for some reason.. need to be told i made a good fold.. lol

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
we're not bluffing anything, your cbets are value plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Value against what? Overcards that have outs? I don't get how this is a value bet. What worse hands calls?

[C4LL4W4Y]

it's different than a hand that's going to showdown. there you'd value bet because you expect to be paid by a worse hand.

here, cbetting after taking the lead preflop has its own inherent value - and on a board like AAQ it skyrockets (most passive villains freak when bet into on this board).

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
it's different than a hand that's going to showdown. there you'd value bet because you expect to be paid by a worse hand.

here, cbetting after taking the lead preflop has its own inherent value - and on a board like AAQ it skyrockets (most passive villains freak when bet into on this board).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not my point though. I realize there is some value in picking up the pot, but I think a bet on this flop has a negative expectation on its own. No hands that we beat call us and no hands that beat us fold. So it isn't a bluff and it isn't a value bet. It's nothing.

What hands that villain's are "freaking" with would we like them fold? That's my point.

[choccypie]

Call the river tbh :/

[jonyy6788]

c-betting is about taking down the pot and establishing the fact that we bet when we don't have a monster, so that we get paid when we DO have a monster

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
c-betting is about taking down the pot and establishing the fact that we bet when we don't have a monster, so that we get paid when we DO have a monster

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely understand that. And I c-bet all the time. But sometimes I don't c-bet. Those times are when I have the deck crippled and there is NO hand in villain's range that can call and when I am either WA/WB villian and c-betting is completely -EV because he never calls with a worse hand and never folds a better one.

Here is one of those times. Having a 100% c-bet is just silly...even if you are trying to get paid on your big hands. There is no reason to make a clear -EV play.

I mean, if you have KK on an A92 rainbow flop, there is no reason to c-bet. It has a negative expectation. I'm just asking if c-betting this flop actually has a positive expectation. I'm just not sure that it does. I actually prefer a delayed c-bet on this flop, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

[Vedocorban]

Here are my reasons for c-betting

1) I don't want to give a free card to KJ, KT, JT, 22-88
2) There's no reason to believe villain will try a bluff with 78s or something
3) Only two aces and three queens left in the deck. You're giving villain too much credit if you just assume he hit the flop without any information.
4) I bet here when I DO have an ace, so I also have to bet when I don't.
5) 2/3 pot will take down the pot often enough to show a profit.
6) I don't want my opponents thinking they can call my raises preflop and expect free cards on the flop.

Basically, villain either hit the flop or he didn't. Most of the time he didn't. So I'm looking to just pick up the pot and move onto the next hand. I can't see the value in checking unless you have some kind of read that villain hit this flop well over 50% of the time, and I'm not convinced he did.

Expecting worse hands to call/better hands to fold is more of a river scenario. Here, a c-bet is just another jab we're throwing out to keep opponents on their guard when they play pots with us, and hopefully set them up for the big knock out punch when we have the goods.