100NL, KK and confused about c-betting

[Covert Ops...]

I think that with our hand and this board, what we're needing the most is some information. C/Cing the flop gets us nothing and makes our decision even harder.

C-betting on the other hand, will give us some information. It will probably fold out hand that completely missed, and weren't going to put any more money in the pot anyways. If we're called, we could be facing Ax, or a FD.
If we're raised, we're most likley facing a strong ace and we can safely fold

Cbetting is definately the right play here because it gets us the most of what we need....information

[StubbornRussian]

I wouldnt call him down, i would check call, check raise turn. But this is not something I do without a quality read on a player. He has to be a floater, my image has to be tight and villain has to be somebody I know can lay a hand down. Otherwise I am cbetting this always.

[CobraGoat]

I present to you.... The Fundamental Theorem of Poker:

"Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose."

Now tell me how cbetting this flop fits with the above?

If you could see that your villain had an A you wouldn't cbet. If you saw that your opponent had a worse made hand than your own, you wouldn't bet. If you saw that your opponent had missed entirely, you probably wouldnt bet. You would only bet in the unlikely scenario that your opponent had a FD, which HU is not super worrisome.

Betting for information is horrible. So you lead and he folds, sweet we made a worse hand fold. WE lead and villain calls...sweet information, glad i paid for it (Villain could float with a wide variety of hands). We lead and villain raises, sweet i have to fold. The one plus I will give to cbetting is that it makes the hand a little easier to play, but at what cost? no matter what, I dont think we are playing a big pot from this point on. With that in mind, shouldn't we try to maximize value if possible?

Villains hand is not comprised predominantly of As. On the contrary, it is very wide with PPs, SCs, broadways, FDs, sets, As, blah blah.

Very often if we check, villain checks behind. If we check and villain bets strong then i feel from my experience that villains range tips much more so towards holding and A. If villain bets half pot-2/3 then i think we can call and reeval turn etc.

I am not saying I am right. But leading here seems to fly in the face of so many of the concepts we stress on this forum.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

I am not completely against the idea of checking the flop, but you must call a reasonable bet (<pot) if you do that. The size of their bet on is not really a good indicator of what they are holding. I don't think that gives you any info at all. In fact, I think they would be more inclined to bet more on a bluff than if they have something. You make a good case for checking the flop, but I don't believe there is any way you can get away from kings if your opponent bets.

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt call him down, i would check call, check raise turn. But this is not something I do without a quality read on a player. He has to be a floater, my image has to be tight and villain has to be somebody I know can lay a hand down. Otherwise I am cbetting this always.

[/ QUOTE ]

not a lot of people lay down top pairs at nl50 ):

[Warteen]

[ QUOTE ]


Check/folding here is the worst way you could possibly play this - what horrible advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Warteen]

[ QUOTE ]
Now tell me how cbetting this flop fits with the above?

If you could see that your villain had an A you wouldn't cbet. If you saw that your opponent had a worse made hand than your own, you wouldn't bet. If you saw that your opponent had missed entirely, you probably wouldnt bet. You would only bet in the unlikely scenario that your opponent had a FD, which HU is not super worrisome.

Betting for information is horrible. So you lead and he folds, sweet we made a worse hand fold. WE lead and villain calls...sweet information, glad i paid for it (Villain could float with a wide variety of hands). We lead and villain raises, sweet i have to fold. The one plus I will give to cbetting is that it makes the hand a little easier to play, but at what cost? no matter what, I dont think we are playing a big pot from this point on. With that in mind, shouldn't we try to maximize value if possible?


[/ QUOTE ]

I find it hard to believe you're being serious here, but since you are maintaining your line, I will respond as such:

Of course if we saw that the villain had an ace, we would not c-bet, because he would not fold (average villain would not fold any street). However, if we could see that he had no ace, which is <u>more common</u> than Ax, we would <u>bet</u> so he does not take the pot away from us or improve against our hand. If the villain bets after we check, we have no way to know what he has - sure, it could be an ace, but it could just as easily be anything that senses our weakness when we check after raising preflop.

Not c-betting what should be a terrifying flop for our opponent, because he usually does not have an ace, is pure loss. Do you bet only when you have an ace here? Why not turn your cards face up?

[ama0330]

Cobra, I think the point in this spot is that we may have to sacrifice value on this flop in order to minimise later mistakes in the hand which will be far more costly. Check folding this flop is inexcusable because he bets almost any two on this flop once checked to, yet check-calling 3 streets is also bad because not only is it weak, but we have not sufficiently narrowed villains range to the point where we can say that calling all three streets is profitable.

KK may be instrinsically an excellent hand, but you cant just play it for its hole card value. In this spot you have to play it as an element of a situation, which when played as you have suggested becomes both difficult and expensive , or on the other hand, too weak. The point in c-betting this flop is that it is the best way to play the situation and will prevent us from making huge mistakes should we do anything else.

[Capone]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now tell me how cbetting this flop fits with the above?

If you could see that your villain had an A you wouldn't cbet. If you saw that your opponent had a worse made hand than your own, you wouldn't bet. If you saw that your opponent had missed entirely, you probably wouldnt bet. You would only bet in the unlikely scenario that your opponent had a FD, which HU is not super worrisome.

Betting for information is horrible. So you lead and he folds, sweet we made a worse hand fold. WE lead and villain calls...sweet information, glad i paid for it (Villain could float with a wide variety of hands). We lead and villain raises, sweet i have to fold. The one plus I will give to cbetting is that it makes the hand a little easier to play, but at what cost? no matter what, I dont think we are playing a big pot from this point on. With that in mind, shouldn't we try to maximize value if possible?


[/ QUOTE ]

I find it hard to believe you're being serious here, but since you are maintaining your line, I will respond as such:

Of course if we saw that the villain had an ace, we would not c-bet, because he would not fold (average villain would not fold any street). However, if we could see that he had no ace, which is <u>more common</u> than Ax, we would <u>bet</u> so he does not take the pot away from us or improve against our hand. If the villain bets after we check, we have no way to know what he has - sure, it could be an ace, but it could just as easily be anything that senses our weakness when we check after raising preflop.

Not c-betting what should be a terrifying flop for our opponent, because he usually does not have an ace, is pure loss. Do you bet only when you have an ace here? Why not turn your cards face up?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Cobra, I think the point in this spot is that we may have to sacrifice value on this flop in order to minimise later mistakes in the hand which will be far more costly. Check folding this flop is inexcusable because he bets almost any two on this flop once checked to, yet check-calling 3 streets is also bad because not only is it weak, but we have not sufficiently narrowed villains range to the point where we can say that calling all three streets is profitable.

KK may be instrinsically an excellent hand, but you cant just play it for its hole card value. In this spot you have to play it as an element of a situation, which when played as you have suggested becomes both difficult and expensive , or on the other hand, too weak. The point in c-betting this flop is that it is the best way to play the situation and will prevent us from making huge mistakes should we do anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree, we have to c-bet here.

[kitchma]

I get what your saying, but it seems that while c/c may maximizes our value when we are ahead, it also maximizes our losses when we are behind. At the end of the day we have second pair here and are out of position. I think leading the flop lets us take it down a good portion of the time and get out of the hand the cheapest when we are beat. I wholeheartedly agree that button's range is a lot wider than Ax, but it certainly makes up a good portion of that range. If you check the flop how do you play out the rest of the hand? C/F is weak. C/C tells you nothing. And what do you do on the turn? A check behind on the turn from villain doesn't even mean he was bluffing the flop. He could easily going for pot control with a weak A. IMHO, you will be lost the entire way if check the flop.