OK, I'm running out of ideas as to things to switch in my game in NL5. I think I've improved vastly many areas, and plugged many leaks the past few weeks, but unfortunately I'm still playing breakeven ball in NL5.
I've come back to tinkering with the idea of bet sizes.
I had started NL5 with the same things I was using in NL2, betting pot or 2/3 pot all the time. I had gotten the feeling people were folding all the time to my bets, and that I wasn't getting value. So I switched my bet sizing.
I have been using 1/2 and 1/3 pot bet sizes for almost a month now. Now I've come to the conclusion that I'm facing the inverse situation. People seem to call my bets and in particular cbets ALL the time. And I feel like I'm not getting enough value on good hands this way either.
The only modification I made recently on this was changing my bet sizes on turn, as I saw done in a lot of coachings, I'd bet more many times to get the pot to a size where most villains will feel pot committed in the river to prepare for a river shove.
So what's failing?
Should I be using a whole mix of bet sizes? Look for an intermediate ie 2/3 and 3/4 pot? I would see the logic of using a whole mix of bet sizes, but that really doesn't seem practical since I don't ever have a precise read on every player on the table. If I did, I'd see the logic of betting smaller on some, larger on others. Should my focus be going towards that. Is bet size as important or more important then when to bet against each type of player? I've always had the impression that the most important decision is simply whether you're betting or not, and that small changes in size of bets aren't that important.