|
|
 Originally Posted by Stacks
I guess I just don't understand the logic of overbetting all that well. I understand that we should typically do it when villain's range is capped, such that he rarely (almost never) has our strong valuebetting hands beat. However, it feels like when their range is capped, with our value hands we should tend towards sizing our bet to get calls from villain's likely marginal hand.
I suppose, in either case villain is likely to have a bluffcatcher, and by overbetting we can bluff more frequently, as well as charge him more when he does decide to bluffcatch?
It's simple ISF Theorem. When villain's range is capped and ours is not, our range is stronger than theirs, and so we should apply more aggression. We traditionally use ISF Theorem to talk about aggression/passivity as a dichotomy (betting/raising vs checking/calling), but bet sizing allows us to look at aggression as a spectrum. This is especially the case when the SPR is large enough that you can't get stacks in by simply betting a traditional amount on every street, so that betting unusually large is almost like forcing villain to play an extra mini street--and being aggressive on that street, ldo.
In this case, betting traditional amounts leaves half of the original stacks behind, so betting large enough that stacks go is effectively the same as shoving for a 1/2 PSB on an imaginary post-river street. That's maybe getting a little carried away with the figurative explanation, but basically, you get twice as much money in, which means more aggression, which means better leveraging your superior range.
|
Reply With Quote
