size of bets - what is the norm / rule of thumb

I have read and heard that when you are betting that if you are going to raise then it should be minimum of 3 times the big blind. However in practice i rarely see it, size of bets vary from the BB to anything higher. Is this because i currently play in the low $$ tourmanents and cash games and predominatley the people i play against might not be experienced, and when i play bigger games then the bets get bigger?

Also as the blinds increase then and your stack goes down i have also read about only betting a certain percentage of your stack?

any help as always is appreciated.

I try to stick to 3 to 5 x the BB, but if I'm in late position, and there are several callers ahead of me, I might put in a pot-sized bet, or even overbet the pot if I have something really big. If I take only the blinds, so-be-it, and ideally I'll get one caller.

Some people like to 'sweeten the pot' with a min-raise, but I'm not a big fan. It just makes the pot that much bigger to justify any drawing hand that might think they have outs on the flop. With enough people chasing you, you will get caught no matter how far a head start you have.

In tournaments, 2.5-3x the big blind is pretty standard. In cash, most people go with 4xbb + 1 per limper.

And yes, the low money tournys will have all kinds of weird plays. People just don't have a clue for the most part.

I'm not sure about that % of the stack thing, I've never done it myself. The only thing I check as blinds are growing is my M, altering my preflop starting hand selection to reflect an appropriate range, and ultimately going to the "all-in or fold" if it drops to 5 or less.

There are things to remember about betting if you really want to learn how to bet properly.
As it has been said above, when betting pre-flop, betting 2.5-3xBB plus one for every limper is the norm.
Post flop betting is based on the size of the pot, board texture and if it has hit you at all.
If the board hasn't hit you and you are given the chance to bet at the pot first, then a c-bet(continuation bet) of about 1/3 the pot is good.
If you hit the flop but the board is draw heavy then a 3/4 to a pot sized bet is in order here to give improper odds for drawing hands to call.

If I'm wrong on this, I'm sure I will be corrected

But if you bet 1/3 the pot doesnt that basically broadcast that your cbetting? unless your balancing and doing this with big hands as well, and actually have opponents who notice, i think its a big flaw in betting strategy. a cbet IMO is supposed to look like any other bet, not tell your opponent "HEY, I'm c-betting!"

Two small but important notes to add:

A c-bet is not just betting at the flop first, it is when you have raised preflop to take control of the action and are then the first to bet at the pot post flop, which is why 1. it is so powerful of a move and 2. doesn't need to be as big of a bet as you just continuing your image of having a big hand.

Betting 3/4 of the pot to price out draws is great but a 1/2 pot bet achieves the same thing. You may want to vary between the two depending on if you want to build the pot up or not. For instance I bet 1/2 pot when I know chasers are against me and I have a vulneralbe hand such as top pair. If I have to let the hand go if all indications are that I am beat, I lose less.

I hope that makes sense.

Well, a 1/3 bet is a c-bet and a probe bet.

If the opponent hit nothing at all and has no draws, chance at a redraw, holding undercards, no pairs, or nothing he can profitably call a 1/3 pot sized bet with then they're likely to fold to a c-bet.

At the same time, if you miss, a small bet will tell you where you are in the hand and how strong your opponent is. If they call or raise you, you can either slowdown/fold and not risked a lot of your stack on the hand. What you want to happen is you get your opponent to fold, but if they don't you're risking very little. Even if you bet/bluff pot with a 3/4-pot sized bet, you can get the same results. Your opponent my fold, which is good but they could also call or raise you and you've given up a lot more money when a smaller bet would've accomplished similar results.

I disagree with this.

If you're playing against a person who is a known chaser, you want to put as much money as you can into the pot because they will pay you off a lot more when they miss, but if you're only betting small, you're giving up a lot of value on your hand when it holds up.

Don't look at is as losing less when you lose, but losing less when you win.

That is fine, it is all situation dependent of course but I don't push top pair hands that hard. If I am holding a set I am more than willing to stack off if they catch. My point wasn't to make draws pay less, it was that just always betting 3/4 of the pot is not always the best strategy as there are times you don't want to build huge pots, like when you are holding just top pair. (I am talking about cash games right now, as that is what I am playing)

Oh, I agree that betting 3/4s all the time isn't the best thing to do, but it seems like your post was you didn't want to risk too much vs someone chasing a draw. I guess I'm more likely to stack off with someone who is chasing with just top pair. LOL.