Hi all,I'm gonna be starting a new thread for august. For the new people or anyone I haven't talked a lot with, very excited to start working with you too! I tend not to make a ton of posts, but definately up to work with anyone about anything here or in skype, I'm nico.asp there.My main game is 200$ super turbo, errr hyper turbo I mean.Gl to all.
I expect most of my posts will be about general strategy rather than actual hands. I feel I don't get so much value from disscusing individual hands, which probably means I'm doing something wrong, so if you have some advice on that let me know :)I want to work a bit on the potential of donking out ranges. Hokie, you brought up donking out as a possibility in a recent hand discussion, I think it was TJ on a low card (863?) flop, and you liked the idea around 20bb stacks (the actual hand was shorter). It got me thinking, I think donking is one of the most underused parts of my game, so can't hurt exploring a bit.To start off, could you give some brief list or thoughts on when / what type of situations / what type of factors can lead to donk > check-whatever? Then we could work from there.Tbh I only really ever donk out in 2 situations:- I build regular donking ranges vs people who cbet very low %s, according to what types of hands I find they do / don't cbet with.- Ocassionally I donk out with air on mid-connected flops that smack my range as PF caller.Any other situation I very rarely donk out on, and rarely even have the possibility cross my mind except an ocassional inspirational play. Where else is there value to be found with this?Remember I'm ST only so <25bbs.
Georgelongyun asked basically the same question in his thread. I've had a few others seem quite interested in donkbetting recently, as well.In the next week or so, I will post an in depth article on donkbetting. It's a complicated topic and something very new to most poker players, since donkbetting is such a rarely used option in the average players oop arsenal. Preview: I love donkbetting. It is +ev.
wow... we asked the same questions. Looking forward to Greg's new article.
I have a feeling that I'm having problems with certain postflop sizings, but I'm not sure how to approach looking at it.The problem comes because I used to have very standardised sizes on certain spots (at 10/20 cbet 40 into 80, double barrel 100 into 160, c-raise from 40 to 100...). Since some time ago I started messing with those sizes to exploit certain villains / textures etc, but now I find myself double barreling sometimes 80 sometimes 90 sometimes 100 for example in similar spots and it comes kind of subsconciously without me being able to make too much argument for it sometimes, so I'm afraid I might be getting into some exploitable patters without realising, if this happens vs good players. Could just be paranoic tho :)Not entirely the same but related: the other day I played a session vs Pistons87 and he was cbetting different (but similar) sizes, like 30-33-35-38 into 80, which in turn made me c-raise different sizes every time, and got that same kind of feeling again like am I giving something away here?So anyways, how would you advise working on this? i think focusing in-game on the reasonings behind betting one size or another would do good, and also analysing it a bit theoretically. Also not sure if I should temporarily go back to standard sizings at least vs regs.The spots I'm specifically worried about are cbet, c-raise and double barreling sizings.
Thinking about sizings on different textures:I'm exploring the idea of cbetting really big (75%-100% pot) with whole cbetting range on really wet boards.Basically, on a J87/J98 flop for example, I'm checking back my air a very high % of the time (standard) because it smacks most people's flatting range so hard. The idea is, when you make a 50% pot bluff-cbet you're mostly trying to fold out the air in villains range, and in this flop there's just not enough air, so it's a -ev bet. Correct?My thinking is, since on this type of flop you're generally happier to get a bigger bet in with most of your value range too, does it make sense to just cbet a big size with full cbetting range, and now include a % of bluffs in that range, since with this bet you can try to fold out weak draws / bottom pairs in addition to his air?
Readless, I have some pretty standard sizings. The deeper the stacks, the bigger my sizings usually. The shorter the stacks, the worse implied odds villain has to call down light - and we want to keep river stacks setup to where we can have some 3 barrel fold equity of course. With 390 behind, it really handcuffs you to call a 2 barrel of 70 into 180. With 1200 behind, 70 into 180 is obviously a pretty easy call and you can reevaluate river easily. So very different depending on stacks. The 70 into 180 2 barrel size with 390 behind sets up river stacks of 320 with a pot of 320 - perfect to be able to 3 barrel bluff shove certain rivers. If we were to cbet the size I would use at deeper stacks of 120 into 180 - river stacks would suck for a bluff with pot of 420 and stacks of 270 (most villains are never folding, and our big turn size really encourages check/jams). At effective stacks <20bb, I think switching your standard cbet sizing as low as 40% of the pot can be really good - and possibly the best option vs the average villain. So 30ish into 80, etc. Allows for better stack size setups for barreling and I believe that most villain's ranges respond very similary whether we cbet 30 or 40 - if anything they just call flop a little wider, which makes barreling even more profitable for us!Check/raising sizings differ by board texture. If you are playing a thinking player, and that player is unlikely to believe that you would ever check/raise bluff a JT8 board - then when villain cbets 40 into 80 at 380 stacks, I would consider check/shoving (if you think he cbets a tight range on wet boards) or just donkbetting the flop. Check/raise just seems to strong.On dry boards where villain is cbetting lots of air - if villain cbets 40 into 80 on K42 at 450 stacks, c/r from 40-100 40-90 is really all you need to do to accomplish what you are looking for. Again, at deeper stacks these sizings are easy for villain to float/play back at - but at these short stacks its really handcuffs villain from continuing with no stack room to work with without committing himself...like he obv cant 3bet bluff here without a hand comfortably since he is committing himself to get in basically.It's such a broad question, so it's hard to generalize it completely. Just think about villains range, what size exploits that range maximally, what you are trying to accomplish, and go with that. If you are worried about being exploited, build ranges that are a little more balanced and stop betting strictly by individual hand strength - just play your range...you will be a lot harder to deal with.
I got a ton out of this post though it actually wasn't exactly the direction I was going for. I'll go back to what initially worried me and then ask a bit about those answers.Basically my general sizings are very close to the ones you suggest for the shorter stacks situations (I play hypers only, though the comparisons to deeper stacks were very useful). When I talk about messing with those sizes I mean small changes, like the difference between a t80, t90 or t100 turn barrel into a 160 pot with 420 left in stacks.So where before I would always bet the exact same sizes within that range, like c-raise t40 to t100 on a Q82 flop, I've started experimenting with t40 to t90 for example, with the reasoning that considering the short stack to pot ratio it serves the same purpose when going for value and it shouldn't make much difference to the range I'm trying to fold out when bluffing. The problem is now I sometimes find myself c-raising 40 to 90 and other times 40 to 100 in that same flop, and I think I'm just doing one or the other by feel mostly. The same goes for turn barrel sizings. I don't (at least consciously) base these differences on actual hand strenght, except maybe vs someone really fishy, but rather if I do it consciously it depends on what I expect from the specific villain.I'm not sure if I can get any benefit from varying exploitably within those sizes vs fish or if it will matter at all, but vs good players, I'm worried if I do that instinctively they could pick up on some patterns I'm not even aware of. Regardless, at a minimun it can turn into a problem because I outlevel myself and spend mental space thinking about stuff like, once i've c-raised to 2 different sizes vs same (thinking) villain and he's seen 1 showdown, in which size should I put my next value hand or bluff etc... you see? paranoia :pHopefully I've managed to get across what I'm worrying about. I'll try to sum it up into specific questions:1 - Do you think the difference between those sizes (take as example the 40 to 90 or 40 to 100 c-raise in a minraised pot at 10/20 with 500 starting stacks) is significant enough to worry about which is, in general, the better size?2 - Do you think there is anything to be gained by being able to vary optimally between similar sizes like those in different, individual situations, like same flop different villains, or same flop same (bad) villain different hand strength? Or better to just decide which exact size you like most within that range and go with it always?3 - If I suspect having developed some subsconscious patters that lead me to vary within those sizes without good reason... do you think it's a legitimate concern? how would you suggest looking into it? Should I even try to find out if/how it's happening or just decide on standard sizes to use from now on and problem over?4 - If I were to choose standard sizes within those ranges, would you agree on something like this?:Lower end of the range for IP sizings like cbet (I want to get into cbet sizes specifically later) or double barrel, as long as it doesn't stop us from setting up appropiate stacks for an eventual river shove.Higher end for OOP sizings like c-raising on non-superwet boards. Not sure about this one, I feel like it makes sense that the smaller the better when c-raising a dry flop with short stacks behind, but when I go too small I feel it manipulates some villain's ranges in a bad way by giving them just enough room to maneuver and take advantage of position, kind of like what you said using small sizes like these in deeper stack situations would lead to.
just reread that after posting it and I feel the need to compensate the absurd deebness it's gonna come out as by saying I'm writing it in the hotel in Budapest where Valuelol and me have been staying for the Sziget festival, and had a nice Spa session and massage before the deebness started. There goes that :D
have you tried going through your HHs and checking those changes for Handstrength?I think if you wont find a connection between Handstrength and those things, your opponents wont either.
I like this discussion.I've started to CB 35>80 and 45>120 if the board is dry and villian has a folding button, I do the same sizeif i know that I can induce.If he doesnt I go for my standard halfpot.The next thing I started diong is marking hands where villian make these gay bets to find good spots and work on it.Especially for donkbetting.
So about cbet sizings..."At effective stacks <20bb, I think switching your standard cbet sizing as low as 40% of the pot can be really good - and possibly the best option vs the average villain. So 30ish into 80, etc. Allows for better stack size setups for barreling and I believe that most villain's ranges respond very similary whether we cbet 30 or 40 - if anything they just call flop a little wider, which makes barreling even more profitable for us!"I generally do this only on dry flops, but I've seen people have a 30 into 80 sizing as their standard in almost any texture and I'm not really sure whether that's optimal. So less than 50% i think is pretty much mandatory with short stacks on A92 for example, but do you think it's also best on Q96?I do think it makes sense to have different cbet sizings (with your whole range) on different textures as standard, do you agree on that?Post number 5 was a bit of exploring in this same topic (just an idea), I think you didn't get to that one.
Hopefully I've managed to get across what I'm worrying about. I'll try to sum it up into specific questions:1 - Do you think the difference between those sizes (take as example the 40 to 90 or 40 to 100 c-raise in a minraised pot at 10/20 with 500 starting stacks) is significant enough to worry about which is, in general, the better size?2 - Do you think there is anything to be gained by being able to vary optimally between similar sizes like those in different, individual situations, like same flop different villains, or same flop same (bad) villain different hand strength? Or better to just decide which exact size you like most within that range and go with it always?3 - If I suspect having developed some subsconscious patters that lead me to vary within those sizes without good reason... do you think it's a legitimate concern? how would you suggest looking into it? Should I even try to find out if/how it's happening or just decide on standard sizes to use from now on and problem over?4 - If I were to choose standard sizes within those ranges, would you agree on something like this?:Lower end of the range for IP sizings like cbet (I want to get into cbet sizes specifically later) or double barrel, as long as it doesn't stop us from setting up appropiate stacks for an eventual river shove.Higher end for OOP sizings like c-raising on non-superwet boards. Not sure about this one, I feel like it makes sense that the smaller the better when c-raising a dry flop with short stacks behind, but when I go too small I feel it manipulates some villain's ranges in a bad way by giving them just enough room to maneuver and take advantage of position, kind of like what you said using small sizes like these in deeper stack situations would lead to.Before getting to questions: yes, I think that cbetting slightly bigger on wet boards is a good idea if you aren't cbetting 100% of your range. So if we are playing a villain that flats a ton oop, so cbetting our complete air on JT9 is still +ev - I think then that a smaller sizing with our whole range is probably still going to be best. If they are fit or fold, and we want to be exploitable and cbet our value with a bigger sizing on that board I think that's fine too. So slightly bigger on wet boards when we have more of a checkback range and our cbet range is stronger, smaller on dry board where we cbet 100%. 1) Bet when you need to bet to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. Typically, when we are typically being aggressive (cbetting a lot, raising a lot pre, barreling a decent amount) - smaller sizes will be better since it needs to work less often and we have a lot of air in our range at this point. So I prefer the smaller sizing. I don't find that many villains respond all that different to a slightly smaller size - if anything it just confuses them and they flat a little wider on the flop so they are easier to barrel on turn/river.2) When I am 2 tabling it just levels me/confuses me too much to worry about this. I think when you have a good handle of how your opponent will respond to changes in sizings it is worthwhile, but usually I just end up levelling myself and guessing how villain will respond. 3 and 4) I feel like I've already answered what I have to say on this - I think focusing on changing sizes a ton creates a levelling game that usually causes you to lose focus on other important things (when cbetting more consistent sizings is still very +ev). I think slight changes based on board textures, how exploitable you want to be, and strength of your overall cbetting range are very good. I would post this in the ask-Mers thread and get his opinion. I feel like I'm not getting as deep into it as you'd like, but for me I try to avoid TOO much sizing-changes as I feel like I just end up owning myself usually (bc i'm a leveltard).