Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

very nice!

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

great article. I think c-betting has been causing me to waste a lot of chips. I am surprised that you would c-bet with the ace on board. You said it would scare people off, but I always felt that many villains will play any ace, so an ace on the flop was likely to have hit someone... I had the same thoughts on K, and Q flops too, but less dangerous than an ace flop.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

[ QUOTE ]
great article. I think c-betting has been causing me to waste a lot of chips. I am surprised that you would c-bet with the ace on board. You said it would scare people off, but I always felt that many villains will play any ace, so an ace on the flop was likely to have hit someone... I had the same thoughts on K, and Q flops too, but less dangerous than an ace flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea i had the same logic about an ace on board as well

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

[ QUOTE ]
I asked two players about the six examples involving FLOP TEXTURE. One of the players who has a very long history of success at the $215s... The other player I asked is a well known MTT player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just curious as to whether these players are anyone we know? 2+2ers who wish to remain anonymous?

Great article, btw. Thanks.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
great article. I think c-betting has been causing me to waste a lot of chips. I am surprised that you would c-bet with the ace on board. You said it would scare people off, but I always felt that many villains will play any ace, so an ace on the flop was likely to have hit someone... I had the same thoughts on K, and Q flops too, but less dangerous than an ace flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea i had the same logic about an ace on board as well

[/ QUOTE ]


agreed, but playing devils advocate (and curtains advocate, forgive my doucheness), if an A flops against a lone opponent and he misses on a dry board, how often is he going to call a c-bet? i vote never, and hardly ever are you going to set yourself in with a c-bet, so those times he does have an A, just move on. i think the more you see it applied in the correct situations the more sense it does/will make.

look at it this way....a popularly played hand like Q K: no justification for chasing with overs anymore.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Great article, curtains.

Two things came to my mind reading it:
1) As you and tigerite already discussed there are flops where a cbet of less than 50% of the pot makes sense. Example:
You raise to 275 (blinds 50/100), BB calls. Pot is 600. Flop comes A83r, BB checks. Now I'd only bet 150 (only 25% of the pot) with both AQ and KQ.

2) I like he flop texture of flop 4 (Q93r) and would cbet with AJ 100% of the time. This might fold out better hands like T9s or 77.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

[ QUOTE ]
great article. I think c-betting has been causing me to waste a lot of chips. I am surprised that you would c-bet with the ace on board. You said it would scare people off, but I always felt that many villains will play any ace, so an ace on the flop was likely to have hit someone... I had the same thoughts on K, and Q flops too, but less dangerous than an ace flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to speak for Curtains, but I'm pretty sure that this is when there is only one opponent. When you have KQ or JJ vs. two callers, and A appears, I would bet that Curtains is not c-betting there.

Curtains, couple of questions:

1. Betting the TT3 board. This kind of flop worries me, because (a) mid pairs call you very often and (b) it's the kind of flop that people like to bluff at you. Why do you think it's so good to bet?

2. Could you expand more on c-betting out of position? I think this should be the one of the most important factors in your list, but I don't see it at all. It's probably not as critical as # of opponents, but I think it's equal to flop texture.

3. What about c-betting when your stack is short? Eg, blinds 100/200, A6o from the button. You raise to 500 and get called by the BB. Flop comes Q94, JT2, or K88. Something like that. Now, the pot is 1100, your stack is 1900. Any bet either commits you or cripples you if you lose the hand. Are you more or less likely to check behind here? I'm more likely.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Free card:

"you have AKd. Let’s say you have raised in MP and both blinds called you. The flop comes QT5 with one diamond and now they both check to you. In a situation like this I will most often check, because it’s quite unpleasant to get check raised."

In Theory of Poker (which i still have not finished completely [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] ), Sklansky says "the more ways you have of improving to become the best hand, the more reason you have to bet."

Isn't taking a free card contradictory to this since you have lots of outs (2 overcards, gut draw, and a backdoor draw)?

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

I don't understan why in your first example, you say to call with 88 was not a good play.
Do you prefer a raise or a fold ?
I still prefere a call here. Stack a 2000 with call for 110. What is the problem ?

Edit, I thought you said it was bads preflop, but I missread I believe, I guess it was bad to call on the flop for you.
ok then [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

[ QUOTE ]
Free card:

"you have AKd. Let’s say you have raised in MP and both blinds called you. The flop comes QT5 with one diamond and now they both check to you. In a situation like this I will most often check, because it’s quite unpleasant to get check raised."

In Theory of Poker (which i still have not finished completely [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] ), Sklansky says "the more ways you have of improving to become the best hand, the more reason you have to bet."

Isn't taking a free card contradictory to this since you have lots of outs (2 overcards, gut draw, and a backdoor draw)?

[/ QUOTE ]

He also says you should be more inclined to semi bluff in first position than in last position since you can't give yourself the free card, but your hand might very well be worth a call. Hence it is better to bet out yourself.

It is also stated somewhere, possibly by Sklansky that you should take the freecard if you hate to get raised. If your opponents are likely to check raise, you obviously check behind. However if a better hand is likely to just call you, I'd probably cont bet for the small chance of both opponents folding, not to mention that you most likely will see the river for free if you miss.