[highlight thread] - To Cbet or Not to Cbet?

It's a K high flop in a 3b pot BTN v CO.

If I'm BTN I'm going to have every AK, and KQ combo. Every AA, KK also, some suited K's and some suited 7x. These hands are effectively the nuts and want to stack off hands on most run outs.

Those hands are going to be about 40% of my range. So I need a lot of bluffs.

What hands make not so great bluffs? Hands like 99-QQ. So that only leaves about 40% left. That's not enough. So not only are u going to have to bet your good ace highs, you're going to have to bet a good portion of your 99 to QQ.

I just ran this on a solver and got 91.2% cbet. (My trees might not be perfect, but good enough imo). Cbetting 100% is a far better option than not cbetting hands like A6s here.

fwiw my cbet in the last 100k hands or so is a little over 40%, but in these types of situations doing anything less than mashing cbet with all but the best showdown hands that can't valuebet is going to be a big mistake. Not cbetting 99 - QQ enough is going to be a leak most people have here. If you're not betting hands like A6s, villains will be able to print money folding everything but tripps and will never have to pay you off. This is not a small leak.

Originally posted by jules97
It's a K high flop in a 3b pot BTN v CO.

If I'm BTN I'm going to have every AK, and KQ combo. Every AA, KK also, some suited K's and some suited 7x. These hands are effectively the nuts and want to stack off hands on most run outs.

Those hands are going to be about 40% of my range. So I need a lot of bluffs.

What hands make not so great bluffs? Hands like 99-QQ. So that only leaves about 40% left. That's not enough. So not only are u going to have to bet your good ace highs, you're going to have to bet a good portion of your 99 to QQ.

I just ran this on a solver and got 91.2% cbet. (My trees might not be perfect, but good enough imo). Cbetting 100% is a far better option than not cbetting hands like A6s here.

fwiw my cbet in the last 100k hands or so is a little over 40%, but in these types of situations doing anything less than mashing cbet with all but the best showdown hands that can't valuebet is going to be a big mistake. Not cbetting 99 - QQ enough is going to be a leak most people have here. If you're not betting hands like A6s, villains will be able to print money folding everything but tripps and will never have to pay you off. This is not a small leak.

agree about most things. I would just add, if you reduce your bet size to e.g. 25%, then you would be able to check 99-QQ (which have usually better EV as check), would also be able to check/fold some low equity hands, could also check KK which should have higher EV as check.

Originally posted by GingerKid

agree about most things. I would just add, if you reduce your bet size to e.g. 25%, then you would be able to check 99-QQ (which have usually better EV as check), would also be able to check/fold some low equity hands, could also check KK which should have higher EV as check.

I'm not so sure about that. A good rule of thumb for optimal poker: Betsizes don't matter (as long as u can always shove later).

I really don't think changing betsize is going to change what should be done all that much. I can't be arsed building trees for it in a solver, but I'd be willing to bet it makes no significant difference. One thing it will definitely do is make things more complicated with many raising ranges and long trees making it harder to play.

So for that reason, and the reason that most people are going to overfold to cbets and not raise enough here (because this is a good player pool exploit against most hero regs are going to under cbetting) I wouldn't want to do anything that encourages villains to play better. i.e. betting small is far more likely to encourage villains to call wider (and therefore play better).

I'm not so sure about that. A good rule of thumb for optimal poker: Betsizes don't matter (as long as u can always shove later).

So it means that bet size 0$ (check) is also ok on flop and turn, if we can shove river? Or 1-2bb into e.g 10BB pot?

I really don't think changing betsize is going to change what should be done all that much. I can't be arsed building trees for it in a solver, but I'd be willing to bet it makes no significant difference. One thing it will definitely do is make things more complicated with many raising ranges and long trees making it harder to play.

Changing bet size from standard 50-60% in 3bet pot, to e.g. 25% is going to change a lot both ranges. Villain will be forced to defend much higher % of range, which means that our bluffs will have higher equity. I dont see why would it be so much more complicated, we could even only have check and bet size 25% pot.

I wouldn't want to do anything that encourages villains to play better. i.e. betting small is far more likely to encourage villains to call wider (and therefore play better).

It is not that simple. It can even lead them to bigger mistake (e.g. overfolding turn or river, or calling down too light), which is the point of lower bet size. We are IP with much stronger range, so I dont mind if villain starts calling low equity hands, if he doesnt, our bluffs get higher EV.

Originally posted by GingerKid

So it means that bet size 0$ (check) is also ok on flop and turn, if we can shove river? Or 1-2bb into e.g 10BB pot?

I think that's taking it a little far. Ofcourse when you check two streets with a 'more polarized' range you are going to lose EV.

Changing bet size from standard 50-60% in 3bet pot, to e.g. 25% is going to change a lot both ranges. Villain will be forced to defend much higher % of range, which means that our bluffs will have higher equity. I dont see why would it be so much more complicated, we could even only have check and bet size 25% pot.

Put this in a solver and check for yourself. It really doesn't change much at all as far as changing ranges or EV. It makes it more complicated because with smaller betsizes there are far more raise and reraise options and I don't know about you but balancing some stupid 6b flop range is not going to be easy for me. Even if it was +EV, which I don't believe.

It is not that simple. It can even lead them to bigger mistake (e.g. overfolding turn or river, or calling down too light), which is the point of lower bet size. We are IP with much stronger range, so I dont mind if villain starts calling low equity hands, if he doesnt, our bluffs get higher EV.

That may be a great way to play poker but I don't play like that, so can't really comment. In there's an immediate edge, I figure just take it before it's gone.