NLHE-TAP confusion; don\'t c-bet?
 

Apologies if this is the wrong forum.

In the "Bet Sizing" chapter of <u>No Limit Hold 'Em - Theory and Practice</u> first the authors discuss how to size your bets assuming you have the best hand. Then they go on to discuss the situation when you might not have the best hand, and they say: "Checking is usually best if you aren't the favorite, and you act last." They define "aren't the favorite" basically as "there is more than a 50% chance that you are either behind or will be outdrawn" (so you could be ahead and not be the favorite, obv.)

Are they saying not to c-bet unless you have the nuts? Obviously you wouldn't c-bet if you knew you were way behind, but doesn't the advantage of acting last make it correct to c-bet when we might be behind? Am I missing something here?

Re: NLHE-TAP confusion; don\'t c-bet?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are they saying not to c-bet unless you have the nuts?

[/ QUOTE ]

...no, you cant cbet with nuts, that is a value bet. You cant cbet with any value in your hand.

cbets are done in the situation where you think you will win the pot with a bet. This isn't about being ahead or behind (having an underpair vs Ace high for example), it's about both (all) players having hands too weak to play. Relative strength is largely irrelevant here.

Re: NLHE-TAP confusion; don\'t c-bet?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are they saying not to c-bet unless you have the nuts?

[/ QUOTE ]

...no, you cant cbet with nuts, that is a value bet. You cant cbet with any value in your hand.

cbets are done in the situation where you think you will win the pot with a bet. This isn't about being ahead or behind (having an underpair vs Ace high for example), it's about both (all) players having hands too weak to play. Relative strength is largely irrelevant here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they're saying that with a good (but not great) but vulnerable hand, it's better to check behind on the flop for pot control to get to showdown cheaper?

Re: NLHE-TAP confusion; don\'t c-bet?
 

I thought about making this thread myself. Yesterday I was re-reading the concepts in the second half of the book, and #17 says that you should check a lot of flops after raising PF, even if there's only one caller. This goes against the SSNL wisdow of c-betting virtually 100% of the time HU.

I'm not sure if I agree with the book there. I guess checking a lot of flops is fine, maybe, for example, if you raise with 98 in the CO and the flop is Q92. Not many worse hands call on a flop like that, so checking probably has good value.

Anyway, this is an interesting topic and I'd like to hear what people think of Sklansky's concept.

Re: NLHE-TAP confusion; don\'t c-bet?
 

I thought part of the reason for checking with a hand behind is so that your checks aren't run over all the time. If you never check, you don't have to worry about that. :-D That's only a very partial answer.

Re: NLHE-TAP confusion; don\'t c-bet?
 

[ QUOTE ]
c-bet confusion; don't read NLHE-TAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: NLHE-TAP confusion; don\'t c-bet?
 

why is it that every NLTAP "concept" i see posted here seems terrible? is it that its a bad book, or it has bad parts, or that every1 keeps misunderstanding it?

Re: NLHE-TAP confusion; don\'t c-bet?
 

[ QUOTE ]
why is it that every NLTAP "concept" i see posted here seems terrible? is it that its a bad book, or it has bad parts, or that every1 keeps misunderstanding it?

[/ QUOTE ]

people misunderstand it.

also, for some reason everyone in SSNL thinks you are supposes to c-bet all the time no matter what your holding/board. Just silly if you ask me.


ness

Re: NLHE-TAP confusion; don\'t c-bet?
 

[ QUOTE ]
why is it that every NLTAP "concept" i see posted here seems terrible? is it that its a bad book, or it has bad parts, or that every1 keeps misunderstanding it?

[/ QUOTE ]



i think its that a bunch of us are trying to apply it to SSNL and non thinking players. Its like reading HEFAP and playing in a 1/2 limit game.

Re: NLHE-TAP confusion; don\'t c-bet?
 

Totally agree with xwill here. That's why an SSNL book is being made, even though I'm sure we will disagree with some of it.

PS: Go on AIM x.