C-betting survey.

[RobTheDuck]

I have "Folds to C-bet %" on my HUD.

If the pot is HU on the flop + that number > 33, a 1/2 pot-sized bet is always +ev.

For these reasons I c-bet (1/2 the pot-size) on probably 95%+ flops (it is extremely rare to find a player with a folds to c-bet % of <33, let alone <50).

I do realize the disadvantage of 1/2 pot-sized is letting opponents draw for a good price - however this is only true if they get to see the turn and the river for that price. Firing the 2nd barrel on the turn is not automatic. The turn is where I typically start to pay attention to the hand.

I'm sure these practices being automatic aren't nearly as effective at higher limits, but at the levels I play, these tactics suit me just fine.

Comments welcome.

- Rob

[DaycareInferno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been experimenting with c-betting a little less lately, like 65-70% heads up instead of 90%, but mainly just by not c-betting in spots where I think the flop very easily hit villain's range and i'm OOP with air.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
right, but if a board is super bad for cbetting, you're still gonna cbet it if you actually hooked up with it, whereas you're not if you didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you guys give some examples of flops that you thought 'very easily hit villain's range' or that are generally 'super bad for c-betting'? I don't really get statements like these.

[/ QUOTE ]

lets say you open from mp with 2 red 7s. you get called by the CO that is 28/10 with an fcb of 45. flop comes QJT mono. that would be a pretty dumb time to cbet. however, if you had AK, obviously you're going to bet, because you have a straight. there's no way that hand strength doesn't affect a person's cbetting frequency, because clearly you're going to bet more when you have a good hand.

i think that most people agree on most of this stuff, and in general, play similarly in most of the situations. not everyone is good at taking tests/filling out surveys, though, which might explain why we play poker...