Bad Spot To CBet?

cmanganocmangano Red Chipper Posts: 38 ✭✭
One area I know I really need to improve is understanding which flops are good CBet flops and which aren't. In the past I just CBet every flop regardless of texture. Here is a hand I played today, NL5 Zone Poker on Ignition (6 max)

Assume villain is a standard, passive-type fish (I don't have a read since it's anonymous zone, but given his limp preflop I think it's fair)

100BB stacks

Villain limps UTG
Hero raises 4BB in HJ with :As:Qh
Folds to villain who calls

So my range for villain at this point is pretty wide. All pairs, all broadways, suited A's, maybe even some other suited hands like K9, Q9, J8, T9, T8, etc. and maybe even some A9, A8 type hands

Flop: :7c:8c:Jc

Villain checks. Should hero CBet here? Is this the type of board we want to CBet? My gut feeling is no. Sure, my A high may be good now, but there are A LOT of turn cards I will hate and Villain is unlikely to fold any flush or straight draw, any pair with a club, any J, etc.

Am I thinking about this correctly or being too nitty?

Comments

  • BFSkinnerBFSkinner Red Chipper Posts: 128 ✭✭
    What principles do you consider when choosing to C-Bet?
  • cmanganocmangano Red Chipper Posts: 38 ✭✭
    As I said I used to just CBet 100% of the time and hope for the best lol. Now I am trying to think about things like board texture and my opponents range. So on a board like this it doesn't seem likely to me that I am going to CBet and get hands that have equity against me to fold. I mean maybe I can get hands like baby pairs to fold, but that's about it. Seems like any hand that folds I was ahead of and any hand that calls I am behind or they have a ton of equity.

    Again, this is an area I know I need to work on so any suggestions are welcome
  • BFSkinnerBFSkinner Red Chipper Posts: 128 ✭✭
    If your opponent overfolds in these spots then you can somewhat abuse the use of the c-bet, however, as you move up, opponents will be able take advantage of your high c-bet percentage and float or raise to make your fold your weak hands.
  • cmanganocmangano Red Chipper Posts: 38 ✭✭
    At this level I would say people tend to overcall rather than overfold.
  • BFSkinnerBFSkinner Red Chipper Posts: 128 ✭✭
    cmangano wrote: »
    At this level I would say people tend to overcall rather than overfold.

    If that is true, then 100% c-betting is a huge leak. You will be forced to check/fold too many turns and rivers.

  • cmanganocmangano Red Chipper Posts: 38 ✭✭
    Ya that was happening a lot. I'd bet in this spot, get called and then check/fold turn or river. That is why I am trying to be more aware of board texture and picking my spots to CBet. Thanks for your feedback
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 84 ✭✭
    edited July 29
    The best way to develop this sense of when to cbet i think is to practice. Practice off the table, assigning ranges to your opponents and seeing how your opponents ranges connect with different flop textures. See what part of those ranges you think will call or fold against your cbet, and decide which hands do better as a cbet against your opponents ranges and which ones do better as a check.

    Some flops you will be cbet bluffing more often and other flops you will be betting for value more often
  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,185 ✭✭✭✭
    This is a polarizing board for two different reasons; it's very connected and it's of one suit. This should naturally reduce your betting frequency. Additionally, we have two primary reasons for betting (there can be more but let's keep it simple): for value (1) or as a bluff (2). (1) If you're electing to bet for value here, is there a significant portion of his range that calls with hands you are ahead of? I'd say probably not. There may be hands like :AC::4S: that he limped in with that you are currently ahead of but it can get complicated on future streets. (2) Are we getting better hands to fold that would make us bluff with this hand? Very unlikely. We have showdown value and we could balance our checking range with some smaller pocket pairs that would like to get to showdown cheaply.
  • cmanganocmangano Red Chipper Posts: 38 ✭✭
    Ninjah wrote: »
    This is a polarizing board for two different reasons; it's very connected and it's of one suit. This should naturally reduce your betting frequency. Additionally, we have two primary reasons for betting (there can be more but let's keep it simple): for value (1) or as a bluff (2). (1) If you're electing to bet for value here, is there a significant portion of his range that calls with hands you are ahead of? I'd say probably not. There may be hands like :AC::4S: that he limped in with that you are currently ahead of but it can get complicated on future streets. (2) Are we getting better hands to fold that would make us bluff with this hand? Very unlikely. We have showdown value and we could balance our checking range with some smaller pocket pairs that would like to get to showdown cheaply.

    This was my thinking for not CBetting so I am glad to see my reasoning was good. Thank you for your feedback!

  • PjotrskiPjotrski Red Chipper Posts: 18 ✭✭
    This particular board isn't the best of flush flops to cbet, but not because of the 3 clubs: Easily 70% of his range doesn't have a club.

    Now on this particular board it's a little different. He can have quite some made hands (3 suited connectors, 3 9Ts, some sets and at least 3x4x4=48 toppairs) which is no more than 25% of his range (worst case).

    But with 2/3 cbet you only need 40% FE for direct profit. 70% - 25% = 45%.

    If he's also limping suited gappers this just improves.

    Again, on this board a cbet isn't great I think, but I just want to provoke some thought about flush flops.


    ========

    The following range is for illustration only. You may think this fish does raise AK/AQ etc. but that doesn't really change the balance between club and non-club holdings in his total range.

    Suited club combinations
    - Connectors 23cc-9cTc: 8
    - Broadways: 10
    - Ac9c-Ac2c: 8


    Suited non-club combinations
    Connector: 3 x 8 = 24
    Broadway: 3 x 10 = 30
    A9s-A2s: 3 x 8 = 24


    22-TT: 9 x 6 = 54, of which 27 don't have a club (and they're all very low flushdraws anyway


    Offsuit broadways: 10x12=120 of which 30 have a club of which only 12 have an Ac. So 90 without a club, 18 without an Ac, 12 Ac.


    So non-club total: 195
    Flopped flush: 26
    Flush draw: 57 of which only 12 with an A

    And then we're not even discounting all the combinations with 1-2 clubs that he actually can't have because there are already 3 on the board.
  • ulysses27ulysses27 Red Chipper Posts: 114 ✭✭
    There's been a lot of good analysis on this but I thought I'd add just one thought you don't have a club and so future streets are just going to get more difficult. And you aren't holding any effective blockers. Really the hands you'd want to fold is the one you have. If you had a club I think it's a cbet without one it's a wait and see situation.

Leave a Comment

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