At 17 min with AcTh, you say that you prefer the the bigger size because he can have plenty of flushes. Could you briefly explain why we want to be betting bigger with this combo if he has a lot of flushes in his range? Thanks.
Jan. 6, 2017 | 6:37 p.m.
In answering the previous question, you said, "When you're using one sizing, you're giving up EV with some combos to make more with other combos." Can you elaborate a bit? I understand how say not allowing ourselves to have a big over betting size on some rivers would likely cost us some EV, but what it is an example of how having one size would help us gain EV in other situations? When you say this, are you assuming our opponents will come to know our strategy/ranges, and for that reason we might realize some EV because of the way our ranges are constructed that we otherwise wouldn't have?
March 22, 2016 | 5:40 a.m.
Question about the discussion of it being theoretically wrong to ever take a line that is less EV than another for the sake of balance. Take a situation where we get to the river in a certain spot and we feel its best two have two different bet sizes, one consisting of strong nutty hands and bluffs we want to bet bigger with, and the other mostly hands we are going for thin value with, and some bluffs that we bet smaller with. To do this don't we need to have a few nut hands in our smaller bet size range, so that our opponents can't exploit us by raising too liberally? And when we do bet smaller with our strongest hands, aren't we probably sacrificing EV in a vacuum?
I feel like this is the standard advice when having multiple river bet sizes, but after reading this thread, Im wondering if this isn't really the case. Do we need a few nut hands in the second range for the sake of balance, or do simply have to call down lighter when we get raised to defend it?