Re: theory of position based c-bet sizing
I feel comfortable with sticking around 2/3 pot cb sizes given normal circumstances. I went through a good chunk of hands at 10nl trying out half pot c-bets but I found that my c-bet succcess would drop to about only 33%. With 2/3 sized c-bets it would be about 40%. They're both proportionally the same in how often they have to work, but I felt like I had a better idea of their ranges and it was easier to get value if I stuck with 2/3 pot sized c-bets. I also get paranoid I induce stuff with half pot bets and there's a decent amount of board textures you can't get away with half pot sized bets.
I could always bet half pot on dryer boards and 2/3 pot on almost anything else but I don't think people play back enough on dry boards and I think cb'ing 2/3 pot is still fine for now because people call too loose preflop so you get enough folds and I feel like I get more folds from ace high than if I bet half pot.
Since this is about theory though, the examples you gave make sense to me although in practice I think cb'ing half pot in the first utg example makes more sense. If the board was wetter, say KTxtt you could probably bet 4/5 pot utg and 2/3 to 3/4 pot from the button. That being said you would have to figure out what your checking and barreling range should be from the button since I think that's much more important than messing around too much with bet sizing. I think regs at least at 100nl and lower c-bet way too often.
Last edited by guitarizt : 11-09-2011 at 03:25 PM.