thx

DNegs98 Kalupso If using multiple sizings doesn't add much EV, than what's the point of anyone implementing? Say I could implement 4 sizes perfectly (which I obv can not), why would I ever do that if there is no EV gain from one size? Clearly super elite high stakes players are trying to do this, so what is their purpose in doing so?

My original thought was you should use the strategy (in theory) that has the highest EV.

Thx BigFiszh So it's a matter of weighing 2 options that have same GTO EV:

a) playing a simpler strategy that is easier to play against but also easier to execute
b) playing a more complex strat that has the same optimal EV but a higher potential EV due to it being more difficult to play against (flip side being it's more difficult to execute and if played incorrectly would sacrifice a lot of EV as well).

Do strats with multiple sizes vs single size always have the same EV when played optimally? Are there scenarios where there is a significant gain in EV when executing a multiple size strategy correctly (excluding variable of opponent playing poorly, only looking at equilibrium)?

DNegs98 Great point! I like the ABC player analogy.

As a heads up, Kevin Rabichow bet sizing videos are great at explaining the theoretical q being discussed.

Thx @KRab42. Just finished the 3rd vid of your series and really enjoyed them. Can you throw out a quick example of a texture where gains will be greater?

Simplified Summary of Kevin’s vid for multiple sizing (for those who didn’t watch):

A). Look for EV gain when using multiple sizings vs a single size (play around w diff sizings)
B). Look for multiple sizing strats that target different hand classes (ie if a bunch of hands all have 3 sizing mixes this will make things very complex and difficult to execute)

-watch vids for detailed explanation

What I do is solve the flop subset provided with a tree that includes multiple sizes (up to 6). Then I look at each flop to see what size(s) the solver prefers and also whether or not there is a clear correlation between size and hand/hand class. Usually, when it is clear that certain parts of the bettor's range want to use one particular size over others, it tells me that there is more EV to be gained by using multiple sizes. Conversely, when there is no clear correlation such that most betting hands use multiple sizes, almost indiscriminately, where all the different colors run together, I usually discover that I can capture with one bet size (a catch-all size) most of the EV earned by multiple sizes. Then I try different sizes, one at a time using my initial subset as a guide, for each flop to determine which size or two earns the most EV. I also take into account complexity when developing my strategy and I usually only use multiple flop sizes when my range is condensed (3bet, EP open, etc.). My challenge with two flop sizes is randomizing bluffs/draws where many times there is no clear direction. Would love to hear how better players are doing this.

BigFiszh DNegs98
If its all about our opponent errors vs our mixed sizing how we can explain spot where pio prefer one sizing only. BBvBTN Q72r PIO will used just the 1/3P size even if we allow bigger sizes. I understand the logic of protection and push equity on this board but we can bet bigger sizing with lower frequency and gain the same EV.
can you explain the theory ?

The reason is the gutshots or the more higher cards to the 7 in BB range 8T 89 8J ? On K82 is same for Q72 ?