A Good Example of When Not to C-Bet

Villain is something like 26/14/4.5 which is very loose and aggressive for full ring.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (7 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

MP1 ($382.65)
MP2 ($891.20)
CO ($131.55)
Button ($225.65)
Hero ($228.05)
BB ($318)
UTG ($223)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Ahttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif, Thttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif.
5 folds, Hero raises to $8, BB calls $6.

Flop: ($16) 6http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif, Ahttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif, 6http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $8, Hero calls $8.

Turn: ($32) 8http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $24, Hero calls $24.

River: ($80) Ahttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $88, Hero calls $88.

Final Pot: $256

If you don't understand why this is a bad place to c-bet against this villain, then start at the end of the hand (the river) and figure out why I just check/call.

Post what you think.

Also see A Good Example of When to C-Bet.

You don't cbet here because you did hit and you had enough of a read (4.5 aggression factor) that he was going to continue to bet into you, while if you bet he probably just folds.

If I'm right, you could have raised the river, but in the event that he has the other A, you are just paying more rake.

Am I far off?

Your river c/c is retarded.

Retarded is too strong a word. It has its merits (villain will bluff more than he'll call, theres very little value in reraising).

I'd post-oak bluff here.

c/c looks standard here, why wouldn't it be, euph?

Villain checks behind a huge percent of the time when he might call a bet, or, if hes truly LAG, put in a bluff raise (because you would have made a CBet with your decent A right?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Retarded is too strong a word. It has its merits (villain will bluff more than he'll call, theres very little value in reraising).

I'd post-oak bluff here.

---

So we're turning a made hand into a bluff why?? Seeing as we have to fold to a raise and worse hands are going to bet anyway, that seems like a really bad line here.

Actually no, it's even worse than I thought because we have a FH. Anything but a c/c is wrong here, let the aggro villain bet. If he has A8 or 66 lol nh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badgers

Actually no, it's even worse than I thought because we have a FH. Anything but a c/c is wrong here, let the aggro villain bet. If he has A8 or 66 lol nh.

---

agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badgers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Retarded is too strong a word. It has its merits (villain will bluff more than he'll call, theres very little value in reraising).

I'd post-oak bluff here.

---

So we're turning a made hand into a bluff why?? Seeing as we have to fold to a raise and worse hands are going to bet anyway, that seems like a really bad line here.

---

Why the hell would you fold a boat to a raise here?

i want to know why we went for the c/c on river and not c/r AI. this villain sounds like he could be carrying the 6, too. i understand the "i dont want to add to the rake" idea, but here if we are lucky enough to be up against the 6, we miss value by inducing the river bet and only calling it, imo. i, personally, bet/3betAI because i dont want to miss value. but, i'm thinking either A or 6 for villain, not "he may bluff 3 barrels."

but, thats not what the post was about anyway.

why not cbet? imo, because a) you know villain is likely to bet the flop, b) why blow villain off of a worse hand? c) the 6 again. if he has it we are spewing and we are drawing very thin. this is just an easier spot to c/c and see what villain want to do with the hand. basically, pot control.

First about not c-betting. Hawkfan79 hit it perfectly: this guy is going to bet into us a major portion of the time regardless of whether or not he hit the flop in any way, shape, or form. If we c-bet, then he doesn't give us that value with hands that totally suck here.

Something you might not have thought about is the times that he raises our c-bet. We're going to be out of position for the big money streets, and it's just as likely he has 76s as 54s. This puts us in a spot of making unnecessary difficult decisions, something that we aim to avoid.

Now about the river.

First off, note that any argument against raising on the river that involves the rake is incorrect since the rake is already capped on the river (it caps at $3 when the pot reaches $60).

Now, for everyone wondering about the check/call on the river, consider the following:

There's 1 ace and 3 eights out there, so that's 3 possible hand combinations for A8.
There's 1 possible hand combination for 66.

So that's 4 hand combinations that beat us, and he's always showing these down against a bet or raise all-in.

Now what are the likely hands that have a 6 in them? 76s, 65s, 86s, 64s stand out.

There's 2 possible hand combinations for 76s.
There's 2 possible hand combinations for 65s.
There's 2 possible hand combinations for 86s.
There's 2 possible hand combinations for 64s.

That's 8 hand combinations that we beat, but how often is he going to bet these on the river, and THEN call a shove? Will it be the 50% required to make betting the better of the two? A bet on the river with a 6 would be horrible beyond words, especially over-betting the pot on an apparent value bet trying to get some value from KK-99. This makes the bet very unlikely if villain has a 6.

Villain might be really loose and really aggressive, but we can't just assume he's a total retard who is going to over-bet the pot on the river when it's obvious the only hands that call beat him.

Now euphoricism suggested a post-oak bluff, and I think he might be just meaning to make a small bet in hopes of inducing a bluff, but that's not really a post-oak bluff if my understanding is correct.

Chopper, good idea on trying to get value from a 6, but that line of thinking is best applied with leading the river, imo.

badgers, thanks for pointing out that I'm stupid. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badgers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Retarded is too strong a word. It has its merits (villain will bluff more than he'll call, theres very little value in reraising).

I'd post-oak bluff here.

---

So we're turning a made hand into a bluff why?? Seeing as we have to fold to a raise and worse hands are going to bet anyway, that seems like a really bad line here.

---

Why the hell would you fold a boat to a raise here?

---

Because I was drunk and didn't notice the board was paired.

Spoon, you know we beat 88.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badgers

Spoon, you know we beat 88.

---

I seriously need to stop posting when I'm falling asleep at the keyboard, my god what the fuck.

one more question about the c/c river...

i still dont see why we dont shove over...since we accomplished our goal of inducing the bet?

you ALREADY have the $88 he bet. once you check, and he fires, you know you have the $88 he bet. you have NOTHING to lose by going for the rest. you are either winning the $88 against the 8 combos of hands you mentioned, or losing YOUR $88 with the 4 combos that beat you.

besides, the pot is $265 now. villain put in $120 of his own. and has about $190 left...he has you covered. if you shove over with the remaining $100, how can he fold all but the bigger trash holdings? and, if he folds.....SO WHAT? you already HAVE the $88 of bonus money. if you only call his river bet, the hand is over there, but you left potential money on the table, imo, that you never tried to grab.

please explain if i am way off here because i am inclined to miss the obvious at times.

Imo, the raise is break even at best.

After his bet on the river, suppose there is an equal chance that he has 6x and that he has 66/A8. Raising is -EV, DOUCY?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Imo, the raise is break even at best.

After his bet on the river, suppose there is an equal chance that he has 6x and that he has 66/A8. Raising is -EV, DOUCY?

---

I tend to agree here. Of all the hands that villian would (reasonably) call your AI with you have one beat (88), two beat you (A8 and 66) and the rest (Ax - minus A8) you split the pot.

If villian is loose enough that you could add 6x to the hands that he would call with, THEN I could see raising AI here.

Good c/c on the river. What else is calling here or raising? I play it the same way.

no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chopper

no

---

This should make UCY.

Quote:

---

If villian is loose enough that you could add 6x to the hands that he would call with, THEN I could see raising AI here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonic

Good c/c on the river. What else is calling here or raising? I play it the same way.

---

how about the fact that if spoon raises here hes basically committed right? he as put in 128, and spoon has 100 left behind him. this looks like a 6 way more than A 8 or 66 to me, and i think we just sucked out on him.

the fact that we are not pushing this river after villain bluffed it is BEYOND me.

i said, "no" because calling is wrong, not because IDCY (i didnt see why).

you have him on 4 combos that beat us. you have him on 8 combos that we beat. all of the 8 are calling a shove, but if they dont, who cares? but, i argue there are even more that villains will call with than 8. even at 200NL, some people do stupid shit.

for every ONE time you lose the hand, you win TWICE. and that wont change. if we only call, we still lose one third of the time. if he calls our push we still lose one third of the time.

the hand is over. we are just neglecting to take the rest of villains money 66% of the time we are winning and he will call.

no one can tell me why playing "pot control" on this river is better than shoving over. are we really being this nitty? i'm a nit, and i cant avoid shoving if i check this river and he bets.

its not like we are up against a 10/7 rock. we are up against a maniac....that makes the 6 so much more likely here.

not to mention the metagame possibilities you are setting up for the future.

Spoon, I see your point, but respectfully disagree.
I'm with Will641 & Chopper here. I think you drastically under-estimate 2 things here: First the likely hood of his calling with a 6 on the river & second his range.
You'll have a bunch of 6's call in the name of "being pot stuck" or even by sheer frustration of being draw out on. I also don't think his BB range is as tight as you indicate either since this is a blind war. He might call you w/ K6s or even 76o.

Just throwing my 0.2c into the mix.

I happen to agree with Chopper here. We've allowed the guy to bet into us each street and now it's on the river. Putting myself into villain's shoes I'm getting frustrated because (LAG) he has pushed at us twice already with almost no thought about what we might have. If he did, he would have either checked on the river or pushed us AI with his beat.

If we call:

We win, split or lose.

If we reraise he will:

Fold (we win)
Call (Same as if we called)

A maniac should/would have pushed earlier with A6 or at least on the river. I'm really thinking that he is frustrated and will either come to his senses and fold to an AI c/r or call because he is so blinded by his own hand that he can't see what we have. If he was a tighter player doing this bet, I'm calling. But a LAGG, I'm reraising/pushing AI all the time.

But as for the c-bet point in the beginning, I completely see why you've not done it. We've hit the flop too hard and apart from a 6 are pretty much a-ok to induce bets from opponent.

when people check in this spot I will check my hand down to the river unless I have an ace because holy shit it's obvious that you have a hand you want to show down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Villain is not iopq

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Villain is not iopq

---

---

doesn't matter, the hand is poorly played for several reasons

Thinking this hand is well-played is being results-oriented about villain spewing off his stack

if we bet the flop he could have floated us and I think the hand would have played out the same way if we checked the turn
in fact, we seem weaker if we bet the flop and "give up" on the turn because that's what we'd do with all of our air hands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Villain is not iopq

---

---

doesn't matter, the hand is poorly played for several reasons

Thinking this hand is well-played is being results-oriented about villain spewing off his stack

if we bet the flop he could have floated us and I think the hand would have played out the same way if we checked the turn
in fact, we seem weaker if we bet the flop and "give up" on the turn because that's what we'd do with all of our air hands

---

Why are half of your responses "This is bad because if I were the villain I would exploit it" and similar crap to that? Like honestly it seems like you say you could 5bet bluff someone profitably in every other thread whether it's really relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illfavor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Villain is not iopq

---

---

doesn't matter, the hand is poorly played for several reasons

Thinking this hand is well-played is being results-oriented about villain spewing off his stack

if we bet the flop he could have floated us and I think the hand would have played out the same way if we checked the turn
in fact, we seem weaker if we bet the flop and "give up" on the turn because that's what we'd do with all of our air hands

---

Why are half of your responses "This is bad because if I were the villain I would exploit it" and similar crap to that? Like honestly it seems like you say you could 5bet bluff someone profitably in every other thread whether it's really relevant.

---

my last response had nothing to do with ME personally
I said the hand was poorly played

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Villain is not iopq

---

---

doesn't matter, the hand is poorly played for several reasons

Thinking this hand is well-played is being results-oriented about villain spewing off his stack

if we bet the flop he could have floated us and I think the hand would have played out the same way if we checked the turn
in fact, we seem weaker if we bet the flop and "give up" on the turn because that's what we'd do with all of our air hands

---

@bold, not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Villain is not iopq

---

---

doesn't matter, the hand is poorly played for several reasons

Thinking this hand is well-played is being results-oriented about villain spewing off his stack

if we bet the flop he could have floated us and I think the hand would have played out the same way if we checked the turn
in fact, we seem weaker if we bet the flop and "give up" on the turn because that's what we'd do with all of our air hands

---

@bold, not really.

---

Maybe I phrased that wrong
Personally I like to barrel here, BECAUSE villain expects me to c/f all of my air on the turn

so I should have said: because this is what villain most likely expects us to do with our air hands

this hand only confuses the micro stakes players, and probly doesnt belong in BC. Its well played but only b/c were at 200NL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaddyDeez

this hand only confuses the micro stakes players, and probly doesnt belong in BC. Its well played but only b/c were at 200NL.

---

A lot of things confuse microstakes players. That's why they're microstakes players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaddyDeez

this hand only confuses the micro stakes players, and probly doesnt belong in BC. Its well played but only b/c were at 200NL.

---

that's pretty damned insulting. villain isn't exactly daniel negraneau. microstakes should be able to win money against all types of opponents and a 24/16 fish maniac isn't some impossible feat

good way for value against aggressive player but please next time check raise the river..

Hey i'm one of the microstakes players you are talking about, but this hand seems to make sense. Villain will fire this flop when checked to very often based on how aggressive he is. Seems to be a way ahead way behind spot, and if he has the 6 / better ace bet is bad obv, but if he has air even aggro villains will often fold flop. FWIW river c/c seems good because i'm brand new to all of this, but betting a 6 on the end is obviously bad in my eyes, and probably in villains as well. I still like c/c over betting though because he may think river is good to bluff because you cant call without an ace or 6 and now it is less likely you have one.

Please tell me everything that is wrong with what i said btw because that's how i learn :)