-
CB sizing theory: check my thinking
Hi folks, haven’t been on the site in a while because I’ve been adjusting to ring-fenced online poker in Canada. It’s actually been quite intellectually stimulating because there are a lot of new players who make a lot of your typical newbie mistakes, so it’s forced me to go back a few steps in my studies and almost rebuild my approach to be more exploitative. I play MTTs ranging anywhere from $5 to $30.
Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about CB sizing theory and how best to apply it to this player pool. I decided to go back to basics and think through the theory of small vs. large sizing, and would be interested in some feedback.
When to use small sizing
1. To get folds when villain is likely to be inelastic in calling. For example:
a) Villain has a wide range and I have the range advantage, especially if I block obvious villain continuing hands (BTN vs BB, flop comes AQ9r; BTN vs BB, I have AQhh and the flop comes KhTh6c).
b) Villain has a wide range and little chance to improve on a static flop that is good for my range (BTN vs BB, flop comes KK7r).
2. To get called by worse hands when villain is likely to be elastic in calling. For example:<div>
a) BTN vs BB, I have AQhh and flop comes Ad6h4h
b) CO vs limp/caller (happens a lot with these players), I have TT on a flop of T65r
When to use large sizing
1. To get folds when villain is likely to be elastic in calling. For example:
a) Villain has a wide range and likely to float a small bet (BTN vs BB, I have AJ and flop comes Q73r; BTN vs limp/caller, I have AK on Q92r).
b) Villain has a capped range and I have vulnerable value with no redraws (BTN vs SB, I have 88 on T63r; BTN vs BB, I have A8hh on a flop of Jd8c3d).
2. To get called by worse hands when villain is likely to be inelastic in calling:<div>
a) BTN vs BB, I have AsKh on a flop of Ah6c3c
b) CO vs BTN, I have 88 on a flop of AQ8
c) BTN vs limp/caller, I have TT on a flop of AdTh7h
The one I’m uncertain about is large sizing 1(a) because this player pool does tend to limp and call wide ranges, and won’t fold if they hit. So for example, with AK against a limp/caller on Q92, it isn’t uncommon at all to see players limp/call with all sorts of Qx and hands like J9s/T9, even A2/K2s).
</div></div>
-
3 Replies
-
Here are my thoughts. I love how you are thinking about the ranges and elasticity to sizing. You also are picking some great examples. Where I’d challenge this a bit is to think about board texture based on our range, not our exact holding. So instead of looking at Q73r from the perspective of AJ, look at it from the perspective of our entire range that gets here.
You’re correct to look at these disconnected rainbow boards as good candidates for big bets. Many of your instincts are spot on, but there are a few pieces that will help refine this from my perspective.
On single broadway boards (like Q73), the higher the high card on the board, the less likely we are to use large sizing. Why? Because one of the elements you tend to want on a big bet board texture is an element of dynamism. On Q73r, Qx is more likely to remain top pair by the turn. This is more true on a K-high board and universally true on an A-high board. On T73r, Tx is much more vulnerable. The point of a big cbet is put marginal holdings in tough spots, either immediately or down the road. So if you defend with Q9 and T9 from the BB and call a big bet, more of your turn decisions will be easier on the Q73 board than on the T73 board.
The line really seems to be once we verge into J-high boards. These are the boards where the big bets start to enter into our approach. But the moment they do, something else changes about our approach. We start to check a lot more. So when we start betting big, we have to start polarizing our approach (betting our best holdings and weakest holdings that have equity…eg 5h6h on the Q73 board would make a lot of sense). So on T73r, when we bet, we bet big, but we also check 41% of our holdings. On K73r, we now only check back 15% of our holdings, but we bet small almost exclusively.
With AJ specifically, we follow this trend. Betting small almost all of the time on the K73 board, but checking back a ton on the T73r board (and occasionally betting big).
-
Thanks for the response. I see your point about ranges, I was just using the hands as representative examples. But I think the range is built in to the analysis when factoring in both sides – ie, betting big with certain made and certain missed hands.
Your point about the high card is a really good one, though, and I think it captures why was struggling with the large sizing 1(a) category. Those are spots where I should be betting small, not large, precisely because villain will often connect in some way and call a CB, so they won’t actually be elastic in calling.
The non-BTN/BB spots are really interesting because I’m running into those spots way, way more than I did before moving to a ring-fenced population. It’s not uncommon at all to have several players at the table all running stats like 40/10 or 28/5 and doing a lot of limp/calling. The most bizarre stat I’m seeing is people who play “reverse-positional” poker: running laggy stats in EP/MP and then tightening up in LP/SB. It’s really strange.
-
-
Well @SirGasleak you have pretty much nailed it – I will emphasize the importance of knowing your foes – their elasticity, as you point out, is the key factor when you are deciding about whether to value-bet or bluff and to what size. I like that you are looking at the player pool in Canada to work on, I am doing the same thing in geo-fenced Ontario. Very different tendencies at certain stakes that I would expect from a global playerpool.
Log in to reply.