[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]


The authors recommend a default bet size of 2/3 pot. Yes, I know that isn't always a perfect bet size, but since sometimes smaller will be better and sometimes larger will be better, I translate that as recommending "on average" a 2/3 pot bet.

However, in all the justification for why certain SPRs are good for some hands and bad for others, those SPRs are calculated based on full pot-sized bets. Wouldn't it be more consistent to use 2/3 pot-sized bets in all those SPR calculations?

[/ QUOTE ]


good eye DeepCroak.

pot-sized bets were used in the SPR section mainly because they're easier to follow. it IS inconsistent with the 2/3 pot recommendation. that inconsistency was a conscious choice on our part.

pot-sized bets aren't important to using SPR. you still have to figure out how much you can extract from opponents with lesser hands when you'd prefer to be committed (target SPRs). if 2/3 pot is the norm bet size for you, you work from that. there's a brief table in Betting to Get All-in that may help.

the commitment threshold is a little different. suppose SPR is 4. pot-pot gets you all-in heads-up. if instead bet is 2/3 pot, the logical move is still all-in. the overall argument still applies with a 2/3 pot bet. once 10% of the smaller stack is in the pot, two big bets gets the money all-in. therefore, you must be very careful about big bets once 10% of the smaller stack goes in (that is, once you are at the commitment threshold).