Overbet the pot early on sometimes?

[SkinnyElvis]

So on the theory that it makes more sense to put in money when you're ahead...

I find in that no-limit online is often played with a pot-limit approach. Meaning that people often hit "bet pot" on UB and that's the max they will bet. The wisdom seems to be that betting around the size of the pot is the right approach. I find myself playing this way under most circumstances.

The result of this is that the pot often grows exponentially, which means calling the first pot-sized bet is generally cheap compared to the implied odds of the eventual size of the pot. After getting out-drawn I find myself wondering if there isn't a better approach.

For example: Holding TPTK (heads up) with a flush draw on the board, it seems like given this scenario, it makes sense to overbet the pot until the flush scare comes, and then slow down. By playing this way, your opponent pays more to draw to the flush.

Thoughts? Does this make sense at other times as well?

-SkinnyElvis

[SpiderMnkE]

Your opponent is already paying too much to draw to a flush heads up facing a pot sized bet. Especially if it is obvious that he is drawing to the flush. Maybe implied odds make it ok.. but I doubt it.

Overbetting is likely to knock them off their draw... if that is what you want to do ... go for it.

I'm sure there are bigger reasons why people don't overbet the pot. Can someone explain that?

[RustyCJ]

If there is a flush draw out, I make fairly hefty size bets, especially on the flop, most of the time I'm happy to win whats already in there and I'm not going to bet TPTK weak to allow some moron to suck out on me. If I get called then I know I'm up against something decent and can play accordingly.

If I feel I have the best hand but it is vulnerable, I will bet large enough to make drawing hands pay too much to correctly stay in.

I enjoy NL vs. limit because I can win the pot by betting strong and not allow people to suckout on me like they do at .5/1 limit

[JrJordan]

Skinny,
Your idea in general is good, but I'd like to make a few comments. There is a reason that a pot sized bet is so popular. Most flush/straight draws have odds between 4:1 and 5:1 of hitting on the next card. A pot sized bet only gives the villain 2:1 in pot odds to make this call. This is exceptionally lower than the odds needed and are very difficult to make up in implied odds. This is why many NL/PL books recommend this size bet.

That being said, let's look at your theory. An overbet is certainly a possibility in some situations, however I think you need to have the right reasons for doing so. You want to maximize your profit, so if you feel a certain opponent will call an oversized bet, instead of just a pot sized one on a draw, then it is in your favor to do so. The only issue with an overbet is that you make it very easy for the villain to correctly fold from lack of pot odds, while a pot size bet has a better chance that they will incorrectly play. This eventually comes down to your read of the player. If you feel they have no sense of pot odds and will call with any draw, then by all means overbet the pot.

Now to the other half, when the flush draw hits. A good, or even half decent and aggressive opponent can use that flush card to take the pot, whether he has the flush or not. If you show a consistent let down in your betting once a scare card hits, your opponent will see weakness and bet you out of the pot. Too often the villain has something else like a straight draw on the board, or even TP2K to just try and check down the flush scare, especially in a heads up situation. You need to continue to show strength. If you meet resistance despite strength, then you have to go to your read of the player. How tricky is he? How aggressive? If a weak-tight player comes alive with a checkraise after the flush, you can easily lay it down. Just continue aggression until stopped otherwise.