C-Betting 100% to induce giant mistakes and because FUN

PBF_ProdigyPBF_Prodigy Red Chipper Posts: 623 ✭✭✭
edited March 29 in General Concepts
You raise pre-flop from the CO and get called by the Big Blind.

The flop comes Kc 7s 3h.

With no contrary reads, you should bet 1/3 of the pot 100% of the time. Even against fish. Even against wild maniacs. Even against world class regulars.

Many instructors across many sites recommend dividing your flop range into a betting and checking range, categorizing hands by how many streets of value you can extract. (See: (https://redchippoker.com/plug-100-c-betting-leak-podcast/). But actually, as solvers demonstrate, not only is C-Betting 100% nearly impossible to exploit, but it opens a Pandora's box of problems if your opponent doesn't have an amazingly solid mathematical poker understanding.

For me, I chose to C-Bet 100% and depolarize my flop c-betting range because:

it's really, really hard to split your flop betting and checking range to perfectly exploit your opponent's flop calling tendencies.

Even if you gave me an omniscient HUD with accurate stats of every tendency my opponent has, I would still need a computer to model the perfect bet / check strategy with many mediocre hands that float between tiers of strength, like K8s or A8s. There's no way I could do that over the table, just a vague approximation.

Much, much easier is to de-polarize your flop continuation bet range into one size and strategize from there, guaranteeing that you make zero flop mistakes while your opponent squirms. There are many well-known players who use this style--but it's one that's rarely explored in the micro /small stakes games, either live or online, and it's a huge mistake not to understand it.

The downside: you have to have PIO or a solver to fully understanding on how to exploit this style, you need a little coaching to help you interpret how to use them correctly, and I'm very skeptical that the people who are really good at this style and giving everything away cheaply.
Without giving away all the secret sauce, the turn in going to involve a LOT of overbetting when checked to. Small on the flop. Large on the turn.

Stylistically, if you've never faced this combination of Little Man and Big Boy, it's really hard to play against. On K73r, what do you do with 99 ion a 4c turn facing giant bets? A7? Do you just muck anything but top pair? Speaking of top pair, how often do you have top pair on the turn--did you check/raise it on the flop instead? Did you balance that with a solid bluffing frequency? Do you slowplay enough? Do you know which boards you should c/r more than 45% of the time (!!!!!) to avoid being exploited, versus which you should over-fold?

See? Problems. And I'll be honest, when I face these problems in my own games, I fucking want to vomit rather than do the exacting odds and combination calculations every time. So that's why I play this style. To make other people vomit. Because when I'm at a poker table drowning in a pool of everyone else's vomit--but holding all the chips--I'm having a great time.

***This applies to 90% of textures, in position, in single-raised pots. With those other 10%, you can think about 1/4 and minbets. <3 <3 <3
«1345

Comments

  • tripletiretripletire Red Chipper Posts: 322 ✭✭✭
    What's the purpose of your post? Do you want others to see the game this way? Do you want others to be more open minded?
  • moldyfishmoldyfish Red Chipper Posts: 94 ✭✭
    You used the driest texture possible as an example. You have a poor understanding of flop textures if you think you can do this on 90% of boards. Also, how can you have A LOT of turn overbets when bringing 100% of your range to the turn and think it's not easy to bluffcatch against?
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Let's assume for the moment that your theory about flop cbetting is correct.

    Could you please talk more about your turn and river play? Cbetting isn't an isolated act; once you start down the 100% cbetting path, you will start getting called more often. Wouldn't a near-constant turn bomb become easy to exploit -- and expensive for you?

    I'm asking genuinely -- not critically.
  • tripletiretripletire Red Chipper Posts: 322 ✭✭✭
    I don't think I understand the spirit of your question. It's advice?

    It was a literal couple of questions, ones that I think you should answer at least for yourself. I agree with the general strategy guidelines, I think it's a highly effective strategy in online environments. I'm questioning your intentions, as what I see is someone with all the solutions trying to persuade a bunch of people without all the solutions, without any incentive. You're almost certainly going to be burned and refuted until you leave, as all poker forums are deeply stubborn, so I'd rather help you recognize that what you've come here seeking, you will not find.
  • moldyfishmoldyfish Red Chipper Posts: 94 ✭✭
    Just saying I have a poor understanding of flop textures with no evidence doesn't really demonstrate my lack of understanding.

    But don't just take my word for it, why don't you experiment in a solver yourself and see on how many textures:

    1) the EV from taking 2/3 mixed strategies lines is more than 1BB better than 1/3 or smaller strategies;

    2) the exploitability of betting 1/3 and having a turn betting range of any strategy is more than .4% of a pot.

    I'm actually not trolling here, this is a common strategy, if not the default strategy, of most $2/5 Pokerstar ZOOM regs.

    I understand the concept. I employ a similar strategy in my own game. I attempt to max out my betting frequency on every flop. However, K73r is not similar to 963r or AJTtt or 765tt or T65r or QT8tt. Some of these boards it just easy to continue with a proper minimum defense frequency. Some of these boards just bring many cards where its easy for an opponent to raise your turn overbet. My belief is that you are oversimplifying a piece of a strategy used by top level pros.
  • tripletiretripletire Red Chipper Posts: 322 ✭✭✭
    @moldyfish It's not just about MDF, it's about the EV the solver affords, the easy implementation and therefore more mental energy for other decisions, and the impossibility of a human opponent to implement a strategy that exploits us.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭✭✭
    All this is dandy but one doesn't need a solver to implement it, just an understanding of how betting works.

    As our sizing approaches zero, more and more of our range csn be carried over to the next street profitably, until that wager is check, which is essentially a bet of zero.

    Your problems will start earlier (a constricted preflop range with board coverage) and then on the turn, since you have merely delayed leverage and will still have to make choices.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Let's assume for the moment that your theory about flop cbetting is correct.

    Could you please talk more about your turn and river play? Cbetting isn't an isolated act; once you start down the 100% cbetting path, you will start getting called more often. Wouldn't a near-constant turn bomb become easy to exploit -- and expensive for you?

    I'm asking genuinely -- not critically.

    So first off, as much as I wish this is new theory, it's actually how poker's been played in tougher games for like three to five years. I'm sure Red Chip Pro's can chime in on this.

    One of the biggest subtle advantages of this size is that it immediately exposes imbalances in my opponent's range. On say, J73r, how often do you think villains are c/cing 77 and 33 on the flop, and are they doing so with a perfect flop and turn frequency to crush me? I know I can't do that on the fly, so I doubt other people will find the perfect randomization to beat me.

    So if they're generally just raising the flop with AJ, KJ, 77, 33, mixing in some calls with all of those hands, smaller pairs, overcards, and then raising some gutshots and double-backdoors...

    Doesn't that also mean they're only continuing with like ... 40-50% of their pre-flop range? But they need to be defending 75% of their range to stop me from taking immediate profit from my flop bet. So my 1/3 cbet forces my opponent to call the flop with hands like QTs and K9s (which is probably correct) in order to prevent leaking a giant amount on the flop....

    Then come the overbets. Do you think it's going to be easy to defend those hands when you rep an obviously capped range?

    On J73,if overbets on the turn come from like, 65, 89, and then A7 and KJ+, and then a host of hands that unblock your calling range, then are you going to be able to confidently bluff-catch me or raise the turn with 87s in practice? People all say "oh yeah I just call him if he bluffs," but the entire point of these solver strategies is that by the river, it's an indifferent balance of bluffs and value bets against your somewhat face-up hand, so in practice people just spew in one direction or the other.

    Thanks for the reply, but I don't think that you answered my questions.

    How frequently are you double-barreling?
    And aren't you entirely opening the door to be exploited?
  • tripletiretripletire Red Chipper Posts: 322 ✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    All this is dandy but one doesn't need a solver to implement it, just an understanding of how betting works.

    As our sizing approaches zero, more and more of our range csn be carried over to the next street profitably, until that wager is check, which is essentially a bet of zero.

    Your problems will start earlier (a constricted preflop range with board coverage) and then on the turn, since you have merely delayed leverage and will still have to make choices.

    What specific problems do you see?
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭✭
    The 100% CB strategy is only as good as the response (quality of it) from your opponent, as every strategy for that matter. You can't CB 100% of the time without impunity on every boards versus every opponent. More important you need to understand what are the implication of such a strategy on your range when you land on Turn. This strategy is very efficient when someone doesn't defend properly given the price laid and/or never calls with nuts hands going to the Turn, leaving him capped and vulnerable. But players will adjust, without even knowing it, by calling wider/merged on flop or raising thinner and if you don't have a prepared response for this you'll find yourself in trouble on Turn where you will most likely burn money by bluffing too much with a too wide range.

    Ultimately, a strategy is good versus a precise/anticipated response. But one must know what are the weak parts of any strategy and how to adjust when someone start to respond more optimally. This is far more important then blindly follow an advice that is sold as a magic formula to print EV.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    All this is dandy but one doesn't need a solver to implement it, just an understanding of how betting works.

    No, you can't trial-and-error nash equilibrium strategies. You can't just say "I'm going to make X range depolarized with Y size and it's going to be more EV than a polarized strategy."

    That was not my point. And as for trial and error, what do you think the solver is doing?
  • tripletiretripletire Red Chipper Posts: 322 ✭✭✭
    The assumption that @Adam Wheeler and most others here will be under is that we will see opponents adjust to us at any realistic frequency. This is the main reason why I'll usually include "in online games" when I'm talking about the merits of this large strategy simplification, because only a small percentage of the player pool will care enough about you to adjust to you.

    Fear of not knowing a counter-response to the counter responses to your strategy should not be the main deterrent from a strategy anyways. Especially when your strategy still profits largely, even if you are leaking small EV as 1 in 10 opponents exploits you.
  • tripletiretripletire Red Chipper Posts: 322 ✭✭✭
    Ultimately, a strategy is good versus a precise/anticipated response. But one must know what are the weak parts of any strategy and how to adjust when someone start to respond more optimally. This is far more important then blindly follow an advice that is sold as a magic formula to print EV.

    To make sure you're always the best player 1 step ahead of the best regs? Our goals in poker might be different, I care about making the most money possible right now, whereas that mindset doesn't allow you to exploit what the pools are allowing you to exploit today.

  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1. No, i was explaining that we can understand what sizing does without turning to a computer. I find understanding the game a primary endeavor.
    2. Right that is an advantage of this strategy.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 30
    Yes, we can understand what sizing does, but we can't come anywhere close to forming a comprehensive strategy

    But that's precisely the problem I'm having with your presentation. This seems pretty much akin to telling a chess player to play e4 because we know it's a good move that can't be exploited. At least that's what the pros and the computers tell us. The problem is, what do we do on move 2? Or 12? Because the fact is, if you don't know what to do on move 12, then you may very well be better off choosing a different game plan than one that starts with e4, even if you know that e4 is "perfect".

    Even in chess, this is far from clear.
    https://www.chess.com/blog/cigoL/the-best-first-move-for-white
  • tripletiretripletire Red Chipper Posts: 322 ✭✭✭
    @jeffnc
    This is too much now, you cannot assume that every time a chess teacher says e4 is superior and explains why, that he won't be able to back it up for later on in the game. It's also not similar enough of an example from a cbet strategy to a first move opening in a chess game. Poker from the flop is way more compressed than chess at first move.

    The best arguments against this cbet strategy have been:
    • We'll get exploited at some point
    • We don't have a good strategy for later streets

    I've argued the first point above, and the second one is where the real debate lies. Why do you assume that our strategy is not founded for later streets, and falls apart whenever someone floats us too wide? The burden of proof is on both arguments at this point
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭✭✭
    tripletire wrote: »
    This is too much now, you cannot assume that every time a chess teacher says e4 is superior and explains why, that he won't be able to back it up for later on in the game

    That was neither stated, assumed nor implied. I think you missed my point.


«1345

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file