Cbets, HUD reads and problem-solving - warning LONG

How I used problem-solving theory to study cbets and villain profiles

The problem is I suck at poker. But I'm reasonably good at problem solving. George Polya's quintessential research studied great problem-solvers and suggested this simple format:

Polya's 4 Problem-Solving Steps
1. Understand the problem
2. Develop a plan of action
3. Implement plan
4. Confirm solution and reflect

Turns out that sucky problem-solvers spend the majority of their time on #3. Expert problem-solvers spend the LEAST amount of time on #3 and often 25% of more of their time on #4. Once they've solved a problem, experts check everything and then begin reflecting: How does this apply to other, similar problems? How can this be extended to harder related problems? Sucky problem-solvers also spend far too little time on #1, rarely understanding the problem's essential complexity before trying to solve it.

After step #3, great problem-solvers and sucky ones alike often find they have not actually arrived at a solution. Great problem-solvers return to step #1 with new information and more understanding, and develop another plan of action (#2). They are flexible and creative with their plans. Their best quality is persistence. If sucky problem-solvers fail, they quit. When they do happen to try again, they usually lack creativity and flexibility, often trying the exact same thing with similar inglorious results.

Polya's format is how I approach problems in my poker game. FTR icons can post ideas, but it's up to us newbies to implement those ideas. Here's how I do it. I took advice from TJ, Spoon and ISF, among others. Then I used PT, HUD + PokerStove. And I thought about villain tendencies and behavior. Nothing I'm thinking here is new or innovative. I am trying to demonstrate how I improve at poker for those who find my posts helpful (newbies and beginners, mostly), how to use software effectively, how to work through a complex problem and how to think and rethink a series of actions at the poker table.

1. Understanding the problem

I knew I was cbetting monkey:

1. I hated to check/fold the flop, so I cbet too often
2. I sucked at figuring out ranges
3. I had no idea what to do about "board texture"
4. I wasn't considering villain(s) profile
5. I wasn't looking at villain(s) stack sizes

Understanding - really understanding - the cbet.

I didn't really understand the point of cbetting. What is it trying to accomplish? When will work it work? When will it fail? What villains are most vulnerable at what times? What boards are cbet vulnerable? What stack sizes make it more or less effective? So I went to work.

A cbet has equity or value in two ways: villain can fold (fold equity), or we can get called and still win (flop equity). We can still win in three ways: catch a card, get called by some complete dumbass who is still behind despite the fact we caught air, or by 2-barreling/3-barreling the turn and/or the river. By far, the two most common situations are (1) villain folds and (2) villain calls and we play whatever equity we have (not much, typically) on the turn.

In general, for a cbet to work, our fold equity plus pot equity have to be big enough. How big? If we cbet $1 into a $1 pot, we'll make a profit if villains fold half the time (and we refuse to dump any more $$ into a lost cause). Whatever flop equity we had comes into it. Suppose we have 10% equity, then we should be able to win back another dime of the $1 cbet with solid turn/river play. It gives us some leeway.

So the biggest necessary condition for a cbet is fold equity. I generally cbet about 2/3's pot, so fold equity of 40% + flop equity should work out. But it's +++EV whenever villain will lay down 60%+ hands against me. There are other important factors like a tight image. TAGG's have more fold equity in general than other images. So my plan of action includes how to ID spots where fold equity is 60%+.

Understanding - really understanding - PT/HUD stats

VP$P/PFR ratio. The second, preflop raise%, is obvious. What percentage of hands does villain open for a raise? VP$P is a bit different than you might expect. It's not just limping, it's all calls, both limps and calls of other's raises preflop. It also includes checking in the BB and waking up with a hand on the flop. Spoon pointed out that a big gap between the stats like 40/5 meant fishy, in general. It took me awhile before I understood why. These are passive preflop players, and they're limp/calling a lot of hands. They are surrendering both initiative and chips simultaneously, and way too often.

AF. This is total aggression factor postflop [ AF = (#bets + #raises + #rr's) / #calls ]. This was a problem I had already solved through asking FTR icons questions and experience: AF ~ 2 are "honest" villains, one's who tend to bet a good holding and fold a bad one. AF's < 1 and AF's > 3.5 are "dishonest" villains, stations on one end and bluffers on the other.

cbet%. This is percentage of times villain was the preflop raiser and bet again when first to act on the flop. "Honest" villains will cbet about 35% of the time because an unpaired holding will connect with the flop about 1/3 of the time. I consider anything between 25% and 50% honest.

Calls cbet%. This should be obvious. Again, if he's calling with decent hands that hit the flop, we're expecting about 35%.

Raises cbet%. For me, an "honest" villain is raising between 5-8% of cbets. He had a decent holding pre and hit the flop hard. I don't like honest villains, here, I like timid ones.

Part of understanding these stats is when (in terms of # hands) they become relevant. I consider a villain's cbet stats irrelevant with hands < 100, especially if they're not very loose. Raises cbet% needs closer to 200 hands to be relevant. Generally, preflop stats and AF's are relevant sooner, maybe after 50-70 hands. There's more data points for the calculations than for cbet stats.

Understanding - really understanding - ranges

I did some work with PokerStove. You should, too, if you haven't already. I learned something from one of Spenda's videos today (watch them, dammit!). We can just type 20% into the Stove, hit the tab key, and it puts out a range of the Top 20% of Poker Stove equity hands. Here's a screen shot, with 5%, 10% and 15% already evaluated, and 20% ready to be:



Hand Ranges
Top 5%: 88+,AJs+,KQs,AKo
Top 10%: 77+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo
Top 15%: 77+,A7s+,K9s+,QTs+,JTs,ATo+,KTo+,QJo
Top 20%: 66+,A4s+,K8s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s,A9o+,KTo+,QTo+,JTo
Top 25%: 66+,A2s+,K6s+,Q8s+,J8s+,T8s+,A7o+,K9o+,QTo+,JTo
Top 30%: 55+,A2s+,K5s+,Q7s+,J8s+,T8s+,98s,A7o+,A5o,K9o+,Q9o +,J9o+,T9o

This set of ranges is "flawed" for several reasons. First, the hands are ranked in terms of all-in equity against 3 specific hands (I've never discovered which three - I think it's proprietary, and the 3 hands have to change for the different comparisons since it makes no sense to compare KK against itself and 2 other hands). Second, the ranges assume the villains have some idea of what good hands are and how they play. So I alter these ranges for my NL10 villains to include all the aces before most sc's, 1-gappers and even weak broadways. Ax is the most overplayed hand at the micros, followed closely by Ax sooted. Third, sc's are under-represented here, imo, since a lot of micro noobies have seen something about playing 76s on TV or somewhere and overrate it's value. But they seem to play 86s like never. Go figure. Fourth, I think Kxs and Qxs are also overplayed which is terrible since flush draws are so obvious and kill the action. But the above chart is where you can start learning to put people on ranges. Use Poker Stove yourself along with your experience. Just note what crap the 40/30 villain shows down with - it's astonishing, I assure you. Finally, remember that "calling ranges" are different than "opening ranges" and include all pp's. Even the horrible players know that flopping a set is a good thing.

Despite it's "flaws," the Stove is a perfect starting place. I did some work with typical flop situations against a variety of villain ranges: overs like AK or AQ against various flops, small pp's with 3 overs, broadway cards. Which leads to...

Understanding Stack Sizes and Board Texture

I'm not writing much about these two because I am still learning hand by hand. I know this, we often have less fold equity against small stacks, since they get pot committed fast. Also, whatever equity we have in the pot erodes because we don't have the implied odds to exploit it.

For board texture, I'll just mention some boards I like. First, I love paired boards (TT4) because they're half as likely to hit two unpaired cards. I love big gap boards (K73) because they're hard for loose villains to connect solidly with. I like aces and broadway cards. This is because I have a TAGG image and work hard to keep it, trying not to show down the "bad" half of my 18/16 range too often. Even dumbass villains fear my cbets on a AJ3 board that missed them. Others like TJ and ISF have had more to say on this. I'm reading it and learning a lot.

Wow. All that work just to understand the problem. Again, while no expert in poker, I do know a bit about problem-solving. Getting all the relevant information organized and ready for analysis is vital to developing a plan that will generate a good solution.

2. Developing a plan of action

My plan was pretty simple: profile common villains who would often fold to cbets, and learn to recognize boards, stack sizes and other table conditions that make cbetting +++EV. When expert problem-solvers are done with step #1, step #2 is often blatantly obvious. This plan of action included playing 15k - 20k hands trying to implement the theory into practice and refining the theory. I also wanted to connect my cbetting to preflop selection and value-betting patterns, to optimize my earn rate. That's still underdeveloped, but I'm working on it.

3. Working the plan

Here's the situation we're considering:

1. I raised preflop and got caller(s)
2. I flopped "air"
3. It's checked to me or I'm first to act

I went to work and thought about/tested the following things.

The general profile of players is most helpful when I'm acting last and everyone else has checked. This used to be an automatic cbet for me, but I now I choose my spots with a bit of care. I'm still cbetting maybe 70 - 80% of the time, especially with 2 or fewer villains still in the pot. I have found the two most prevalent villain profiles at the micros I play are (1) loose-passive preflop + weak-tight postflop and (2) loose-passive preflop + calling station postflop. Example HUD stats might be (1) 25/5/1.5 and (2) 35/5/0.8 I love these two profiles and have worked hard to ID them early and then exploit them. The loose-passives/weak-tights are great for cbetting, stations - not so much. Another common type especially at 6max is the maniac: 50/25/4 or higher. These villains are playing "cards up" most of the time they check to us: they're ready to fold and only need a cbet to make them - or they like to check-raise. I take a couple of shots to find which they are, note it, and profit. And, of course, when I hit my hand, they value bet it for me. The TAGG's are rarer at 6max but more prevalent at FR, and they're good for a cbet after they've checked. If they hand a hand, they'd be betting it. So I'm generally avoiding the stations (more on this later) and attacking the TAGG's, LAGG's, maniacs and anyone who plays weak-tight postflop.

The cbet stats are most helpful when I have to act first and cbet "blind air." But I still do it frequently, maybe 40-60% of the time depending upon the villains profiles. Board texture is more important here, and while I'm not great at spotting "good" boards except the couple mentioned above, I just check any board that leaves me thinking "that seems troublesome, given villain's range." When in doubt about a cbet (1st to act), I default to check. Now, I classify flop play as either weak, honest or worrisome as follows: weak flop players either cbet way too much or way too little, call cbets way too often or way too little, and either never raise cbets or raise them too often (say 40%+). Honest players (AF ~2) cbet about 35-40%, call cbets about 35-40% and raise cbets %5 or less. Worrisome villains cbet a good bit without hitting the flop (say, 45-55%), are aggressive but not maniacal (AF between 2 and 3), and call a good bit (again, 45-55%). They also raise cbets routinely 15% or more. There is one other worrisome villain - the calling station, but they're easy to spot after playing a couple of hands against them. And their spew against our value hands makes the times they call our cbets less problematic.

I color-coded my HUD stats based on a "green means go" basis. This color-coding is designed specifically to help with cbetting and value betting situations on the flop. I freely admit I suck at turn/river play, but my play pre and on the flop is strong enough they don't kill my win rate.

HUD main display is the typical VP$P/PFR/AF/Hands. VP$P/PFR are color-coded (diff for 6max vs. FR) to turn green when the player is too loose and raises a big range (40/20 would both be green on my 6max layout, 30/20 for FR). AF is color-coded to turn green whenever AF < 1 or AF > 3.5. Hands switches from a light grey to bright blue when > 100 so that I can see at a glance if the HUD stats mean anything, yet.

My HUD's secondary display has cbet%/calls cbet%/raises cbet%. The first two turn green at 65%. In the first case, he's cbetting a lot when he's the preflop raiser since typical unpaired cards hit the flop about 1/3 of the time. In the second case, this is a "flop station," someone who will call flops too often and needs to be 2-barreled or 3-barreled at times. It also turns green when villain only calls 15% or less of cbets, because they're folding often even when they hit their hand. They're weak-tight scared money on the flop. The last (raises cbet%) turns RED when greater than 15%. For me, this means he's raising the cbet about half the times he connects with the flop. Of course, red means "whoa, baby!" But it doesn't mean I'm never cbetting him. I'm just looking for very specific conditions from the board, position, etc.

To play well postflop, I needed to understand my own play preflop and how it affects villains on the flop. My UTG stats are near 8/8 which means I'm only opening for raises. I raise all pp's and AK, AQ. I fold the rest. Now, I understand many folks suggest limping with small pp's, say 77 or worse. I've found the NL10 postflop play is so horrendous that raising is more profitable. I haven't ruled out a switch back to limp/call from EP at higher levels. This is just my current typical line. I do limp UTG, very rarely and on very specific reads (a whole different post!). On the button, my stats are more like 24/20. I will play all suited Aces, most broadways, most sc's, most Aces and some suited Kings and Queens from the button, usually for a raise, in unraised pots with 1 or no limpers. I tend to limp after 3+ limpers. With 2 limpers, I make reads and then do what seems best.

To relate this preflop play to the villain profiles above, just know this: these players suck, and they usually respond to aggression by getting more and more passive. When they "play back," they generally have a premium hand. Aggressing against them is very +EV, and often gets them playing in a "cards face up" mode.

Here's my thoughts on how I'm choosing to cbet. Remember, any HUD reads I make are based on 100+ hands. The flop stats are almost useless prior to that, especially for tight players.

What I'm looking for ("best" villain reads to cbet):
+ Villains with high aggression factors (3.5+)
+ Villains with low "calls cbet%" and who rarely/never raise cbets
+ Boards that miss their ranges or "hit" my TAGG range hard (scare cards)
+ General weakness postflop
+ TAGG's (15/10/2.5 or higher on stats except VP$P) with good boards

What I'm looking to avoid ("worst" villain reads to cbet):
- Villains with high "raise cbet%
- Villains with honest "call bet%" (30 - 50% is bad, imo)
- Boards that hit their ranges, whatever they are
- Decent overall players (something like 15/10/2.5 worries me)

A. In position, checked to me. I'm cbetting here a lot, maybe 70%+.

First and foremost, I'm expecting to check behind here except when my reads tell me to cbet. So almost a third of the time, I'm just checking behind because I don't like what I see.

As mentioned above, I think overall villain profile is most important when last to act on the flop. We know they open-called and checked the flop, so a read on their overall play is useful. I love cbetting aggressive villains who have checked. They very much tend to fold. I also like low "calls cbet%" for the obvious reason. I love firing at boards with broadway cards when villains are loose (say, 30% VP$P+ or 18% PFR+). They're playing easily dominated hands a lot, and if they seem in any way weak postflop I want to cbet them. TAGG's are great to cbet especially after they've just checked. They will rr with strength or fold weak hands. I table select pretty well, looking for many loose passives. Playing 6max, it's rare for me to be at a table with anyone opening less than 35% of their hands. So most villains are worried about Aces and big cards on the flop. I cbet at FR a good bit less, as maybe half the villains there open less than 20% of their hands.

When I'm last to act, I look at at the cbetting profile stats last, hoping for a green lights on the "calls bet%" stat and "cbet%" stat with no red light on "raises cbet%" (and I'm looking at the numbers, too). If they cbet a lot and just checked, I'm happy. If they fold to flop aggression a lot, I'm happy. BTW, for the sake of discussion, remember I've just hit "air." I'm probably behind or very narrowly ahead. These cbets are intended to fold the table, or put me in position to make money when I hit the turn. The question isn't my actual cards, it's villains ranges, board texture and what range they're worried about me having. The general weak-tight play postflop at NL10 means that I can often count on seeing the turn for free after a cbet, and maybe a third of the time having them check all the way to the river.

I don't like cbetting and getting rr'd. I just hit "air." Generally, I have at best 2 overcards, a pair smaller than at least two cards on the board, MPTK with a weak ace, or an sc hand with a gut-shot. About 10% of the time I get raised, I 3bet a maniac (55/30+) with some kind of value in the hand like MP + gut-shot + runner/runner flush draw on a rainbow board. Usually, I have to fold. So I like to see that stat low (0 is good, 10% or less I'm okay with). The 3bet is designed to take down the pot right there and to let this dude know I can't be run over. He often has barely more equity in the pot when I get called, so this isn't -EV. But it's high variance, so beware.

Board texture vs. cbetting is a great thread that I hope someone else writes. I'm learning this, and I need more work before I'm willing to say much. Look at posts by ISF, TJ and Spoon for some help. I have certain boards I dislike: drawy, flushy, low ones against loose-passive-stations, for example.

In multiway action, I've got a problem. This is why I generally raise preflop, because I don't really want to have to face 3 or 4 or more villains postflop. Against 2 villains who've checked to me, I'm cbetting any time both look weak (explained above) and I have some reasonable board. When I face two villains, one of whom is unknown, I will only cbet when the other is VERY weak and the board leaves me some kind of value. Facing two or more unknown villains, I'm cbetting next to never. Facing 3 villains, I need 2 very weak one before I'll even think about it. I cbet in a 4-way pot maybe 5-10% of the time, and never without 5-6 outs worth of value + pretty loose villains. I'm usually checking behind 3+ villains unless I hit my hand.

Honest villains deserve respect, even at the micros. My definition of "honest" is AF's near 2.0 (say 1.5 to 2.5). Why? Well, in general, they're betting their good hands and folding their bad ones. It's a very broad rule of thumb, and how tight or loose they play pre affects this greatly. But it's a decent rule of thumb. Honest cbetting is 35% or thereabouts. Honest "raises cbet%" is probably 5%, again depending on how loose they are pre.

Stations deserve no respect but need to be handled carefully. My typical cbets are 2/3's pot to 3/4's pot against a single villain, and I pot a cbet against 2 villains. I hardly ever cbet multiple villains if one is a station (AF ~ 0.8). By the way, imo, an AF < 0.4 is NOT a station, they're weak tight. And a big cbet often gets them to fold, depending upon the board and their other stats. There are stations with stats like that, surely, but the majority are just noobie, tentative players. Scared money. If and when I decide to cbet a station, I fire a pot-sized raise. This does three things. First, contrary to whiny and popular opinion, a station will fold a bad hand if you bet like a man. Second, if he won't, that helps me know how to size my value bets later. Third, he's a station, and after calling my big preflop/flop raises, he's likely to let me see two streets for free. And if he doesn't, he's probably got a good hand. That's my line for cbetting stations, and I cool it on the turn and river if he's still in the hand. A lot of time we'll both check two streets and I'll win the showdown with a pair of 7's.

B. Out of position, when I raised first preflop and got called.

I cbet pretty often here, especially against one TAGG. Remember, I open AQ+ and pp's, so UTG my 2/3's of my range is 88 or better. Generally, I'm cbetting with two premium overs or a pp against 1 or 2 overcards. I have a hand and am probably ahead since I'm table selecting loose villains. I tighten up my reads on whoever's in the pot. Against a TAGG, I'm firing a lot of cbets. I'm looking for PFR > 12% + AF > 3. Here's why. I've found most villains (even TAGG's) are willing to call a raise with most of the hands they're willing to raise with. Jeez, that seems so idiotic now, but it's what I did for months! Remember that for a villain with a 20/15 profile, he's not limping 5% of his hands. He's certainly raising 15% of his VP$P hands when he's FIRST to act, but the other 5% is a total of his limped hands + the times he's called someone else's preflop raise. And "TAGG" is relative - at the micros, TAGG generally means he's perfectly willing to raise most hands and call/limp very little in comparison, but it doesn't often mean he's willing to 3bet preflop (NL10 remember). I didn't really understand the who texture of VP$P vs. PFR until I started writing this post.

I cbet the loose-passives a good bit, too, since I'm probably ahead against their ranges a good bit. For them, I'm looking for VP$P > 35 at 6max (30ish FR) and some indication they fold to cbets half the time or more. I like paired boards, big gap boards and broadway boards here. I am cbetting relentlessly against anyone with a "weak" flop profile (see above).

Multiple callers suck. I will only cbet oop with 2 villains or fewer, and BOTH have to have weak flop profiles + be loose enough + some kind of equity with my hand relative to the board. So I'm checking well over half the time, here. Against 3 callers, I need more than 2 overs (6 outs) to proceed. I need something like the nut flush draw + overs or a gut-shot + overs. But the type of gutshot is important. For example, we're generally talking about AQ with a flop of KJ2 or something. I do NOT cbet this board without a flush draw, too. None of my overcards are certain to be outs, so I'm probably down to a 4-outer if I get called. But AK on a QJ2 flop is better. The AKT are probably all outs, so I have 10.

Now, for the experienced FTR folks who are reading this ready to flame, I realize I just crossed the line into value betting. With 10 outs, assuming they're all solid, I have some hefty equity in the pot. A defensive raise might work here, or check/calling with implied odds. That's a fine line, here. I never cbet total "air" against multiple callers unless we're talking about AK with a board like J 6 2 rainbow. And they would have to all have very weak postflop profiles. Usually, I find it's better to wait and see what I'm up against. As a rule, I am rarely cbetting total air, even from position. I'm looking to only cbet when I have some active outs.

C. Cbets against unkowns.

I don't do this much any more. I know that within an hour, I'll have a clear picture of how this guy plays, less if he's a multitabler on several of my tables at once. I also have good reads on 2/3 of the villains at most tables (since I'm a multitabling reg myself). So why attack someone who's unknown? I try to value bet them and see how they react.

4. Confirming solution and reflection

This whole post is reflection. Reflection rocks because the solution crystalizes in your mind, and other problems that can be solved jump into your head - for me, this improved my overall preflop/flop play, and gave me ways to think about turn/river play.

But just to summarize at this point, I played 10k hands and revised my color-coding, along with making different "green light" values for both 6max and FR. Then I tweaked it a bit more after 10k more. I'm continuing to keep track of what type of villain reads mean "autofold to cbet." I'm pretty good at predicting (a) if they'll fold and if they don't (b) a very narrow range of what they might have called with. I'm also able to pick good spots for the cbet/3bet against certain cbet raisers. These spots are rare, but I used to just have to fold here. So it's valuable to do when a very perfect spot comes along.

The "green light" stats solution works well in general. When I see a villain with 500 hands who's HUD numbers are a long list of green text, I attack relentlessly with great success. When half the numbers are green, I attack with a bit of care and great success, depending on which numbers are green. When I don't have great "green light" stats, I try to consider how all the numbers come together (along with board texture, table conditions, my equity, etc) and fire away when I think I have enough fold equity to work.

Do I mistakes? Yes, but not very often any more. And the "action plan" is it's own solution, helping to identify and correct bad play.

Finally, now that I'm beginning to understand flop play, I'm a lot better at choosing which hands to open preflop and against which villains. This in turn makes my flop play better.

If you read all this, thanks. I was just trying to layout (in great detail) how I use the tools we all have to learn to play better, to solve the various problems associated with sucking at poker.

This is in no way a "Guide to Cbetting at Micros," or some pretentious bullsit like that. Others far better than me can write that. This is more about problem-solving and analyzing. If it's a "how to" guide, it's about how to problem-solve in a poker setting. I hope this helps you develop procedures for improving your game.

Good luck at the tables.

"AF. This is total aggression factor postflop (bets + raises/rr's) / calls. This was a problem I had already solved through asking FTR icons questions and experience: AF ~ 2 are "honest" villains, one's who tend to bet a good holding and fold a bad one. AF's < 1 and AF's > 3.5 are "dishonest" villains, stations on one end and bluffers on the other. "

Isnt this calculated using an equation involving calling/betting/raising? They could have an infinite AF if they just never called. Or something like that.

I don't have time to read this entire post right now, but I will later. I'm glad to see other people taking things they know about the learning process (that they picked up in other endeavors) and applying them to poker.

WOW

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I don't have time to read this entire post right now, but I will later. I'm glad to see other people taking things they know about the learning process (that they picked up in other endeavors) and applying them to poker.

...wait....theres a process to learning? dammit.

This is why you can't get enough hands in. How long do these things take. I just thought I would cruise FTR for a bit before bed, and there is no way I can read this and go to sleep. I will look it over tomorrow too.

Originally Posted by shazbox

Originally Posted by Robb

AF. This is total aggression factor postflop (bets + raises/rr's) / calls. This was a problem I had already solved through asking FTR icons questions and experience: AF ~ 2 are "honest" villains, one's who tend to bet a good holding and fold a bad one. AF's < 1 and AF's > 3.5 are "dishonest" villains, stations on one end and bluffers on the other.

Isnt this calculated using an equation involving calling/betting/raising? They could have an infinite AF if they just never called. Or something like that.

Yes, they can have infinite aggression - I often do when my HUD stats are only for 25 hands, or so.

The formula is:

AF = (#bets + #raises + #rr's) / #calls

I edited the post to make that clearer.

I don't know theoretically why AF ~ 2 is "honest." It just seems that ABC TAGG lends itself to that ratio, if they're not bluffing much and betting right out when they hit the flop. But a villain playing AF ~ 2 is, absent other factors, pretty much playing his cards face up. He's got something when he bets. If he misses the flop he folds. Generally.

Now, that likely changes further up. I have crazy-high AF's at NL10 because of the weak-tight play I face postflop (AF > 5, sometimes >6). I'm cbetting, value betting or folding the flop. And I'm generally firing again on the turn or folding. It works for my style and the sites I play on.

You'll notice guys like Spoon and XTR100 have AF's around 3.5. They can't just run over people at NL100, and they mix up their play. But that's my experience and some input from the FTR icons.

Here are my stats from PT on tonight's session, the one I played right after writing and posting the above novel:



I also included the flop stats summary (where PT calculates the AF's). As you will see, I was betting the flop (when first to act after I was preflop raiser) nearly 72% of the time. Of course, some of those were times I hit the flop.



I don't always post win rates in the 20+ ptBB/100 range. LoL. But the stats will verify that I'm a very frequent cbetter. I'm also TAGG, with 15/13/4 for this session. Just proving I practice what I preach.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

This is why you can't get enough hands in. How long do these things take. I just thought I would cruise FTR for a bit before bed, and there is no way I can read this and go to sleep. I will look it over tomorrow too.

LoL. I post like Spoon 24-tables: drain the pasta, write a bit, change a diaper, write a bit, write a bit, comfort a crying 3 year old, write a bit. All at 70 words per minute. I just hope it helps someone play better poker.

I just finished reading this, and I've got a couple general thoughts.

First and foremost, it's rare that people [relatively] new to this game or any other game try to understand concepts in any sort of depth, and I think that's a problem. New players of any contest seem to prefer a breadth of information instead of learning the intricacies of anything. This gets them by for a while, but seems to stop them dead in their tracks once they reach a certain level. It's almost like they're going through the motions that they think are correct but they don't really understand why.

Second, and this goes back to both my first point and our thoughts on intuition, when you take the time to figure out how things like c-betting really work, you gain a much deeper feel for related situations. You'll probably understand what turn and river spots are good for bluffing and/or semi-bluffing without having to go into as much depth on each. You'll also be able to learn to pick off c-bets with a much higher rate of success without nearly as much difficulty as someone who just goes through the motions "because that's what they're supposed to do".

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...d.php?t=136153

Just added a link for you. Not sure if that's how to do it. I'm working too much at the moment, (i'll rephrase that-I'm at work for a lot of hours) fortunately I don't have much to do and I have internet access. Unfortunately I can't access FTR or play poker. Strangely enough the only poker site I can visit is 2+2, I found this very useful gguide ti HUD stats. Don' blame me if you stop making reads though.

thanks for a very nice post, I´m truly amazed of how you´re approaching the problem. Good work, keep it up!

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

First and foremost, it's rare that people [relatively] new to this game or any other game try to understand concepts in any sort of depth, and I think that's a problem. New players of any contest seem to prefer a breadth of information instead of learning the intricacies of anything. This gets them by for a while, but seems to stop them dead in their tracks once they reach a certain level. It's almost like they're going through the motions that they think are correct but they don't really understand why.

My first solution went something like this: "put 'folds cbet%' up on HUD and bet ATC when >60%'," but I bet myself into very tight spots way too often. Then you start digging deeper, but the problem with this game is that I still never got past level 1 thinking in this post - only thing that saves me is my opponents haven't gotten up to level 0, yet.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Second, and this goes back to both my first point and our thoughts on intuition, when you take the time to figure out how things like c-betting really work, you gain a much deeper feel for related situations. You'll probably understand what turn and river spots are good for bluffing and/or semi-bluffing without having to go into as much depth on each. You'll also be able to learn to pick off c-bets with a much higher rate of success without nearly as much difficulty as someone who just goes through the motions "because that's what they're supposed to do".

Probably the biggest connection should have been obvious long ago: the connection of cbetting to value betting the flop. Now, I don't "value bet," I pretend like I have air and think about what cbets would likely get called or raised. And I don't cbet, I value bet the part of my range they're worried about (whenever a cbet seems advisable).

Good post. Thanks.

vnh Robb

Originally Posted by Robb

I generally cbet about 2/3's pot,

dynamic c-bet sizing yo, like if you know c-bet 30% of pot vs 80% of pot isn't a factor in op folding - then go ahead and c-bet 30%
This type of thing, dunno, I'd just read your post when i played this hand and was toying with ideas around c-betting. Obviously bet-size is absolutely read dependent here
Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (9 handed) Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

Hero ($46.25)
Button ($10.30)
SB ($29.85)
BB ($61.70)
UTG ($23.85)
UTG+1 ($41.15)
MP1 ($8.60)
MP2 ($53)
MP3 ($19.70)

Preflop: Hero is CO with 8, 8.
UTG calls $0.50, UTG+1 calls $0.50, 3 folds, Hero raises to $2.75, 3 folds, UTG calls $2.25, UTG+1 calls $2.25.

Flop: ($9) 3, 2, A (3 players)
UTG checks, UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $3.7, UTG folds, UTG+1 folds.

Final Pot: $9

Originally Posted by daven

vnh Robb

Originally Posted by Robb

I generally cbet about 2/3's pot,

dynamic c-bet sizing yo, like if you know c-bet 30% of pot vs 80% of pot isn't a factor in op folding - then go ahead and c-bet 30%

I think is true - I just wasn't focused on it. And it's more than just reads - it's stack sizes, ranges and scare cards. You've gotta rep what worries your villain. Sometimes, a 40% cbet pot commits him and scares him off (like a flush draw board against a big pp), so bet that. But generally, we need to bet 2/3's to 3/4's to balance out how we value bet. If we cbet too little, we can't toss in a big bet when we do have a hand.

Very nice post. Try this process:

Define the problem
Identify the criteria
Weight the criteria
Generate alternatives
Rate each alternative on each criterion
Compute the optimal decision

Learned this from my MBA class.

bump, so I remember to read this

Originally Posted by mrhappy333

bump, so I remember to read this

At some point before the summer's over, I hope to clean this up into a "Flop strat guide" for cbets - see how much I can get flamed.

Bump for being the best article on cbetting I've ever read, and I've read a lot.

Originally Posted by DJJunkPauds

Bump for being the best article on cbetting I've ever read, and I've read a lot.

Thanks - I just reread it, and it's better than I remember. I still use all of the things I learned and explained above, except I don't color code as much. HUD reads have become more holistic, and I look at how different combinations come together to give me a picture of villain's play. But the basics are still good, and I return to these basics every time my game goes to sh*t, or I hit a downswing.

When I tilt, I tend to start cbetting EVERY time instead of picking spots, trying to run over tables. Actually making a read means that every now and then you choose a spot NOT to cbet.

This is very nice posting. First i thank u. Can you explain me the last point "Confirm solution and reflect " with a good example ?.

Originally Posted by Testyourpoker

This is very nice posting. First i thank u. Can you explain me the last point "Confirm solution and reflect " with a good example ?.

Well, you start cbetting in all the spots you've identified as being likely to work. And you quit cbetting all the spots you've identified as being unlikely to work. After a coupla hundred cbetting spots, you see how well you've been doing with cbets AND value bets (since the cbetting creates action on your made hands, too). And keep tweaking, just a bit, here and there as you gain experience to go with your theory.

If you're like me, working on cbetting for a solid month will mean you'll go from a 3 - 4 ptBB/100 win rate to a 6+ ptBB/100 win rate over the next 25k hands or so. Then you reflect back and realize that your hard work and problem-solving paid off in win rate $$.

But you're still not cbetting perfectly, so you go back to the beginning and start the process all over again.

BUMP!

I mentioned this post in another post. It leveled me 6 months ago, I hope it levels you now.

Fantastic post - this explains some of the situations where I think I've been going wrong just by following the guide. Thanks for bumping it .

Hey, dev, thanks for the bump level props. I learned a lot working through writing this thread, mostly about how to think about and solve poker problems myself. At some point, most folks in the BC either learn to think about poker for themselves, or get frustrated and leave. I love FTR because it speeds up the learning process, but the things I know best I worked on hard by myself and only got input from others after I had raised the questions and tried to answer them myself.

Damn Robb, thanks for the insightful post. What I take from all this is not "how" to c-bet but more of "why" to c-bet. I like how you've color coded villain stats so when they all turn green it's like "off to the races" LOL. I'm just getting used to the HUD and how to use it and this post has helped explain a lot what the HUD stats mean and what to look for and how to exploit. I don't mass multi-table because I want to focus on the game and learn what the hell I'm doing and really "try" to observe what villains are doing. I seem to cbet in the wrong spots at times, which I need to fix. I'm also bleeding money from the blinds, but a lot of that has been losing big pots on cooler-type hands (KK vs AA, KK vs set, QQ vs KK). I'm sure I will re-read this post at least a few more times before soaking it all in.

Every time I come to the BC I always feel like I'm attending poker class. So thanks to you and the other players better than I that are constantly lecturing us noobs.

5 to you sir

I just reread this again, and I forgot how much work I put into that OP. That said, I still use what I learned working through that. I cbet often, but not always, and generally in good spots, I think.

The one thing that bothers me about this is that I apparently cbet in multiway pots A LOT more at 10nl than I did at 25nl or than I do at 50nl. Even 3-way, I don't really continue (and esp. not oop) w/ air. I have to have value and reads, and even then I might just check. So be careful of some of those recommendations.

Thanks for reading that, bumping it, and allowing (forcing) me to look back at it.

I really like all the effort you put into this post. Job well done.

Will you go the extra step and teach beginners how to apply this knowledge in lamens terms?

I'm still learning the math and I have a good understanding of pot odds and implied odds. But I'm still struggling a bit with equity because it requires you to read your villain and put him on a range, which is extremely difficult for me at 5NL as players come and go so quickly. In addition to that, when multi tabling, it's tough for me to make note of every villain, unless the villain does some crazy thing that is worthy of making a note of.

Generally you're not going into this kind of in-depth analysis while you play. If you have a few hand histories you can go over your equity and put V's on different ranges to find out what the best play would have been.

All of this makes you better at the table, but it's way too complicated to actually do while you're at the table.

I never suggested this was a "how to cbet" guide. It was a "how to apply problem-solving theory to poker" post. That said, the key for me was to identify away from the table the types of situations where cbetting would be ++EV. In the post, I suggested a few:

1. Villain is likely to fold (stat/read based)
2. Board is dry
3. Stacks are deep
4. Villain is such a donk we're probably still ahead w/ air even if called

When I wrote the post originally, I was completely lost every time someone said "dry board" or "wet board." You can see how tentative I was listing board textures I wanted to cbet. I didn't know. But I did realize that paired boards and rainbow boards are dry (i.e. good for a cbet), and that we could rep the big card.

The point isn't to know everything. It's to list everything you do know away from the table and try to plan ahead for the type of information you might see at the table that will let you know when it's ++EV to cbet. Don't use my list. Learn how to make your own, imo.

Interesting. I cbet almost 100% of the time when I'm in an isolated pot. Thinking of making changes to that. But as you said, it's villain dependent and I know I sound like a broken record but it's hard to read villains at 5NL because they come and go so quickly.

So as a general rule, dry boards should only be c-betted?

What about c-betting in a multi-way pot?

Originally Posted by Revolver123

Interesting. I cbet almost 100% of the time when I'm in an isolated pot. Thinking of making changes to that. But as you said, it's villain dependent and I know I sound like a broken record but it's hard to read villains at 5NL because they come and go so quickly.

So as a general rule, dry boards should only be c-betted?

What about c-betting in a multi-way pot?

Iso'd and ip, we all cbet tons. There are no "general rules," really. Dry boards are less likely to have hit villains who are calling.

Example: You have AK, raise pre, and get a caller from the blinds. Board is J98 2-suited. Well, what kind of hands tend to call from the blinds? I won't list my whole range (you should, if you wanna get better), but Jx and Tx hands are some of it, medium/small pp's (most of) the rest. So not only are we likely behind, we're also up against what could easily be a monster hand (set) or monster draw (OESD, combo hand like 77, or FD). Cbetting here (depending upon stacks and reads) may just be value towning ourselves. This situation against the same villain would be wholly different if the board were Q73 rainbow.

Originally Posted by Robb

Iso'd and ip, we all cbet tons. There are no "general rules," really. Dry boards are less likely to have hit villains who are calling.

Example: You have AK, raise pre, and get a caller from the blinds. Board is J98 2-suited. Well, what kind of hands tend to call from the blinds? I won't list my whole range (you should, if you wanna get better), but Jx and Tx hands are some of it, medium/small pp's (most of) the rest. So not only are we likely behind, we're also up against what could easily be a monster hand (set) or monster draw (OESD, combo hand like 77, or FD). Cbetting here (depending upon stacks and reads) may just be value towning ourselves. This situation against the same villain would be wholly different if the board were Q73 rainbow.

This post right here helped a ton. Cbetting is a leak for me as well and I should check/fold in certain situations where I'm called by a later position on certain types of boards.

Nice read, ty to bumper and Robb

I want to bump again, primarily for two reasons... first to thank Robb for his dilligence in sharing his method and implementation of it... and second to really honestly ask a question (and provide my answer)?

How many of us in the BC are really this serious about learning the game and clobbering it?

My Answer: I haven't been, and have suffered for it. But posts like this give me hope and inspiration. I have an upcoming op that I intend to apply Robb's learning technique mentioned above to as well as apply Spoon's knowledge to. I do believe if I can get 1/2 as serious as Robb and Spoon and Spenda, Jyms, others, I too can become a majorly profitable player... Serious things to consider, again Robb thanks for sharing.

Wonderful post Robb!

"How many of us in the BC are really this serious about learning the game and clobbering it?"

I am. It took me two years of studying before I had developed such a strong foundation that I felt certain I could win most games and against most players. I did not play a single hand before the foundation was in place.

Once I had built a strong foundation- most questions answered themselves and rushing through the stakes was easy.

Robb is investing time and effort in improving his poker abilities. Most players are investing time and effort to win money. When skill is significantly higher than opponents- profits follow.

I am sure Robb will become of one those players who make millions in poker a year- he has the attitude of a winner.

Bumping for complete awesomeness and everyone that is serious about improving their winrate should read this at least two or three times, then bookmark it and read it again in a week or two.

I gotta give major credit to Robb for that one. Very informative and well-written. I like the problem-solving approach you took cause that's how I do it too.

At some point, we all have to learn to solve poker problems ourselves, without advice from others. Everyone's game and learning curve differs so much that you'll do much better if you "suffer" in the short run while learning to learn yourself. Yeah, Stax's advice is awesome and will help you profit, but the big profit is going to come when we can think like Stax or ISF or Renton or Nutshino. And that will only happen as we exercise our brains and put our theories into practice on our own, never failing to learn, even if we "fail" sometimes at poker.

Originally Posted by Robb

At some point, we all have to learn to solve poker problems ourselves, without advice from others. Everyone's game and learning curve differs so much that you'll do much better if you "suffer" in the short run while learning to learn yourself. Yeah, Stax's advice is awesome and will help you profit, but the big profit is going to come when we can think like Stax or ISF or Renton or Nutshino. And that will only happen as we exercise our brains and put our theories into practice on our own, never failing to learn, even if we "fail" sometimes at poker.

This is ridiculously true and something I strive for myself.

Anything you learn by reading someone elses well thought out posts, analysis or essay you learn much much less well than anything you learn by figuring it out yourself. Look only to posts from others to help pad your toolbox and then apply the tools in your toolbox to improve you yourself in your understanding of poker.

great post. Despite the amount of time I've spent learning about this game, a post like this puts me in mah place. It should be a wake up call for anyone who thinks they are adequately monitoring and analyzing exactly what is going on in their poker game.

I agree, Greate post

Robb this is an awesome post. Now I just need to start implementing more deep thinking to my game. I'm printing this as I type this.

great post, in general I never thought about the stats and what certain values for those particular stats probably meant.

I was thinking some more about this, and I would like to pose a side question. Last night I was in a loose fishy game, there were at least 3 people with VP's over 40, one was around 60. These guys were in every pot. Whenever I would raise PF (this was a .02 NL at PS, full ring) it seems at least 2 people would call. After doing this a few times and flopping air with hands like AK or AJ, I started adjusting by making the raises bigger pre-flop. I upped them to .12 or .14 even if I was first to be in (no limpers). However, I don't think this was the correct way to play it. Most times in a tight game you might get one caller, if it's a dry board like and I have AK I fire 2/3 of the pot and a lot of time take it down right there. But in this game, every cbet I made was called it seemed.

1. Was increasing my raise right at all? I think no before anyone answers, as it seems they called anyway.
2. Should you cbet less against these type of players, and generally tighten up even a bit more pre-flop, wait to cbet until you hit the flop moderately to hard?

What is the best approach to cbetting against this type of game. It felt like I was just spewing chips and had no respect at the table at all.

Thanks to BooG690 for linking this post.Great read.Niice work robb

you mention why the ranges that PokerStove spits out is flawed against fishy players, but it's maybe even more suspect against good players, namely ones that understand position. even break even regs at 5NL have read somewhere or heard in passing that it's acceptable to open a lot more hands out of the BU so they're range a lot of times looks nothing like the PokerStove results when a NIT reg raises in position

[Bumped for maintaining insightful threads]

Bumped again for Wonderland.