Theory- c betting question:

magicpigmagicpig Red Chipper Posts: 88 ✭✭
Comments on the spreading European trend of c-betting the flop 100 percentage of the time when heads up in position on one opponent with sizings of 33 percent and smaller?

Not always "optimum" but close enough with obvious benefits say some practitioners (?)

Comments

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,757 -
    The simple answer is that any c-betting rule that completely ignores flop texture and ranges cannot be correct.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • magicpigmagicpig Red Chipper Posts: 88 ✭✭
    edited March 9
    In theory, sure.

    Nevertheless, this fairly recent style is all the rage with a group of high limit European crushers who agree this is not optimal in all situations but in their estimation it offers them practical benefits and is "close enough", so I look for further comments.

    I am not advocating this style but looking for comments because it is currently a significant style at the higher online limits.

    I even see a slight trickle-down with some of the visiting Europeans in higher Vegas cash games.
    ____

    "Last year, it quickly jumped to the top of my own list, when everyone started cbetting 1/3rd pot in position in every. single. spot" -noted playet and theorist, Fried Mulders
    _____

    https://medium.com/@friedm/get-more-value-out-of-your-poker-study-time-f6b5cc06aa4d


    * Unintuitive solver-style play needed on later streets with overbets and non-equity barrels
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,822 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's been discussed heavily in this forum before, goes on quite a bit in my forum, and even with my last few podcast guests.

    As gamekat notes, there's always a few wrinkles, kinks, and flies in the ointment to work out.

    Anyways, I would question that it is counter intuitive, because betting efficiencies can be understood at any sizing by solid or imaginative players, but rather that it's the precision of the solver and the new wave of players using them that bring the challenge.
  • magicpigmagicpig Red Chipper Posts: 88 ✭✭
    edited March 9
    Please Remember:

    This comes up mostly in vs Big Blind, wide ranged limping fish, and that many good players mostly 3 bet from the small and the callers lack many strong hands.
    ____


    It could, and likely does, have an earn against best play on all boards when followed by correct and unintuitve play... but not as large an earn as whatever perfect math-land strategy ultimately does.

    There Are Practical Reasons This Trend Is Showing Up With Some Solver Studied Winners In Tough Games. This is not simply an exploit against targeted players.
    ____

    I bet I learn more good stuff about poker as I study this spot, regardless of if I become a practitioner.

  • magicpigmagicpig Red Chipper Posts: 88 ✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    It's been discussed heavily in this forum before, goes on quite a bit in my forum, and even with my last few podcast guests.


    Thank you for the tip on your podcasts. I was unaware of The Poker Zoo!
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,822 ✭✭✭✭✭
    magicpig wrote: »
    Please Remember:
    This comes up mostly in vs Big Blind, wide ranged limping fish, and that many good players mostly 3 bet from the small and the callers lack many strong hands.
    There Are Practical Reasons This Trend Is Showing Up With Some Solver Studied Winners In Tough Games. This is not simply an exploit against targeted players

    Well, this is a bit contradictory, no? Actually, a strategy based on an equilibrium study in a solver is not aimed at "wide-limping fish" but designed to tackle even the toughest opponents in a number of formations.

    Anyway, an equilibria can exist at all sorts of sizings. The down bet/overbet combo on a wide variety of flops just happens to be one of the most effective.
  • magicpigmagicpig Red Chipper Posts: 88 ✭✭
    edited March 9
    persuadeo wrote: »
    magicpig wrote: »
    Please Remember:
    This comes up mostly in vs Big Blind, wide ranged limping fish, and that many good players mostly 3 bet from the small and the callers lack many strong hands.
    There Are Practical Reasons This Trend Is Showing Up With Some Solver Studied Winners In Tough Games. This is not simply an exploit against targeted players

    Well, this is a bit contradictory, no? Actually, a strategy based on an equilibrium study in a solver is not aimed at "wide-limping fish" but designed to tackle even the toughest opponents in a number of formations.

    Anyway, an equilibria can exist at all sorts of sizings. The down bet/overbet combo on a wide variety of flops just happens to be one of the most effective.

    Not contactoray, I was mentioning some exploitive things that come up, though of course this is not why some higher limit winners are going with 100 percent small range bets in position vs one opponent. Perhaps I could have split this up better.


    I am aware of equalibria of bets and of the down bet / overbet concepts concepts and how sometimes they even mix well.

    I have found asking questions can help learning, especially since sometimes the devil is on the details.

  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,822 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sure, a little exploration, observation, and thinking will take you a long way in your study. Just go for it.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,822 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • magicpigmagicpig Red Chipper Posts: 88 ✭✭
    edited March 11
    persuadeo wrote: »
    You don't give up easily.

    You gave me really good advice about this:

    "Sure, a little exploration, observation, and thinking will take you a long way in your study. Just go for it."

Leave a Comment

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