Continuation Betting Revisited

The purpose of this post is to ease some of you guys into doing some analysis on your own. I'm going to use an example of looking at a continuation bet since I figure that topic will attract you guys.

Suppose with 100bb stacks we open {AJ+, KQ, 66+} from some EP/MP position to 4x, a ~14/12 in FR or ~20/16 in 6-max calls us in LP, and everyone else folds. The flop comes A 9 7 . Here are some things to ask yourself:

1. What hands are you c-betting?
2. How much are you c-betting?
3. What hands are you folding to a raise?

I asked a low stakes player this, and this is what he had to say:

1. AJ+, KsQs, 99+, 77
2. 7 big blinds (into a pot of 9 big blinds after the rake)
3. QQ w/o Qs, JJ, TT, AJ w/o backdoor flush draw

With these answers, we can do a little analysis by breaking our range up into sub-ranges based on the line we're taking, which I do here along with how each hand and sub-range is weighted in terms of possible hand combinations:

Bet: AK(12), AQ(12), AJ(12), KsQs(1), 77(3), 99(3), TT(6), JJ(6), QQ(6), KK(6), 67 total
Check/fold: KQ(15), 66(6), 88(6), 27 total
Bet/fold: TT(6), JJ(6), QQ(3), AJ(8), 23 total

What do we think about this?

seems like especially in FR you should be cbetting your entire range here because that 2% hes calling is almost entirely composed of whiffed PP's.

I cbet all of my range for 1/2 pot
I try to get it in with nut hands and nut draws, flat raises with TPTK

When deciding whether or not to c-bet I think less about my hand (assuming I missed the flop), and more about how the board texture hit villain's range, what the villain's flop calling range is, and how he will react to my firing of the turn if he calls flop.

Having any outs, like a gutshot or backdoor straight & flush draws leans me more in the direction of c-betting. Having showdown value against a passive villain makes me less inclined towards c-betting.

Well, if I have a weak draw and villain likes to c/r I tend to cbet less
if I have a draw and villain likes to flat I tend to cbet more

Cbetting Range
I'm cbetting all sets, Ax, all pp's > 99, KsQs. Calling the raise is meh ~ I'd go with suggestions in OP.

Cbet Size
I would prefer 5.5 or 6bb cbet into a 9bb pot. I like Sklansky's reasoning here (from NLH TAP): we size our cbets based on the likely draws out against us (whether or not we caught air). Since it's a TAGG, I'm thinking all pp's and just a few BW's and/or top sc's complete his range. Generally, he's not connecting very well with the flop, so a smallish cbet is fine here, imo. I don't ever bet only 1/2 pot like IOPQ, but I'd certainly bet smallish, 60% or so.

This changes a lot with with a looser cold caller, because then the 97s connects with a good bit of villain's cold calling range. I probably cbet the same range but bet bigger, 7 - 7.5 bb's, to charge more for the draws.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

The purpose of this post is to ease some of you guys into doing some analysis on your own. I'm going to use an example of looking at a continuation bet since I figure that topic will attract you guys.

Suppose with 100bb stacks we open {AJ+, KQ, 66+} from some EP/MP position to 4x, a ~14/12 in FR or ~20/16 in 6-max calls us in LP, and everyone else folds. The flop comes A 9 7 . Here are some things to ask yourself:

1. What hands are you c-betting? I'm cbetting AJ+ all KQ, 66-TT - everything except c/calling KK,QQ,JJ at least once
2. How much are you c-betting? 1/2 to almost full pot, depending on my hand and opponents tendancies
3. What hands are you folding to a raise? Folding air, and small pairs, calling AJ+ w/no flush draw, raising AJ+w/ flush draw, call, raise or fold KQs, depending on villian, raise sets

I asked a low stakes player this, and this is what he had to say:

1. AJ+, KsQs, 99+, 77
2. 7 big blinds (into a pot of 9 big blinds after the rake)
3. QQ w/o Qs, JJ, TT, AJ w/o backdoor flush draw

With these answers, we can do a little analysis by breaking our range up into sub-ranges based on the line we're taking, which I do here along with how each hand and sub-range is weighted in terms of possible hand combinations:

Bet: AK(12), AQ(12), AJ(12), KsQs(1), 77(3), 99(3), TT(6), JJ(6), QQ(6), KK(6), 67 total
Check/fold: KQ(15), 66(6), 88(6), 27 total
Bet/fold: TT(6), JJ(6), QQ(3), AJ(8), 23 total

What do we think about this?

What is villains 3 bet%, and is this EP or MP?

Originally Posted by iopq

I cbet all of my range for 1/2 pot
I try to get it in with nut hands and nut draws, flat raises with TPTK

Imagine if the opponent had only this read on you, "cbets indiscriminately." How much money do you lose if he check-raises you close to 100% of his range?

My cbet range for value is the same as 1 in the first post without TT-KK, KQss. I would include KQss into my range which I would bet/shove along with Axss, and sets. I would check AK/Q/J and all TT-KK for pot control. If I do bet any of the ace hands, it's a bet/fold.

Originally Posted by allabout

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

1. What hands are you c-betting? I'm cbetting AJ+ all KQ, 66-TT - everything except c/calling KK,QQ,JJ at least once
2. How much are you c-betting? 1/2 to almost full pot, depending on my hand and opponents tendancies
3. What hands are you folding to a raise? Folding air, and small pairs, calling AJ+ w/no flush draw, raising AJ+w/ flush draw, call, raise or fold KQs, depending on villian, raise sets

I don't see why what Hero's holding would affect his bet size here. And we know villain is your basic TAGG. I think that's all the read we need here.

I can think of a lot of reasons why our hand should affect our bet-size

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

I can think of a lot of reasons why our hand should affect our bet-size

Cool, please share.

If we're actually cbetting, not value betting (and betting KQss is value betting), I don't see the need for varying bet sizes. But I would sure like to know if there is a need.

Originally Posted by Robb

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

I can think of a lot of reasons why our hand should affect our bet-size

Cool, please share.

how about this, I'll tell you if you're right or wrong

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Originally Posted by Robb

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

I can think of a lot of reasons why our hand should affect our bet-size

Cool, please share.

how about this, I'll tell you if you're right or wrong

Dude, I'm sooooo tired, but I'll give this a go. I just said in the "why you suck at NLH" thread that when spenda et. al. give you a "thinking assignment," you should do it. So I better follow my own advice.

BTW, just realized that I would check KK here, not cbet it, planning to check/call at least one street hoping to induce the TAGG behind me to rep the ace. But that's not germane.

1. We might bet the flush redraws differently, trying to price ourselves in but not get raised.
2. We might bet TT and JJ larger, say 4/5 PSB, since they're bet/fold hands.

And that's all I come up with, unless we're talking about how to value bet the made hands, where SPR considerations might a change a bet size and KQss plays very differently than Ax.

This is probably out of the beg. circle's league here, but it's more about how we can exploit our opponent's reaction to a certain bet size. We then decide what reaction we'd want based on our hand, and choose that bet size.

Getting closer robb. Not every Cbet is meant to fold out your opponent.

Is your bet size the same with sets Vs LAGGS as it is with just two backdoor draws vs nits?

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

The purpose of this post is to ease some of you guys into doing some analysis on your own. I'm going to use an example of looking at a continuation bet since I figure that topic will attract you guys.

Suppose with 100bb stacks we open {AJ+, KQ, 66+} from some EP/MP position to 4x, a ~14/12 in FR or ~20/16 in 6-max calls us in LP, and everyone else folds. The flop comes A 9 7 . Here are some things to ask yourself:

1. What hands are you c-betting?
2. How much are you c-betting?
3. What hands are you folding to a raise?

I asked a low stakes player this, and this is what he had to say:

1. AJ+, KsQs, 99+, 77
2. 7 big blinds (into a pot of 9 big blinds after the rake)
3. QQ w/o Qs, JJ, TT, AJ w/o backdoor flush draw

With these answers, we can do a little analysis by breaking our range up into sub-ranges based on the line we're taking, which I do here along with how each hand and sub-range is weighted in terms of possible hand combinations:

Bet: AK(12), AQ(12), AJ(12), KsQs(1), 77(3), 99(3), TT(6), JJ(6), QQ(6), KK(6), 67 total
Check/fold: KQ(15), 66(6), 88(6), 27 total
Bet/fold: TT(6), JJ(6), QQ(3), AJ(8), 23 total

What do we think about this?

First I want to take a moment and thank Spoon for all the help and trying to make us think... now back to the post...

I am c-betting any AJ+ hand, 99 or 77 hand, those I am c-betting for value, as I am likely way ahead of his current holdings. If I have a tight table image, I am c-betting these hands for slightly less than if I have a standard table image, trying to show a bit of weakness, but still probably betting at least 6bb into the now 11bb pot, likely often would be 8bb. As towards folding to a raise, if he shoves I am not likely to fold any of these hands... this may be a mistake, I don't have PS at work to check my math, but I think I'm ahead.

Now, for the rest of my range... KK, QQ are in pretty good shape, the A is a scare card, but if it missed him I'm golden. Ax is in his range though, probably AT+... I c-bet this about 80% of the time for about 2/3 to 3/4 pot here seeking information. I fold to anything larger than a 2xmin raise. If he flats it, likely I'm facing a pair of Aces and will not bet again unless I improve on the turn.

JJ, TT, 88, 66 - now we are getting into some trouble... I likely don't c-bet these hands without a read that he folds to c-bets more than 50% of the time. while we were likely ahead pre-flop we can't stand a lot of heat post flop... 88 leaves the straight draw open... but without improvement I'm not betting on it... All of these hands I fold to aggression by villian.

Flush Draw (Axsuited, KQsuited), well... I'm looking at two cards to come, 9 outs (for flush) + pairs, though I think you have to discount the pairs a bit, so let's be conservative and stick with say 9 outs. In this situation, with a roughly 30% or slightly better (discounting a bit for him potentially having As) I'm c-betting 3/4 pot to full pot. If I get raised... well, depends a lot on reads and bet size, but I'm likely calling the raise and re-evaluating on the turn...

Ok... Spoon, let me hear how bad this is

We should always check behind with TT-KK.

Monty, you even said it yourself.

"I fold to anything larger than a 2xmin raise. If he flats it, likely I'm facing a pair of Aces and will not bet again unless I improve on the turn. "

We're not cbetting based on relative hand strength but we're cbetting for a reason. Betting to have better hands call, worse hands fold and always muck to c/raises seems like a bad reason.

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

We should always check behind with TT-KK.

Monty, you even said it yourself.

"I fold to anything larger than a 2xmin raise. If he flats it, likely I'm facing a pair of Aces and will not bet again unless I improve on the turn. "

We're not cbetting based on relative hand strength but we're cbetting for a reason. Betting to have better hands call, worse hands fold and always muck to c/raises seems like a bad reason.

The original statement of the problem is that we are OOP, so we can't check behind. If we are OOP, we should check/call for 3 streets with
TT-KK??? Doesn't this turn our hand face up to the villian??? Can't a villian then say to himself after the first check/call? He doesn't have an ace, I can rep the ace and push him out of the pot?

Originally Posted by borges

If we are OOP, we should check/call for 3 streets with
TT-KK??? Doesn't this turn our hand face up to the villian??? Can't a villian then say to himself after the first check/call? He doesn't have an ace, I can rep the ace and push him out of the pot?

if we were to check call 3 streets with these hands, this would be the reason

Originally Posted by JKDS

Originally Posted by borges

If we are OOP, we should check/call for 3 streets with
TT-KK??? Doesn't this turn our hand face up to the villian??? Can't a villian then say to himself after the first check/call? He doesn't have an ace, I can rep the ace and push him out of the pot?

if we were to check call 3 streets with these hands, this would be the reason

OK JKDS, so for example suppose he shoves all-in on the turn or even makes a large bet, shouldn't we be reevaluating this line at this point? Our hand now just becomes a bluff catcher since we don't even have TPTK. The so-called "Baluga Theorem" (named after the poster Baluga Whale on 2+2), basically says that when the opponent bets big or goes all-in on turn, one pair is no good. I'm not saying I know what is right here....I'm just questioning and trying to understand.

Im not sure i get what youre saying jkds...could you explain?

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Originally Posted by iopq

I cbet all of my range for 1/2 pot
I try to get it in with nut hands and nut draws, flat raises with TPTK

Imagine if the opponent had only this read on you, "cbets indiscriminately." How much money do you lose if he check-raises you close to 100% of his range?

I only cbet ace-high and king-high boards 100% of the time. If he check-raises me on all ace-high and king-high boards he's going to lose money because those are the boards that hit my range the hardest.

Originally Posted by borges

Originally Posted by JKDS

Originally Posted by borges

If we are OOP, we should check/call for 3 streets with
TT-KK??? Doesn't this turn our hand face up to the villian??? Can't a villian then say to himself after the first check/call? He doesn't have an ace, I can rep the ace and push him out of the pot?

if we were to check call 3 streets with these hands, this would be the reason

OK JKDS, so for example suppose he shoves all-in on the turn or even makes a large bet, shouldn't we be reevaluating this line at this point? Our hand now just becomes a bluff catcher since we don't even have TPTK. The so-called "Baluga Theorem" (named after the poster Baluga Whale on 2+2), basically says that when the opponent bets big or goes all-in on turn, one pair is no good. I'm not saying I know what is right here....I'm just questioning and trying to understand.

Villain could exploit our check/call range because it's not balanced. We could adjust by occasionally checking monsters. If he doesn't exploit our check/calling range, then making it less exploitable by checking monsters wouldn't be of much use.

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Originally Posted by iopq

I cbet all of my range for 1/2 pot
I try to get it in with nut hands and nut draws, flat raises with TPTK

Imagine if the opponent had only this read on you, "cbets indiscriminately." How much money do you lose if he check-raises you close to 100% of his range?

I only cbet ace-high and king-high boards 100% of the time. If he check-raises me on all ace-high and king-high boards he's going to lose money because those are the boards that hit my range the hardest.

The reason I broke down the sample range in the OP was so that hopefully someone would mention possibilities for this type of analysis. We should examine how we play each part of our range (and what portion of our entire range each part is) to determine where we can be exploited. This is the major point of this thread, to introduce analysis to a fairly simple but common spot (continuation betting when we have a strong range) instead of blindly following whatever we've been taught to do.

im just saying that if we took a horrible line like c/calling 3 streets on an ace high flop, the reason would be because we know our opponent bluffs too much.

Originally Posted by JKDS

im just saying that if we took a horrible line like c/calling 3 streets on an ace high flop, the reason would be because we know our opponent bluffs too much.

In that case the line wouldn't be horrible. This quote goes along very well with the general theme of this thread in that you immediately say that check/calling 3 streets with second pair on this board is "horrible" without the analysis to prove why, or under what circumstances it could be correct/incorrect. The goal is to get away from those habits! http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es-t80178.html

I just had a mini "aha!" moment
we can cbet more when we raise UTG than when we open-raise from SB or BU

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by borges

Originally Posted by JKDS

Originally Posted by borges

If we are OOP, we should check/call for 3 streets with
TT-KK??? Doesn't this turn our hand face up to the villian??? Can't a villian then say to himself after the first check/call? He doesn't have an ace, I can rep the ace and push him out of the pot?

if we were to check call 3 streets with these hands, this would be the reason

OK JKDS, so for example suppose he shoves all-in on the turn or even makes a large bet, shouldn't we be reevaluating this line at this point? Our hand now just becomes a bluff catcher since we don't even have TPTK. The so-called "Baluga Theorem" (named after the poster Baluga Whale on 2+2), basically says that when the opponent bets big or goes all-in on turn, one pair is no good. I'm not saying I know what is right here....I'm just questioning and trying to understand.

Villain could exploit our check/call range because it's not balanced. We could adjust by occasionally checking monsters. If he doesn't exploit our check/calling range, then making it less exploitable by checking monsters wouldn't be of much use.

Exactly...but checking this particular flop with a monster would be a disaster, wouldn't it? (and I realize your not saying we should check this flop)

Originally Posted by allabout

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by borges

Originally Posted by JKDS

Originally Posted by borges

If we are OOP, we should check/call for 3 streets with
TT-KK??? Doesn't this turn our hand face up to the villian??? Can't a villian then say to himself after the first check/call? He doesn't have an ace, I can rep the ace and push him out of the pot?

if we were to check call 3 streets with these hands, this would be the reason

OK JKDS, so for example suppose he shoves all-in on the turn or even makes a large bet, shouldn't we be reevaluating this line at this point? Our hand now just becomes a bluff catcher since we don't even have TPTK. The so-called "Baluga Theorem" (named after the poster Baluga Whale on 2+2), basically says that when the opponent bets big or goes all-in on turn, one pair is no good. I'm not saying I know what is right here....I'm just questioning and trying to understand.

Villain could exploit our check/call range because it's not balanced. We could adjust by occasionally checking monsters. If he doesn't exploit our check/calling range, then making it less exploitable by checking monsters wouldn't be of much use.

Exactly...but checking this particular flop with a monster would be a disaster, wouldn't it? (and I realize your not saying we should check this flop)

If it's in proper balance then no. As it stands, if we bet 2nd pair or better plus KsQs, when we check the flop Villain could take down the pot with any two. This implies that we should throw in some medium-strength hands to check/call with and/or some monsters to check/call or check/raise with. (There are further implications, like if we only check/raised with monsters he could always get away with something like JJ so we should check/raise as a bluff occasionally, but that's getting a bit too deep.) The point is that we have an exploitable behavior, and if it's being exploited sufficiently, we should adjust and one possible adjustment (though not necessarily the best one) is to check a monster on the flop.

This is more of an issue when you're talking about general tendencies than this specific flop since we hit this specific flop so hard. But in general if someone only c-bets when they catch a piece, and check when they don't, then betting whenever they check exploits that and measures should be taken to adjust.

But like I think you're saying, if you think about this in the context of what Renton describes as the A/B/C/D subranges (link to that thread), then it's the range of 2nd pairs that we have that we would tend to prefer to check/call, instead leaving the monsters for value bets. The problem then is that our check/call range is very unbalanced, and this (combined with position) gives our opponent the chance to put the pressure on, giving the hard decisions to us if he decides to fire big bets on later streets. If some portion of our checking range is a monster, then it's harder for him to fire with air in the first place.

Originally Posted by borges

Originally Posted by JKDS

Originally Posted by borges

If we are OOP, we should check/call for 3 streets with
TT-KK??? Doesn't this turn our hand face up to the villian??? Can't a villian then say to himself after the first check/call? He doesn't have an ace, I can rep the ace and push him out of the pot?

if we were to check call 3 streets with these hands, this would be the reason

OK JKDS, so for example suppose he shoves all-in on the turn or even makes a large bet, shouldn't we be reevaluating this line at this point? Our hand now just becomes a bluff catcher since we don't even have TPTK. The so-called "Baluga Theorem" (named after the poster Baluga Whale on 2+2), basically says that when the opponent bets big or goes all-in on turn, one pair is no good. I'm not saying I know what is right here....I'm just questioning and trying to understand.

Then we would check/fold. I really don't understand why by not cbetting with TT-KK, this necessitates that we call down all streets.

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Originally Posted by borges

Originally Posted by JKDS

Originally Posted by borges

If we are OOP, we should check/call for 3 streets with
TT-KK??? Doesn't this turn our hand face up to the villian??? Can't a villian then say to himself after the first check/call? He doesn't have an ace, I can rep the ace and push him out of the pot?

if we were to check call 3 streets with these hands, this would be the reason

OK JKDS, so for example suppose he shoves all-in on the turn or even makes a large bet, shouldn't we be reevaluating this line at this point? Our hand now just becomes a bluff catcher since we don't even have TPTK. The so-called "Baluga Theorem" (named after the poster Baluga Whale on 2+2), basically says that when the opponent bets big or goes all-in on turn, one pair is no good. I'm not saying I know what is right here....I'm just questioning and trying to understand.

Then we would check/fold. I really don't understand why by not cbetting with TT-KK, this necessitates that we call down all streets.

The problem with having a check/fold range without having a check/call range goes along with my previous post, though your point is well taken. Note that in addition to my previous post, having a check/fold range without a check/call range could exploit certain opponent tendencies. We would just have to be sensitive to adjusting properly if need be.

Ax would be my check/calling range though?

though i do need some clarity. My original response was assuming we had sweet, sweet position. Was I mistaken?

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Ax would be my check/calling range though?

though i do need some clarity. My original response was assuming we had sweet, sweet position. Was I mistaken?

If we're talking about the OP then we're OOP since Hero is in EP/MP and Villain is in LP.

The lower Ax, or certain combinations of suits could also serve as a check/call or check/raising range. The general theme here is that we typically shouldn't be check/calling anything that has more equity than some hand we would value bet, etc.

Edit: Changed AJ to Ax, typo.

This is just a helluva thread. I'm getting a ton out of reading through everyone's stuff.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Ax would be my check/calling range though?

though i do need some clarity. My original response was assuming we had sweet, sweet position. Was I mistaken?

If we're talking about the OP then we're OOP since Hero is in EP/MP and Villain is in LP.

The lower AJ, or certain combinations of suits could also serve as a check/call or check/raising range. The general theme here is that we typically shouldn't be check/calling anything that has more equity than some hand we would value bet, etc.

I read the thread with the ABCD Theorem and from what I'm understanding here, the idea is that we are basically trying to optimize a game theoretic equilibrium point, right? We have a range; our opponent has a range and we select a mix of strong and weak hands to carry out strategies of bet, 3-bet, check/fold, etc etc......

This theory is really assuming that our opponent is a thinking opponent and is also trying to maximize a similar strategy. At the micro-limits that I'm playing, I wonder if we can't simply back ourselves down to a simpler level. I.e. we put our opponent on a range and then try to optimize winnings from that ONE hand since there really isn't much of a metagame/memory of how previous hands were played type of thinking from our opponents. A game-theoretic unexploitable play is not the optimal play against those who aren't themselves trying to follow such a strategy. ?no?

Thank you so much to the moderators for leading such a (for me at least) a "poker-life changing" discussion. I've read tons of poker books but for some reason......absolute essentials just seem to go in one ear and out the other.

Originally Posted by borges

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Ax would be my check/calling range though?

though i do need some clarity. My original response was assuming we had sweet, sweet position. Was I mistaken?

If we're talking about the OP then we're OOP since Hero is in EP/MP and Villain is in LP.

The lower AJ, or certain combinations of suits could also serve as a check/call or check/raising range. The general theme here is that we typically shouldn't be check/calling anything that has more equity than some hand we would value bet, etc.

I read the thread with the ABCD Theorem and from what I'm understanding here, the idea is that we are basically trying to optimize a game theoretic equilibrium point, right? We have a range; our opponent has a range and we select a mix of strong and weak hands to carry out strategies of bet, 3-bet, check/fold, etc etc......

No, it's not seeking to find optimal strategy. It seeks to explain the basic themes behind how to maximize the EV of our range, which doesn't always mean maximizing the EV of each individual hand.

This theory is really assuming that our opponent is a thinking opponent and is also trying to maximize a similar strategy. At the micro-limits that I'm playing, I wonder if we can't simply back ourselves down to a simpler level. I.e. we put our opponent on a range and then try to optimize winnings from that ONE hand since there really isn't much of a metagame/memory of how previous hands were played type of thinking from our opponents. A game-theoretic unexploitable play is not the optimal play against those who aren't themselves trying to follow such a strategy. ?no?

You're talking about two different things here, so I'm going to break it up and comment on each. The first thing is what you've specified a game theory-based unexploitable strategy. The second thing you've mentioned (suggested might be a better word) is that it would be better to maximize the EV of each individual hand instead of the EV of your entire range.

For the first thing: Like I said earlier, the ABCD subranges aren't about finding an unexploitable strategy (which we typically refer to as game theory optimal). I'll be doing a thread soon that explains some of this game theory terminology since there seems to be a lot of confusion. However, you are correct that often game theory optimal isn't the highest scoring strategy against an opponent playing a non-optimal strategy.

Second thing: Let's call our entire range in some spot R. When we maximize the value of R, we have the highest possible winnings for our range. If we maximize the value of each individual hand in R, that's not necessarily the same thing anymore. The ideas behind what Renton has articulated as the A/B/C/D subranges or ABCD theorem show us guidelines on how to maximize the value of R. This is a bit anti-intuitive at first because you would think that maximizing the value of each hand as you play it would lead to the highest possible value, but that's simply not usually the case.

Thank you so much to the moderators for leading such a (for me at least) a "poker-life changing" discussion. I've read tons of poker books but for some reason......absolute essentials just seem to go in one ear and out the other.

Well I'm [surprisingly] not a moderator but no problem, that's what I'm here for.

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

We should always check behind with TT-KK.

Monty, you even said it yourself.

"I fold to anything larger than a 2xmin raise. If he flats it, likely I'm facing a pair of Aces and will not bet again unless I improve on the turn. "

We're not cbetting based on relative hand strength but we're cbetting for a reason. Betting to have better hands call, worse hands fold and always muck to c/raises seems like a bad reason.

Hmm... is that how it came off? Well then that wasn't my reasoning but maybe my logic is flawed

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by borges

Thank you so much to the moderators for leading such a (for me at least) a "poker-life changing" discussion. I've read tons of poker books but for some reason......absolute essentials just seem to go in one ear and out the other.

Well I'm [surprisingly] not a moderator but no problem, that's what I'm here for.

The best thing about FTR is that lots of great players hang out here and talk poker with total noobies (which I was last year) and micro stakes feeesh (which I was this year) and small stakes grinders (which I'm now, unless 50nl is still the micros). It's the best damn poker forum in anywhere, imo.

Originally Posted by Robb

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by borges

Thank you so much to the moderators for leading such a (for me at least) a "poker-life changing" discussion. I've read tons of poker books but for some reason......absolute essentials just seem to go in one ear and out the other.

Well I'm [surprisingly] not a moderator but no problem, that's what I'm here for.

The best thing about FTR is that lots of great players hang out here and talk poker with total noobies (which I was last year) and micro stakes feeesh (which I was this year) and small stakes grinders (which I'm now, unless 50nl is still the micros). It's the best damn poker forum in anywhere, imo.

Seriously. I'm a noobie and this is still really complicated to me but that fact that this information is here, provided by really amazing and intelligent people, is just awesome.

Originally Posted by Illfavor

Seriously. I'm a noobie and this is still really complicated to me but that fact that this information is here, provided by really amazing and intelligent people, is just awesome.

Check the second post in my operations thread (link in signature line below). I have links there to a few dozen iconic threads (with notes about what topics they cover) that really helped me learn my arse from my elbow when it comes to pokah. You can find some really amazing content on FTR. Check all the digests, too, in all the relevant forums.

Good luck!!

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

We should always check behind with TT-KK.

Monty, you even said it yourself.

"I fold to anything larger than a 2xmin raise. If he flats it, likely I'm facing a pair of Aces and will not bet again unless I improve on the turn. "

We're not cbetting based on relative hand strength but we're cbetting for a reason. Betting to have better hands call, worse hands fold and always muck to c/raises seems like a bad reason.

Hmm... is that how it came off? Well then that wasn't my reasoning but maybe my logic is flawed

Ok, you get a free pass to reword or rephrase anything you said. Even if you thought it was wrong then, I'd like to hear your thoughts now!

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

We should always check behind with TT-KK.

Monty, you even said it yourself.

"I fold to anything larger than a 2xmin raise. If he flats it, likely I'm facing a pair of Aces and will not bet again unless I improve on the turn. "

We're not cbetting based on relative hand strength but we're cbetting for a reason. Betting to have better hands call, worse hands fold and always muck to c/raises seems like a bad reason.

Hmm... is that how it came off? Well then that wasn't my reasoning but maybe my logic is flawed

Ok, you get a free pass to reword or rephrase anything you said. Even if you thought it was wrong then, I'd like to hear your thoughts now!

Hmm... I haven't had a lot of time today but have thought about this a bit. Let me see if I can rephrase or reword what my goals are on this hand...

Rilla said:
We're not cbetting based on relative hand strength but we're cbetting for a reason. Betting to have better hands call, worse hands fold and always muck to c/raises seems like a bad reason

I agree, betting in these situations seems like a bad move. But my intention in c-betting is to have potentially better hands fold and force a potential mistake. My problem with the A high flop is that it may make my hand second best, I not only have to gain information (such as determining they have the Ace thus allowing me to lose a small c-bet versus thinking I'm good and losing my stack)... or causing a win right here. If villian folds a worse hand, well, how likely was he to continue anyway? I don't want to give him a look at a free card to improve without it costing him, but also it would depend on the player whether he will raise with the ace... if I get raised, I'm done, he likely hit the ace... a flat call does not guarantee him to have the ace but it puts me on notice...

Does that make it a bit clearer or is this still logically flawed in your opinion?

You just sound uncomfortable with not cbetting. How often do you not cbet hands that will likely win at showdown?

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

You just sound uncomfortable with not cbetting. How often do you not cbet hands that will likely win at showdown?

I don't know if I understand your question properly, but if I raised out/opened, I rarely don't c-bet unless facing a c-bet from villian.

Obviously from your question, this seems inappropriate.

As towards comfort, I'm not comfortable with a lot so far.

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

You just sound uncomfortable with not cbetting. How often do you not cbet hands that will likely win at showdown?

I don't know if I understand your question properly, but if I raised out/opened, I rarely don't c-bet unless facing a c-bet from villian.

Obviously from your question, this seems inappropriate.

As towards comfort, I'm not comfortable with a lot so far.

FWIW, the preflop raiser is the only one who can cbet. If you have position and were the PFR, villain can preempt your cbet by donk betting, or betting out before the action has reached the preflop aggressor.

BJ says any cbet% > 70 is probably leaky. I used to be a cbetting monkey, but there are lots of profitable spots to NOT cbet, I'm finding.

Originally Posted by Robb

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

You just sound uncomfortable with not cbetting. How often do you not cbet hands that will likely win at showdown?

I don't know if I understand your question properly, but if I raised out/opened, I rarely don't c-bet unless facing a c-bet from villian.

Obviously from your question, this seems inappropriate.

As towards comfort, I'm not comfortable with a lot so far.

FWIW, the preflop raiser is the only one who can cbet. If you have position and were the PFR, villain can preempt your cbet by donk betting, or betting out before the action has reached the preflop aggressor.

BJ says any cbet% > 70 is probably leaky. I used to be a cbetting monkey, but there are lots of profitable spots to NOT cbet, I'm finding.

This, along with the point you made in the 'why you suck' post are my two goals for tomorrow. I intend to spend hours reviewing hand histories and learning more about developing reads. I have to improve, I'm getting too frustrated at break even. And I have to put in the work. I'm not getting it done. I have no excuses.

I mean a flop like 762 two-tone is a terrible one to cbet and hope to take it down because even 55 might think you have overcards and call at least one street
Conversely, those are good flops to cbet for value when you hit them

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

You just sound uncomfortable with not cbetting. How often do you not cbet hands that will likely win at showdown?

I don't know if I understand your question properly, but if I raised out/opened, I rarely don't c-bet unless facing a c-bet from villian.

Obviously from your question, this seems inappropriate.

As towards comfort, I'm not comfortable with a lot so far.

Yah, that's my point. You really need to cut back on your cbetting.

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Yah, that's my point. You really need to cut back on your cbetting.

Unless your opponent plays fit or fold straightforward poker, and only continues with TP or better. Then you should be cbetting a hell of a lot, and occasionally checking monsters to allow him to catch something to continue with.

Examples from my last live game. The poker room is full as the BBJ is getting large, plus its the holidays, which makes for good games. two opps who have been calling virtually everything pf, then playing fit or fold post (though 1 is continuing with any pair for 1 street but folding the lower ones to the turn bet, or so it seems).

I raise two cards in LP over a limper, SB calls and limper calls (as they always do). Flop comes three cards, they check to me and I bet. Almost every time against these two. It's like free money.

I raise QJs in MP this time get called by newcomer to my left and 2 others. Flop is QQ2 rainbow. No draws, nothing for anyone to have hit anything they can continue with, and my hand is the nuts in this game. Check. Turn is the beautiful K, and stack an opp who just turned TP.

Noone will exploit my completely unbalanced ranges, so there is no need to worry about that. There is nothing wrong with being a cbetting machine, as long as it is working and noone is adjusting to it, and you make sure you are still getting value from big hands.

Do we ever take reverse implied odds into account when thinking about a cbet? Like, say we had a fr game such that stacks of those involved are
Hero(100bb)
Villain(100bb)
Card dealt to Hero []
lotsa folds...Villain calls, Hero raise 3x...some folds...villain calls
Flop :Ts:
Villain checks, Hero???

Villain is a 16/7, lets say he calls with his entire limping range. And lets say that range is the following [22+,ATs+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,43s ,32s,
AJo+,KJo+,QJo]

Worse hands that call: 33-55, 77-88,
combos = 30

Better hands that call/raise: 22, 66, TT, ATs, KTs, QTs,
combos = 30

So theoretically, we are mixed about cbetting. (ignoring better hands that fold like JT and T9 because it is unknown weather they call or fold)

In this kind of scenario, would we lean towards cbetting simply because there are many cards that could come that improve the equity of villain's range? And how much would this affect it? As in, if we were leaning towards checking instead of cbetting, would this factor be enough to push us towards cbetting in that instance as well? Im leaning towards yes but i dont know how much of a factor it really has

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

The flop comes A 9 7 . Here are some things to ask yourself:

1. What hands are you c-betting?

AJ+, 99, 77 nut FD

2. How much are you c-betting?

3/4 - 4/5. If the flop was A 9 2 I'd c-bet closer to 1/2 - 2/3 and make AJ c/c instead of c-bet... if not AJ then def. AT and lower I c/c.

Prolly re-evaluate this whole thing after I got around the calculating combinations stuff.

3. What hands are you folding to a raise?

AJ, AQ (sans FD)

Bet: AK(12), AQ(12), AJ(12), KsQs(1), 77(3), 99(3), TT(6), JJ(6), QQ(6), KK(6), 67 total
Check/fold: KQ(15), 66(6), 88(6), 27 total
Bet/fold: TT(6), JJ(6), QQ(3), AJ(8), 23 total

What do we think about this?

I think betting 99-KK is bad, mmmkay. I c/c one street hoping to catch a bluff and play some poker. I generally don't like turning hands of some value into a bluff, although now I'm thinking there are a couple of situations where it makes sense, but not right there on a c-bet. You can still probably get the same amount of value on the turn and river with KK, QQ vs lower pairs... you're only loosing value against draws and you're in terrible shape against Ax.

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

You just sound uncomfortable with not cbetting. How often do you not cbet hands that will likely win at showdown?

I don't know if I understand your question properly, but if I raised out/opened, I rarely don't c-bet unless facing a c-bet from villian.

Obviously from your question, this seems inappropriate.

As towards comfort, I'm not comfortable with a lot so far.

Yah, that's my point. You really need to cut back on your cbetting.

I'll look for docs on c-betting and posts on it.

So what you are saying is that c-betting to build the pot when you are ahead is incorrect?

I may also be using the term c-betting incorrectly, so that might be part of my problem in understanding it... but if I lead out I am betting most any flop for a number of reasons... those reasons are as follows:

1) When leading into a flop where I miss, I bet to win the pot right there, possibly forcing a better hand to fold.
2) When leading into a flop where I hit, I usually lead a bit less to build a pot... though this is not always the case.
3) I lead into pots looking for information.

As I said, I'll need to do more research on betting into the flop to see where I'm making my errors or the errors in my logic.

Well, you need to be ahead and be able to have worse hands call you.
If you can get enough better hands to fold, or worse hands to call then you should cbet. That's really the core idea.

So for KK on an Axx flop, if they have an ace they'll always call, and if they have pairs under KK, they'll likely fold making it check instead of a bet. Now, if the flop has sufficient number of draws on it where they could have like a pair and a gut shot or a pair + fd, we can bet KK for some value.