Is there some general rule whether to c-bet or not depending on the equity of my range versus the opponent, from a theoretical standpoint?

Say I raise preflop and my opponent calls. On the flop my equity will be 54%. Does that mean I should always c-bet with my entire range? I understand that depending on the flop texture I might break down my range into several parts, and bet with part of my range and check with the rest in a balanced way.

But what if my equity is 45%, should I ever c-bet then or should I always check?

Its depends on fold equity, which depends on villains range, tendencies and flop itself (ldo). If you bet and your opponent folds hes making a mistake to give up 46% equity. So yes if you have fold equity you should bet.

Does this explain what your after.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umMnLLnUIcI

The short answer is No. There isn't a "general rule". Some hands in your range will maximise EV by betting. Some will do better by checking. It's usually the case that if your overall range has high equity then you'll be able c-bet at a higher frequency than if your range has low equity, but every situation has its own nuances. It's rare (but not impossible) for a spot to encourage you to c-bet 100% of your range or check 100% of your range. More commonly, you have several combos that should always be bet (either for obvious value, or as a very clear +EV bluff), several combos that make much more sense as checks, and also quite a lot of combos that will have a similar EV whether you check or bet them.

As a quick example, if you raise the button, BB calls and the flop is K96, you'd typically have a fairly high c-betting frequency. You'd always c-bet monster hands like KK/99 for value, and JTs and 87s as mandatory semi-bluffs, but you'd nearly always check back QQ and JJ. What you do with A8s, AJ, 88, 98 etc is debatable and largely depends on how you expect villain to react to a bet or a check back. If he folds "too often", you have more scope for bluffing with hands that have very low equity. Generally speaking, however, you want to c-bet a range that has robust equity against the hands that villain continues with (his "continuance range"). Value hands and draws have robust equity, so they are good hands to c-bet. Total air (e.g. undercards without a backdoor flush draw) doesn't have robust equity, so it shouldn't be bet so often.

Good post. But I don't get why we should always check back QQ/JJ but could possibly cbet 98/88?

QQ extracts value and realizes equity much better vs villains entire range on later streets, and much less vs his flop calling range. Also if villain doesn't have Kx, its going to be very hard for him to win by the river and the importance of equity denial is basically moot. With 98/88 I'd guess checking is probably close to betting tbh, but there is some merit to betting as we can fold out some hands with ~@25% equity, get value from some lower pairs, and even if were behind we can still utilize our position and potential future board cards to win the pot when we turn equity. I think a lot of people would double barrel too much 8x on this board, but intuitively it seems like a lot of 8x should be checking on a ton of turns, and probably a decent amount of them used as checks on the flop assuming BB is defending as aggressively as he should be.

I agree.

Depending on the ranges in question and how they're formed, I think range vs range equities can be anywhere from ~50/50 to ~65/35, in favor of the preflop raiser of course, unless the blind significantly under defends.

I bet less often and with a smaller sizing as I approach the 50/50 marker, and I bet more often with a bigger sizing as I approach the 65/35 marker.

Which brings us to extreme asymmetrical range stuff:

I posted this in a limit holdem forum, but I think the bold points are true no matter the gametype.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...10/?highlight=

also:


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...00/?highlight=

Lower pairs are more vulnerable to overcards and won't be very good bluff-catchers on many runouts, so we'd sometimes bet them for protection, to fold out hands like Ax and prevent them realizing their equity for free. As for the 'standard' check backs, the blocking effects of QQ/JJ on K96 are quite interesting. QQ, for example, blocks KQ, which beats us, but it also blocks QJ/QT which are potential draws in villain's range. That should mean he's slightly more weighted to underpairs, undercards and Ax, and he'll fold these worse hands if we bet and only call with hands that are doing pretty well against us. QQ on K96 is basically way ahead (of stuff like 77 and A4 that have 2 or 3-outs) or way behind (Kx+) leaving us with only 2 outs. It's generally good practice to keep the pot small by checking back in WA/WB spots. Note also that we hate getting check-raised if we bet QQ on K96, because we have to call at least once, but villain could barrel off with 87 and jam the river to make us fold the best hand. Basically, we don't want to play for stacks with QQ on Kxx, and one way to eliminate that possibility is to start by checking back the flop and going into pot-control/bluffcatch mode.

All that said, the GTO solvers sometimes suggest betting QQ on Kxx (or KK on Axx) at some frequency as part of a highly complex mixed strategy.

Thanks for your explanation, good as always
To me, cbetting QQ on K96 gets value from 9x, 6x and underpairs, and cbetting 89 gets value from 6x, underpairs, and folding overcards. If we decide to cbet 89 and check QQ, that has to be because the EV of folding overcards is significantly higher than the EV of getting called by bit more worse hands. I have always wondered whether this is true and feel so unnatural that I should check a stronger medium hand and bet a weaker medium hand. But if this is what is suggested by the solvers, then I should of course follow