Thoughts about NL bet size

As a long-time lurker, I've read many excellent posts here about proper bet sizes in NL poker. It seems like very knowledgable players have advocated all different types of styles, anywhere from pot-sized only bets to underbetting routinely. I play in a twice-weekly NL holdem and omaha game, and I've been experimenting with each way of betting myself. My conclusion is that while underbetting may seem warranted in certain individual situations, it hurts my play overall. As Ray Zee has pointed out here before, underbetting only works if you are willing to do it for all types of hands, not just as a cheap way of stealing a pot. By routinely underbetting, what seems to happen is that your underbet "steals" show a better expectation than pot-sized bluffs, but you lose money on your legitimate hands by having to underbet them in order to provide cover for your bluffs!! I think it's a viscious cycle. I've concluded (not with any degree of certainty yet!) that a more profitable way of playing no limit is only making bets and raises that are exactly the size of the pot. Sure you risk too much to try and steal some hands, but you get a better return on your legitimate hands. Playing this way also has two added advantages. One, you don't give up any information at all. I can get a good read on lots of my opponents simply by how big they bet. Why allow that with respect to your own hand? It may be that some experts can switch back and forth between underbetting and "reasonable" sized betting without giving away any info., but I'm not convinced that I can (and I've never played against an opponent who varies their bet size and doesn't give me at least a few clues here and there). Second, pot-sized betting cuts down on the number of decisions I have to make. Now I just have to decide whether to bet or raise, never how much. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. I find it amazing that such an important concept has never been decided one way or the other. I guess it's a testament to the complexity of no limit.

If you're in a game where there's one guy who likes to buy in big and run bluffs against weaker players in the pot, then underbet the flop.


I've found that underbetting the pot in my NL games makes the most money out of people holding middle or top pair. They'll raise with top pair, mediocre kicker against my top two or set because I underbet the pot. Of course, underbetting the pot in my games screams out weakness, and the players are so weak it doesn't really matter what I do, but against that lone, aggressive one, it works wonders.


Of course, he'll get scared every now and then of your underbetting so you'll have to mix it up, and if you get caught stealing a small pot by underbetting against him, so what. He'll remember that.


Overbetting the pot in my games don't really work well because we're a buncha college guys, and the others don't have a clue about pot odds and cutting down implied odds and raises relative to his and opponents stack sizes. So, regardless if the pot is 100 dollars [for some odd reason] they'll only bet $20 bucks because to them $20 is a lot. Of course, it pays to know who will call your pot overbets and since you seem to be playing in games with the same people, make a list of those who will do so, and only go all-in [with the nuts of course] against those people.


Okay, I'm rambling.


-Joe