real nice question
I've been thinking a lot about optimal bet sizing on dry flops at NL2. The "ideal" GTO solution is 25%-33% pot size bet at a 90% frequency on dry flops. But obviously GTO shouldn't be used much at micros.
I am trying to figure out if this sizing and frequency still applies against unknowns though.
I find that with this bet sizing (33%) most players still fold if they have nothing and will sometimes continue with A high type hands. However there are some players that call (not sure if floating or just stations who think 33% is a good price to call), usually they fold to a second 66% psb barrel on the turn, so I think can actually end up being more profitable than just using a 50-60% cebt on the flop and them folding right there and then.
So what I'm trying to figure out, is NOT how to exploit specific players with bet sizing, but what my ideal (default) cbet size should be vs. the population/unknowns at the micros to avoid bleeding chips.
I even saw an upswing article that looked at a solver solution that said to Cbet your entire range 100% of the time on EVERY flop (wet or dry) if you're up against opponents who never reraise your cbets.
Also, the recommended cbet size I've seen for micros is 50-60% on the flop but is such a big size really necessary? Would cbet frequency have to be reduced for bigger sizing like this?
Thoughts? How do you approach cbetting at micros to minimize losses while maintaining enough fold equity?
Hi Nick, good evening buddy and thanks a lot for your point. Very well constructed thought.
I agree with you, Evan Jarvis, Nathan Williams and Doug Polk when the subject is GTO at the micros: it is proven that it doesn't work (perfectly).
However, if you never use GTO at the micros you are making a little flaw: you're not considering that something between 1% and 5% of the field are really professionals.
95% of the regulars are breakeven, but this never means it is easy to beat them or that we should exploitative play versus 95% of the field.
Besides, there are average regulars at the micros. I respect some passive and aggressive tight players at the micros. Their mistakes exist, but are minimal.
The expoitative games works a lot against players who use to show weakness at the cash tables: limping, making min-raise 3-bet, calling preflop too much, calling too much c-bet flop/c-bet turn, to enter often in multi way pots, not using position, sometimes playing any two cards from anywhere, etc.
One thing I've been talking a lot here is polarization. Weak players don't see the bet size as a weapon and a piece of information: when a player open 3.5 blinds from the BTN, I know it is a weak player, for sure!
Not that I am "a wonderful good player", but I respect my work and my study. I am decent player, not the best, not the ultimate winner, but I believe I have edge of any player of the field of 2 NLHE 6-Max.
How can I 3-bet a person who opens more than the normal size? How can I call? Here comes the art of exploitation: you gotta know who you are playing with. Is this guy c-bet too much flop in position and c-bet too much turn in position? Bad ideia to call out of position with nothing but the range that we could be 3-betting versus a polarized preflop raise.
To tell you the truth, versus unknow players I think like this: if Villain in position is opening 3.5x versus me, as Hero in the blinds, it is because this Villain believes I am a fish.
This is good for me! However I cannot play like him, and open a very wide range using a very unusual sizing (3.5x)
So, how can we possibily open 50% of hands, with a 3.5x size and be profitable at the long run?
Lemme jump into the subject, how can we c-bet a 100% of our range in position when we already built a large pot preflop?
The 3x raise in position allows us to c-bet with our entire range in position, if we like it, versus any kind of player. There are many good players who fold to much to c-bet flop, or the artists, who like to call the flop to see how would you react and then fold turn.
Given that in position we are raising 50% of our range preflop, and c-betting 90%-100% of the flops, we must use a balanced size. I believe that 90% of 2 NLHE are average regulars, like Nathan Williams says in his blog, they neither win too much nor lose to much, which allows them to keep eternally trying.
Against these kind of breakeven players, I am more inclined to a GTO approach. Players who are in the level 2 or 3 of the metta-game. They are the majority of the field!
What many players cannot realize, is that the pool of 2 NLHE is way too hard. There aren't too many aggro idiots and whales as people believe it was back in 2007, when
pokerstars had a promotion where they gave $ 10 to everyone who create an account, so by this time, business where booming!
Considering that 90% of my adversaries are breakeven, I cannot play too much exploitative or they are going to know it that I am raising with intention to exploit and start to exploit me for VALUE. I will be hunt to death if I start to make, for example, a 1/2 pot c-bet with 100% of my range in position! This is not logic!
And why do we need so much fold equity in the flop? And what about the times we hit our value hand, don't we want the villain to keep paying us with the dominated part of its range? We want it, thus if we increase too much our c-bet sizing, villain simply is going to realize you are strong and fold its second hands.
Versus regulars I prefer to use 1/3 to 1/2 pot c-bet flop: I use 1/3 when the flop is too dry, with my entire range and I use 1/2 pot for when the flop is too connected and my range needs more protection.
The micros golden rule
IMO, we can vary a lot this ABC way of playing against average regulars of any stake. Specially those players who love to pay the flop and turn to see if by a miracle, they hit their equity in the river. From guys like this, also known as "fishes", we can make larger sizing without any risk of playing wrong.
Fishes would never play so many hands, so they will never know what we do in certain spots and what we don't do. So when we hit out top set and we are in a connected turn, we put a 150% pot or 200% pot bet, specially if we are deep stacked and fish villain too, because we know this fish is going to pay, and sometimes put up a shove against us with 18% equity in the turn, in the best case scenario for it.
Now, the average regulars of 2 NLHE are there everyday! If you vary too much against them, they are going to perceive and start to re-exploit you on your weakness. The objective of the game is not to give easy information for our adversaries: when we polarize our preflop range and our flop range we are giving precious information to our opponent.
For example, when I am in the BTN, 100 bb deep, and I see that SB has only 28 BB and the BB has only 41 BB, I would not raise 3x here! Why? If one of them pay and I hit anything that "breaths" in the flop, I must go in almost 100% of turns, if this player continues paying a c-bet, or donks, or check-raise us, we are forced to go, because we know almost for sure they are weak (broken stacks).
When I am in the BTN, and there are players ahead in the blinds with tiny small stacks, or just one of them, I raise 2.5x, sometimes even 2x, when I don't want to fold a hand because I believe that I can take a nice pot versus this guy.
When I get call the pot is so small I can get away from weird situations: villain broken stack calls and donks flop all-in, or check-raises flop all-in.
But this is the way I play. If you feel more confidend making larger c-bet flops versus 90% of the breakeven field because you believe you have edge upon them, don't bother yourself and just work on that that functions for your own game.
I like to use pot control at the micros a lot. 90% of the average regulars also tend to be insanely aggresive postflop, betting in the large sizing, and trying to go for stacks everytime it hits the top of its range: TPTK, Two Pair, Sets, etc.
90% of these players are very, very unbalanced with their preflop and postflop bets. They become easy preys.
When you see a regular check-raising all-in turn with a set of aces, you know this is weakness, because this player has no bluffs in the same spot that he could possibily to the same.
The regulars at the micros are way too polarized for value. When they have strong hands they go for a 3.5x preflop in position, they c-bet 1/2 or more regardless of the context when they have QQ+ and AQs+ with any piece of equity, versus any kind of player.
Our C-bet frequency will vary from player to player, like that we can balance our range.
Big Blind example:
I was playing at the micros one of these days and some guy limped from UTG, folds, folds, folds, SB completes and I am Hero/BB with 3h5d and I check because I am never raising this kind of hand versus a limper from UTG.
How do I play from the Big Blind when I check preflop? I'll go for checking almost 100% of flops, unless I hit a very strong hand that needs protection.
It happens that it came a flop A24 giving me a straight. SB checks, and I make a very strong bet of 70% of the pot:
I have no AA right now, because AA would never be checking BB. However, I could check some 22 and 44 from time to time that are not so good for raising but are good enough to see a flop when we have
odds and the players have stack behind.
So, I would make a 70% bet here (not c-bet because I didn't raise the pot, nobody raised actually) with 22, 44, A2, A4, 42, 53, and depending if I have some back doors flushes with some 5x and 4x alone.
I have no bluffs here when I bet! I don't need a
bluffing range here. I will only check this flop when I hit a monster like a full-house, but even so I could be betting because people tend to believe we are kidding when we do it.
What happened is that I bet 70% of the pot and the UTG limper calls. SB folds. The Turn comes another Ace and know I check. I believe my hand has lost a of value when it doubles the ace: he could have limped and paid with 22, 44 or Ax, so because I believe this card is not good for my range that checks from the Big Blind and polarized bets the flop.
UTG checks and the river brings another 4. I check in the BB and UTG bets 60% pot.
I believe I have odds here with my straight and I decided to call because it is very close and the pot is in a decent size: UTG shows A4 with a boat.
What many regulars are going to do here is to bet 100% pot in the flop, and already prepare the turn for an all-in. When we go all-in with hands that checked from the BB, we have no bluffs at all. What we don't know is that the UTG player is not able to fold sets, trips, and full-houses not even dreaming! If we go all in UTG will continue paying with its trips/sets/boats and we are already nailed.
By checking turn I also scared the range of the limper because it decided not to be turn.
Getting in the river with a small pot was better for me with checking range.
However, if it comes a raise and I defend the Big Blind and I hit a monster hand, and now I am facing an average regular of the field, I could go by checking and by betting 1/3 pot to 1/2 pot, because I know when this player has any strong hand it will put a lot of pressure, by using strong sizings.
Regards;
Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa