Small Stakes No-Limit Hold’em

The argument is made that wet flops justify bigger cbets

Example 3 follows in which we make a cbet of $24 into $49. While this bet size is may be appropriate for the hand picked in the example it does not as clearly constitute an example of a hand where we bet bigger because the flop is wet.

I am aware that the bet size is reduced by it being a 3bet pot, but maybe a better hand example would be one where there is no 3bet preflop and where the flop is a bit wetter. For instance you could have a KQo on a KJ8 two tone flop after a single preflop raise. I shan't suggest whether being in position or out of position or preflop aggressor or caller makes for a better example, but in either case I think the natural flop bet size is closer to full pot, which would very strongly underline the lesson of the moment.

Actually – upon review I am the one who is confused.

This is all in support of Principle 2 (picking an appropriate size when you cbet). The section has 3 distinct points: 1) cbet smaller on dry flops, 2) cbet smaller in 3bet pots and 3) cbet bigger on wet flops – then follows an example (#3) of point 2) cbet smaller in 3bet pots. But since it follows so closely on point 3) cbet bigger on wet flops – and the flop in question is at least suited – I initially thought (erroneously) that the example was meant to illustrate point 3). What supports this misunderstanding is how points 1) and 2) already come presupported by skeleton hand examples (K22 rainbow is dry, bet small – don't have to bet $50 (implied that it's at/near pot size) when $25-30 can do) and 3) is not supported by a skeleton hand example but is immediately followed by a full hand example that is at least a bit wet.

Maybe the hand example in full form can be moved up to replace these lines after point 2)

Sure, blasting a pot-sized $50 bet at a 3-bet pot will tend to get your opponents off their marginal hands. But firing $25 or $30 will often do the trick nearly as well.

And then maybe a skeleton hand example can be made for point 3)? Or maybe better to leave point 2) as it is with its current skeleton hand example and underline point 3) either with an appropriate full hand example instead of the current or with a skeleton hand example similar to point 1) and 2) – and note also for point 3) that where points 1) and 2) follow the title directly (smaller sledgehammer), point 3) is an example of a situation where a smaller sledgehammer will not do. What I mean is – for understanding it's fairly key to have the thought that point 3) is where "When a Slightly Smaller Sledgehammer Will Suffice" does not apply – here it does not suffice.