Hey, I thought about two concepts for applying overbetting and "finding spots" recently and I would like to discuss them...
The first approach that I also feel is the one that any solver would take is sort of
- "overbetting when it is dictated by position, board structure and the subsequent strength of both players ranges"...
What you find for example in Pokersnowie is that on certain boards in a certain spot his recommended betsize for the entire range would be 2xPOT which it then does with a polarized range and then he checks a lot of the hands that any "normal regular" on typical stakes would usually bet 1/3 to 3/4.
- The 2nd approach, that I feel is most usually used by the "average reg" is the sort of approach where your own hand gives you
a) an information advantage and/or
b) a strong incentive to overbet the pot for certain
which CAN but usually IMO doesn't overlap with a general analysis of the board structure / equity distribution of the ranges.
So an example for 1 (in Pokersnowie) would be:
UTG open 1/2 POT BB flats
Flop: AK6 rainbow
Snowies proposed betsize is now 2x POT and he does it 100% with:
AA, KK, 66, AK, 55, QJo, QJs, QTs, JTs, A6s
and then >70% with: 77, 88
and checks: A2-AQ, any K, TT-QQ
whereas "general population" would probably
with any A, some Kx, Gutshotdraws etc.
A sort of typical example for 2 is lets say:
HERO Bu opens 33, BB calls
FLOP: T37 rainbow
check, bet 1/2 POT, call
check, bet 1/2 POT, call
check, Hero now "overbets because BB can never have TT, some draws bust, he can herocall with Tx and because he is greedy with quads" whereas a solver (Snowie again) plays 1/2 Pot river w Tx, 7x, 3x, JJ-AA and some bluffs simply because the range distribution dictates a 1/2 POT betsize.
Sometimes on the felt I am torn apart between these two concepts since in general I feeld concept 2 is largely overused by most players and therefore allows for a ton of betsize-based hand reading...
it is usually much harder to be alert and clairvoyant enough to always be spotting spots for hard polarization as seen in example 1 and then execute with the right amount of especially air (because the correct amount of air is usually not just the most obvious combodraw/blocker etc.)
But I can obviously also see the upside of simply looking at the information advantage of your own hand (e.g.: unbeatable) and then pound on a likely weakness of villain of calling too much bc of herocall tendency or whatever.
Soo... what is your approach? I at least feel I way too often use my cards to determine wether or not I want to overbet instead of the positions and the board texture.