Defensive Cbets??

Listing some of the reasons that quickly come to mind about why I might cbet the flop...

1. Disguise value bets and semibluffs
2. Villain will likely fold a better hand (read, often goes with scary board)

And not much else. But what about this reason?

3. Defensive. 3bet first, because Hero has garbage but it's pretty likely Villain does, too.

Example might be a blind battle with a LAGGy maniac player. Hero 3bets the LAGG (who blind steals 90% of the time from the BTN) pre, gets called, and there's a dry board on the flop. Hero checks HUD and sees cbet% is 80%. Hero cbets first, knowing if he checks Villain will cbet with ATC.

I guess my question is, does any one else find themselves 3betting to "bluff first" against players who seem to cbet nearly 100%?

If you can go all-in, being first to push when both pre-flop ranges are wide is a pretty big advantage.

Originally Posted by Robb

I guess my question is, does any one else find themselves 3betting to "bluff first" against players who seem to cbet nearly 100%?

The way games play these days, anytime you surrender the initiative to a player in position you're putting up the 'pot for sale' sign, so you should be c-betting in HU pots most of the time, with exceptions naturally.

Your example isn't the best because a reraised pot is a different animal. Most pots aren't.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by Robb

I guess my question is, does any one else find themselves 3betting to "bluff first" against players who seem to cbet nearly 100%?

The way games play these days, anytime you surrender the initiative to a player in position you're putting up the 'pot for sale' sign, so you should be c-betting in HU pots most of the time, with exceptions naturally.

This is stated MUCH better than my original post. Excellent point.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Your example isn't the best because a reraised pot is a different animal. Most pots aren't.

Blind vs. blind and blind vs. button are very different animals in general. Probably a bad choice.

New example. I open raise from MP and get flatted by the cutoff, who cbets just about 300% of all flops he sees. I catch air with something like AJ on a 9 high flop (which seems to hit his flatting range). But I know that if I don't bet, pot's gone. So I'm better off cbetting than checking.

Originally Posted by Warpe

The way games play these days, anytime you surrender the initiative to a player in position you're putting up the 'pot for sale' sign, so you should be c-betting in HU pots most of the time, with exceptions naturally.

Many of the players crushing online games right now abuse the shit out of "monkey checked to, monkey bet"

Originally Posted by Fnord

Many of the players crushing online games right now abuse the shit out of "monkey checked to, monkey bet"

you mean the monkeys are being crushed by EP monsters?

Originally Posted by daven

Originally Posted by Fnord

Many of the players crushing online games right now abuse the shit out of "monkey checked to, monkey bet"

you mean the monkeys are being crushed by EP monsters?

mixing up leading out with c/r'ing made hands/draws/sometimes air for fun and profit should be in every toolbox.

and we still have to c/f once in a while

Check/calling down goodish hands can be pretty amaizing against the online video crowd who don't know how to give up once they "take control" of a hand.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Check/calling down goodish hands can be pretty amaizing against the online video crowd who don't know how to give up once they "take control" of a hand.

Without any specific read, what kind of stats do you look for when determining which kind of villain to make this play against. I do it vs 17/13 types who c-bet a lot & have some success. Obviously more comfortable with it IN position rather than OOP.

Always a pain in the ass when you c/c to the river with JJ on a T454 board, then the ace falls on the river though...

Opponent is a regular playing a small number of tables.
Pretty sure he bets ATC on the turn.

I'm playing 28/21

$1/$2 No Limit Holdem
6 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG priyanta ($154.70)
UTG+1 Hero ($199.35)
CO ming8 ($76.05)
BTN howzatt10 ($279.50)
SB Thomsgen ($253.15)
BB NLKat ($77.85)
[ming8 posted $2]

Pre-flop: ($5, 6 players) Hero is UTG+1
priyanta calls $2, Hero raises to $12, 1 fold, howzatt10 calls $12, 2 folds, priyanta folds

Flop: ($31, 2 players)
Hero bets $20, howzatt10 calls $20

Turn: ($71, 2 players)
Hero checks, howzatt10 bets $48, Hero calls $48

River: ($167, 2 players)
Hero checks, howzatt10 checks

Final Pot: $167
Hero shows:
howzatt10 shows:

Hero wins $164 ( won +$84 )
priyanta lost -$2.00
howzatt10 lost -$80.00

I believe that the first person to bet (BLUFF) has the best chance to take it down short-handed. Why not bet a bit more to disguise the bluff? Short handed, most hands miss on the flop, so you are probably good. A bit larger bet may make villian fold middle pair or a flush draw or something.