POTD #304 AJ Week Continues with Another C-bet Spot
Position Matters
GTO Wizard has recently released their “Single Size” sims. They are postflop outputs where each player is only allowed to bet or raise one size at each node. They require fewer resources to run, and the EV loss of playing one size compared to playing several sizes is often negligible. The argument in favour of studying sims like this is that you will learn strategies that are easier to execute in game, which will allow you to focus on making sure you pick a good option instead of expending mental energy thin-slicing between what is the best option.
Generally the EV loss of playing only one size is small, especially vs. opponents who will only play one size as a response. For instance, if your opponent can not raise larger than one-third pot, c-betting small with a medium-strength hand should gain EV compared to a solver that is given a larger raise size. Another concern with simple strategies is that it’s easy to underestimate how much EV you could be losing. Let’s say your simple range strategy loses 0.05BBs compared to the optimal solver strategy. That might not sound like much, but it could add up to 1bb/100 hands, which might be the difference between being a 70th percentile reg and a 90th percentile reg.
What I tend to preach at POTD is that there is a lot of value in studying outputs with multiple sizes, even if your plan is to simplify in game. Studying multiple sizes will give you more tools at your disposal to best exploit your opponents. There are plenty of opponents against whom betting quarter pot with range doesn’t lose EV, especially versus a player type who under-defends and doesn’t check-raise enough. However, when you have a good hand versus that player, you’ll want to find ways to build a pot, because they’re not going to do it for you. Facing those players, you also might want to play a big c-bet size with certain strong hands. Well, you can’t just have a c-bet strategy where you bet big with your good hands and bet small with your bad hands. Even bad poker players will eventually figure out how to play back vs. that. So what’s the best way to exploit a tight passive player? Play a c-bet strategy with multiple sizes, just like the solver does. You do not necessarily need to play a strategy as complex as the solver, but a little complexity has never hurt anyone, and learning how to play a complex strategy will teach you the best way to exploit different player types.
On one side of the spectrum, the idea of only playing one size because it doesn’t really matter what size you pick can be lazy and suboptimal, but having a more complex strategy can also make your play lazy and suboptimal. There are times when I defer to randomizing instead of picking the best size, and I use the same logic as the simplifier: “Any c-bet size is fine, it doesn’t really matter. Let’s roll the dice and pick one at random.” I don’t care for this nihilism; every flop c-bet size decision you make is not critically important, but it does matter. If you lean too far into a philosophy of “everything is close and nothing really matters,” you will prevent yourself from finding the best line with your hand. Today, I had a pretty simple bread-and-butter c-bet spot, but instead of thinking it through, I threw my hands up and declared it didn’t really matter, and I should have done better.
EPT Monte Carlo 2023 € 25,000 No Limit Hold’em (Event #10)
(1k/1.5k/1.5k) (SB/BB/BBA)
It folds to me in the CO (90k/60bbs) with A♦️J♦️, I make it 3.5k, it folds to the BB who calls.
Flop (9.5k) Q♣️T♦️3♠️: BB checks, I bet 6k, they fold.
