If we gonna bet turn should be a lot smaller so river is a little by more balanced.
I don't agree with this.
How does betting smaller on the turn mean that we are more balanced on the river? Don't get it at all, am I being stupid? It wouldn't be the first time lol...
Normally in 3bet pots with 100bb eff stacks the SPR means we have two betting schemas:
1) ~half pot flop, ~half pot turn, jam river for a little over half pot, or
2) big bet flop, jam turn.
Nothing else makes sense due to the SPR - in most 3bet pots if we bet 2/3 or 3/4 pot on the flop and turn we run out of chips to make a meaningful river bet with.
However, this hand is a little different because the SPR is bigger than in most 3bet pots (due to the min open, and the correspondingly smaller than usual 3bet size). Thus we can make more 'normal sized' flop and turn bets without running out of chips to bet the river with. The turn bet sizing OP has used sets up a really nicely sized river jam.
Also, with this particular texture of board it makes a lot of sense to bet on the bigger side. Opponent's range is likely to be more inelastic than usual, and when this is the case the logical response is to make bigger bets.
As played we should c/f this exact river.
I do agree with this.
But c/jan turn if we get here with this pts
I don't understand what this means...
becaue when we bet bigger on the turn our river bet is too small for us to bluff and thus contains alot more value hands meaning turn should be setting up a larger shove or keeping pts as wide as possible, dont think its close.
Author