Sklansky - "Check a lot of flops if called pre-flop"

[mjm]

Just flicking through NLHE and reread concept 17 "If your preflop raised is called behind you check a lot of flops"...going on to say, that is true even if you only have one caller.


This surprised me a bit, I always saw one of the main benefits of raising is to pick up the pot when no-one hits much on the flop and I tend to need a reason not to continuation bet.

Just wondered what others thought of this concept, I can see some logic in that it partly negates a positional disadvantage and that you generally want a better hand to call then to bet, but it still doesn't seem to be +ev to me.

How do you think such a style would fair in your 'standard' mid no-limit game? Do you think the concept would work better in more aggressive higher no-limit games?

[luegofuego]

i haven't read the book but against tricky agressive opponents who doesn't need a hand to play back at your continuation bets, blindly firing at missed flops out of position without a plan if called or raised is just asking to get owned. against predictable, passive and bad opponents, betting every flop every time is fine.

[soah]

If you are betting 100% of the time then you are essentially betting blind while your opponent gets to only put that money in after analyzing the flop, and knowing that your bet does not narrow your range at all.

Just food for thought.

[stinkpaw]

Personally, I think people tend to c-bet too much OOP w/o considering some simple factors:

- # of opponents.
- Texture of board.
- Opponent.

C-bets like few opponents, dry boards, and weak opponents.

Three stats I have on my HUD are %c-bet, % call PFR, and % fold to c-bet.

I love opponents that call lots of PF raises and fold to lots of c-bets. I make my PFR larger and fire at most all flops if it is HU, even if I am OOP.

When facing a c-bet IP against someone who c-bets 100% of the time. I think about floating (especially on a raggy board) and usually raise if I have any type of draw. Remember, they typically only hit 1/3 of the time, so they are FOS 2/3 of the time.

I think the point made in teh book goes along with anoher concept is sometimes you have to check when you hit a hand so your opponents don't always think your checks mean weakness. This helps prevent getting run over all the time.

[JiffyPop100]

They hit 1/3 of the time with an unpaired hand, but you cant say they are FOS 2/3 of the time because alot of the time they have a made hand (big pocket pair).

[stinkpaw]

[ QUOTE ]
They hit 1/3 of the time with an unpaired hand, but you cant say they are FOS 2/3 of the time because alot of the time they have a made hand (big pocket pair).

[/ QUOTE ]

Fractions may be slightly off but concept is still valid. C-betting 100% OOP is spewage against a decent opponent.