c-bet article...finally online
 

Here is a link:

http://www.checkraised.com/forum/ind...?showtopic=550



I dunno, I think its going to be okay for some people and nothing groundbreaking for a lot of more experienced players. Let me know what you think. I think I try to tackle too much stuff in one article. I should just stick to Phil Hellmuth style articles where I talk about one bad beat and how unlucky it was and how great I am for making such a great read yet losing anyway.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

curtains u r awesome

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Hey,nicearticle,thankyou.Iwwasalittlesurprisedthat yourecommended
checkingbehindontheKQ3flop.Itisverydifficultforyou ropponentstocallyou
withamediumpair.Italsoseemsquitelikelythatsomeonec allingyouwithanAcehas
missed,asmanyplayerswillre-raisewithAKandAQagainstanLPopen.there'sonly
1OESDavailable,andthoughthereareabunchofgutshots,y oudon'tmindcallsfrom
anyofthem.Alsoitseemsthatevenifoneofyouropponentsd oeshaveaKingoraQueen
theywillbemorelikelytocallthantocheck-raise,especiallywithaQueen,soyou
willstillhaveyourchancetohitamonsterontheturn.Idun no,anythoughts?

ilya if you do that again I will personally kill you. It [censored] the forum width. And PISSES ME OFF HAVING TO FIX IT.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

lol wth ilya?

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

myfavoritepart,ithinkthisismoreimportantthanmaybey ou'vemadeitseem...QUOTE:

"PSYCHOLOGY: I want to discuss one more factor, which is the psychology of c-betting. I believe that c-betting too often causes players to want to play fewer hands postflop. What happens is that when you think about raising preflop, you also sometimes feel that no matter what you also have to fire a large bet postflop. This way instead of risking like 2.5-3x the BB, you are actually risking something like 7-8x the BB, just by making a simple raise preflop. Thinking about this can often cause players to get sick and tired of raising with marginal hands and can stifle their creativity. When I first started getting decent at poker I would c-bet practically every single flop where I had raised before the flop. As soon as I cut down on this habit and started to use logic to decide my play my results improved dramatically and I felt a lot better about playing more hands because I knew that sometimes I could just check behind the flop and that I didn’t have to lose a ton of chips every time I flopped nothing and my opponent flopped something."

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Ilya, I think you need a need keyboard.

Curtains, I agreed with all your examples, so I guess that's good for me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

neat.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

this is a really long article but at first glance I already know its a very well written and solid one and worth reading. i will fully read tomorrow when im sober. thanks for posting this.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Nice article & very well written [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ty curtains

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Yes good article that most everyone should read. The hand examples are also very good.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Great article. My question is about bet sizes.

You say [ QUOTE ]
Usually when you make these c-bets, you will be betting anywhere from 50% to 100% of the pot (in Sngs I usually avoid making full pot sized c-bets).

[/ QUOTE ]

My question is on sizing these bets. Once you've decided to c-bet, how do you decide on the size? Also, do you ever bet less than 50% (like a Harrington probe bet)?

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

I can't speak for curtains himself, but personally I almost never bet less than 50%, unless to do so is a nice round value, then I might bet like 40-45%, but that's the lowest. Or if I misclick [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] As for the size I guess it depends. You do of course want to price out draws a bit and make it "look" like you have a hand that doesn't want them to continue with it, however at a lower limit again ($55 and below) this is less of an issue, as they just don't pay attention to that stuff.

So er, in short, it depends [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I like to do about 65-70% of the pot most times though if there are two to a flush, or two connected cards that are likely to make up some kind of straight draw, and more if both are on the board, of course. It's very opponent specific though, something which is pretty hard to explain in an article. As for 50%, that's when it's just a really dry board. But I would also bet 50% with AK on A84r, or JJ on T72r and so on.. I just try to keep it consistent.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

great article...this is a major leak in my ga,e

i've completely avoided c-betting for the most part (except for the example like K22 with AQ against one opponent). The 6 questions you asked under the flop texture section, I voted to check behind on all of them. looks like im gonna be making a couple posts on "should i c-bet here?" category.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Had been waiting for this a long time since you first mentioned it. It did not disappoint. An excellent article.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Well written and easy to follow. Thanks man.

Indy

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

[ QUOTE ]
Great article. My question is about bet sizes.

You say [ QUOTE ]
Usually when you make these c-bets, you will be betting anywhere from 50% to 100% of the pot (in Sngs I usually avoid making full pot sized c-bets).

[/ QUOTE ]

My question is on sizing these bets. Once you've decided to c-bet, how do you decide on the size? Also, do you ever bet less than 50% (like a Harrington probe bet)?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah probably should have gone into more detail about that...

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

feel free to respond to the article there too!

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

So Curtains, when are you going to write a book?

Excellent information and clearly written. Bravo.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't speak for curtains himself, but personally I almost never bet less than 50%, unless to do so is a nice round value, then I might bet like 40-45%, but that's the lowest. Or if I misclick [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] As for the size I guess it depends. You do of course want to price out draws a bit and make it "look" like you have a hand that doesn't want them to continue with it, however at a lower limit again ($55 and below) this is less of an issue, as they just don't pay attention to that stuff.

So er, in short, it depends [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I like to do about 65-70% of the pot most times though if there are two to a flush, or two connected cards that are likely to make up some kind of straight draw, and more if both are on the board, of course. It's very opponent specific though, something which is pretty hard to explain in an article. As for 50%, that's when it's just a really dry board. But I would also bet 50% with AK on A84r, or JJ on T72r and so on.. I just try to keep it consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]


I bet less than 50% sometimes, usually on Axx (where x is the same card) flops where the board is super dry.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Good shot, C.

Flight_Risk

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.

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 ]

[ QUOTE ]

It is also stated somewhere, possibly by Sklansky that you should take the freecard if you hate to get raised.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is the main concern. youre still behind anyone with a made hand, but you want to see the next 2 cards, and your decision isnt easy if someone raises your bet bc of the moderate, but not clear cut strength of your hand. make it easier to take a free card, cause if you face a lot of heat your hand still isnt stong enough to take it all the way.

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 ]


Where exactly does it say that and what is the specific context? Betting in such spots is fine, I'm sure plenty of very good players do so. I just feel more comfortable checking. Sometimes you can bet the turn, sometimes you'll make the best hand on the turn, sometimes everyone will check again. They don't call me weak/tight for nothing.

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 ]
This might have been a reference to limit where a chechraise will only make you call an extra small bet.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Yeah, TOP is, as most of Sklansky's works, written mainly for limit. The quote however, isn't out of context. But one must remember that this is just one more thing on the betting side of the scale along with possibility of opponents folding, deception and such. On the other side we find the danger of a check raise and our ability to actually take the free card. In this situation the latter side is the heaviest IMO.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

[ QUOTE ]
In this situation the latter side is the heaviest IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean by the heaviest?

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

The heaviest side of the scale - The better option.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]


Where exactly does it say that and what is the specific context? Betting in such spots is fine, I'm sure plenty of very good players do so. I just feel more comfortable checking. Sometimes you can bet the turn, sometimes you'll make the best hand on the turn, sometimes everyone will check again. They don't call me weak/tight for nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Curtains, could you answer my questions please?

Thank you, sir. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

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 ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry didn't see them.

Q1 - Of course Im hoping that they dont have a midpair, and if they do I will win about 25% assuming they don't checkraise or bet out on the turn. In general I don't think of flops that people are likely to bluff. I think more in terms of flops that people are likely to have hit. If you are scared of flops that people will bluff a lot and scared of flops that are coordinated/likely to have been hit by your opponent, it just seems like you end up scared of everything. If someone wants to bluff me with nothing here, congratulations, they deserve the pot. And in some situations when I get a good feeling, I can 3 bet.


2. I c-bet a lot less out of position. However against common opponents I also check raise a bit more here, to mask those times where I am checking the flop. One advantage of c-betting is that you often get to see the river when you are in position. This advantage often goes out the window when you are OOP.

3. Um....gee depends on the situation, the opponents etc. I don't know whether I'd play the same PF also....in SnGs I'd sometimes just fold A6o there on the button, depending on my opponents. I dunno somehow I feel like people ask tough questions like this, yet when I play they never seem to come up? Maybe I play in a style that avoids them? Anyway I'd be more likely to check behind on the Q94, JT2 flop, and more likely to bet the K88.

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Thanks, good answers. To clarify, in question #3, you would be more likely to check behind in this situation, correct?

Also, I'm finding that it's rarely correct to ever c-bet into a big stack when OOP. Do you agree? Many of these guys fall into the super loose category (which is why they often have a big stack early or bust), so they'll make calls with 2nd pair, weak draws, etc, making it very tough for you. They'll also come over the top (often with the annoying mini-raise) with all kinds of junk. I've been running into this spot in MTTs a lot, and I'll often just shut it down, waiting to actually have a hand to tangle with them. (I realize that much of this paragraph is common sense tournament poker, but just want your thoughts)

Re: c-bet article...finally online
 

Speaking about those loose large stacks, and when you re out of position, I agree very much with avoiding the c-bet;they even sometimes call on almost nothing just to see if you fire again on the turn;

regarding other situations relating to the "semi bluff" c-bets that you discussed with Curtains, when in position, I will be much more inclined to bet with very few outs (like a gutshot), than with a big draw(when facing one or 2 opponents).I know it s old hat and commonly accepted, just wanted to give a bump..

thanks for the article btw