Bet sizing on lockdown boards

I think nowadays the commonly accepted bet size on lockdown boards (772r, 567r, monotone flops) is a smaller bet around 50% pot with the logic that ranges are polarized so you don't need to protect against as much. but with the smaller sizing you invite bluffraises from players that otherwise would be more gunshy vs a larger sizing. it sounds silly but the larger sizing on these boards really do discourage most people from making plays at you and probably discourage "light" flop peels. this effect is magnified in 3 bet pots where the stack to pot ratio is much lower, so a potsized c-bet forces any raise to commit so much.

In a vacuum i think just potting it on lockdown boards would show a greater profit than betting small and playing the leveling war but its definitely unbalanced. at lower stakes where the player pool is large, resulting in less history, and players are more likely to interpret a small sizing as weak, i feel like a larger bet size is more profitable despite being far from GTO.

just kind of rambling here, but i'm curious about other people's approach and take on the subject.

agree, @ HUhypers I sometimes go for 50% on boards that 25% is the stnd/GTO, just because I make them c/r bluff close to 0% of the time doing that, but that depends if I think the guy c/raises a lot or not

On August 30 2012 05:19 player999 wrote: agree, @ HUhypers I sometimes go for 50% on boards that 25% is the stnd/GTO, just because I make them c/r bluff close to 0% of the time doing that, but that depends if I think the guy c/raises a lot or not

yeah pretty much. to try and generate some more discussion and relate it back to PLO, a common spot that comes up is lets say you 3-bet pf and get called in one spot. flop JJ2. suppose theres 30bbs in the pot and 100 bbs left in stacks. the player calling the 3 bet is slightly more likely to hold a J in this spot because the 3-bettor has AA in his range and the caller doesn't. if you c-bet 12-15 here, the caller can make it 30-35 and still comfortably fold to a raise. if you were 3-betting a rundown, you have no choice but to fold once you get raised. if you have AA, well you're now in a tough spot.

but lets say that you instead c-bet pot for 30. with no history, any illusion of fold-equity is gone. the caller can't think that you're bet folding aces here, and a minraise-bluff to 60 nearly pot commits the opponent. this being the case, the caller is pretty much forced into only continuing with a J or 22 even if he knows your 3-betting range is pretty wide here. so in a weird way, this unbalanced pot-sized c-bet nearly guarantees profitability in a vacuum.

anyone agree or disagree with this?

(as an aside, does anyone know what the probability is of a single opponent flopping trips on a board like JJ2 assuming 4 random cards?)

There's definitly a point in trying to make bet sizes that induces crap vs random. As I said when I played NL and in my law school thesis: Don't use Game Theory if you can abuse someone for a higher gain in some other way.

On August 30 2012 14:32 lacman730 wrote: [QUOTE]On August 30 2012 05:19 player999 wrote: but lets say that you instead c-bet pot for 30.with no history, any illusion of fold-equity is gone.

When villains start to realize you're just potting your range they will start to minraise bluff even if it looks awkward. At that point your cbet is simply twice as expensive, and there's not enough room left to credibly 3bet bluff.

im really happy you made this thread, Ive definitely noticed myself that its a really uncomfortable spot trying to credibly bluff vs pot bet on jj2 type.boards. Hope there's more discussion on this, I need to think it over.

On August 30 2012 14:32 lacman730 wrote: [QUOTE]On August 30 2012 05:19 player999 wrote: (as an aside, does anyone know what the probability is of a single opponent flopping trips on a board like JJ2 assuming 4 random cards?)

Around 18%. If you're lucky enough to find opponents who fold 82% of the time on these boards simply cuz u pot you should probably start 3betting any 4.

On August 31 2012 11:34 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On August 30 2012 14:32 lacman730 wrote: [QUOTE]On August 30 2012 05:19 player999 wrote: but lets say that you instead c-bet pot for 30.with no history, any illusion of fold-equity is gone. When villains start to realize you're just potting your range they will start to minraise bluff even if it looks awkward. At that point your cbet is simply twice as expensive, and there's not enough room left to credibly 3bet bluff.

even if thats true, until then we make more by going big

On August 31 2012 11:45 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On August 30 2012 14:32 lacman730 wrote: [QUOTE]On August 30 2012 05:19 player999 wrote: (as an aside, does anyone know what the probability is of a single opponent flopping trips on a board like JJ2 assuming 4 random cards?) Around 18%. If you're lucky enough to find opponents who fold 82% of the time on these boards simply cuz u pot you should probably start 3betting any 4.

Thanks, did you use odds oracle or something to find this out, or just did the math yourself? i'm no good at this kind of stuff

I just half pot because galfond said so, seems to work people still fold if they raise you can just min raise back. In 3bet pots people are really scared on J22r thinking you won't fold overpairs.

Oh JJ2r just bet and most will fold in 3b pots you could probably 1/3 pot esp. when 3way. If you get raised HU and you don't know the guy just fold and try and get a read.

interesting thread. will follow !

On September 01 2012 09:36 lacman730 wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2012 11:45 NMcNasty wrote:   On August 30 2012 14:32 lacman730 wrote: [QUOTE]On August 30 2012 05:19 player999 wrote: (as an aside, does anyone know what the probability is of a single opponent flopping trips on a board like JJ2 assuming 4 random cards?) Around 18%. If you're lucky enough to find opponents who fold 82% of the time on these boards simply cuz u pot you should probably start 3betting any 4. Thanks, did you use odds oracle or something to find this out (

Yes, used the count feature for the range with a jack and the total range and did a little math.

pretty interesting thread we have going here nice~ ^^

As to my own personal thoughts I'd prefer the smaller cbets simply due to the fact that we have more room to maneuver with a wider range. And readjust when opponents adjust.

I think just potting it as a default really opens us up to bigger mistakes really assuming we don't have any relevant information/reads. (as I assume we are in that position judging from the responses in this thread?)