Theory question: Optimal betsizing on static turn with polarized range
Posted by RiverOfTears
Posted by
RiverOfTears
posted in
High Stakes
Theory question: Optimal betsizing on static turn with polarized range
a) You can bet $67 that sets up a nice pot sized bet on the river.
b) You can bet 82% into the pot ($82) which leaves you with the same size bet on the river (82%/$218).
Which do you prefer and why?
Loading 7 Comments...
Disclaimer: Tired and may remember wrong.
But I am not sure what to do when my range is really nut-heavy. Lets say I BC a small XR monotone flop ip w topset and I boat up on turn) - then I dont think it is easy for villain to float a small bet as long as it is big enough to bet all in on river.
But, having said that, I'd suspect that in most cases where villain's range is rather strong, and not at all capped, then the correct answer is to bet as small as we can while still being able to make a PSB on the river (i.e. option a). The reason is that in the cases where we're bluffing and villain's range is strong, we want our bluff to be as cheap as possible (compare to the case where villain's range is capped, where we want to take option a to allow us to bluff as much as possible while still being balanced).
Also, sometimes when our range is top-heavy and we don't have enough bluffs, then we want to take option c: bet say half pot on both turn and river, fully realizing that we can't get stacks in. There's no theoretical principle saying that the line that gets stacks in is the most +EV: if our range is too strong to give villain pot odds while still betting big, then villain would be correct in just folding to our big bets. We might have made a range-building error along the way that made our range so strong here as to not have a sufficient number of bluffs.
Be the first to add a comment