By cbrewer4 and cAmmAndo

Some perspective and theory

“whenever I raise the pot before the flop... I'm going to bet after the flop about 90% of the time.” - Doyle Brunson (Super System 1978).

In 1978 this didn't have a name but today practically every player in your game knows what a continuation bet is and most will call it by its nickname, the c-bet.

When I first started playing NL Hold'em the simplified explanation for c-betting was that if you held 2 random unpaired cards and a flop of 3 cards is put out you will have improved to a pair about 1/3 of the time. Therefore in a heads up pot 1/3 of the time you make a hand, 1/3 of the time your opponent makes a hand and 1/3 of the time no one makes a hand.

By betting the flop regardless of whether you figure to have the best hand you can claim the 1/3 of pots where no one made a hand as well as the 1/3 of pots when you made a hand and some fraction of the pots when your opponent made a hand like bottom pair that he's unwilling to call a bet with.

So... we should always c-bet right? The answer of course is... it depends. Most NL players have probably learned that opening for a raise, especially in late position and firing on the flop is a profitable play with most of their range. At the lowest stakes and against the weakest opponents there is no doubt that a fair share of pots can be won using this simple strategy. However against more experienced opponents, c-betting too frequently will be a leak.

At the lowest stakes spread in any given card room this leak will likely not be very apparent. And in fact may not be a leak at all. Within the smallest games are typically the least skilled opponents. They will rarely be floating. They will tend to play their draws by passively, check/calling to the river where they will obediently check/fold unimproved with only the occasional spazz bluff out of frustration. They will call a third, a half, or more of their short stack pre-flop and fold to a flop bet with an astonishing range of hands.

However, as opponents get tougher and as we widen our opening range, c-betting too frequently will begin to cause us to bleed money.

C-betting too much vs. c-betting too little

If there is any validity to the simplistic argument for c-betting laid out above it should be clear that not c-betting at all would be giving up lots of orphan pots and be a huge leak. At LLSNL it is likely true that c-betting too much is less costly than c-betting too little. For this reason, I believe most winning players at LLSNL tend to c-bet too much and over time begin to look at whether they should dial it back. That... as I see it... is where this COTM has value. At least for me, having traveled that route, I had to begin to look for the spots “where to not c-bet.”

How much is too much?

So Doyle Brunson suggested a C-betting frequency of 90% over 35 years ago. Two recent books on No Limit Hold'em which discuss frequencies at length are “Applications of No Limit Hold'em” by Matthew Janda and Poker's 1% by Ed Miler (one may wish to argue their practical applicability to LLSNL but we won't here). Janda (through math) and Miller (through faith) essentially explain that when we lay a price to an opponent to call our c-bet, we should be doing so at a frequency that allows our strong hands to be balanced with (not equal to) our bluffs. In this way our opponent will be calling with worse and folding better too often and will not be able to profitably bluff us with any two cards.

I am not advocating GTO based balanced play at LLSNL. I'm merely looking for a ballpark figure we can use for reference. Miller puts the number at about 70%.

In Harrington on Cash Volume I, Dan Harrington suggests that “a good frequency for continuation betting is 65-70% of the time post flop”.

There are numerous threads in the micro-stakes online forums (probably the closest online genre to LLSNL that has the benefit of databased hand histories) where cbet frequency is discussed. Winning players report cbet frequencies in the range of 65-75%.

Again, we are not advocating we target a specific c-bet frequency at LLSNL. That is not really the point of this COTM. We can however establish a barometer by which we might gauge if perhaps we should be c-betting more or less often. And more importantly we can make the case that in each flop situation following our pre-flop raise we should be carefully considering whether or not C-betting is the correct play rather than simply going into “c-bet all flops” mode.

Ranges and C-bet frequency

Note that the intent here is not to seek GTO c-betting frequencies but to provide us a theoretical stand point from which we can view the practical aspects relating to our c-betting strategy.

The general idea behind a c-bet is that the pre-flop raising range is stronger than a calling range. This means that as the pre-flop aggressor we have a range advantage on most boards. We exploit this situation by having a high flop aggression frequency. C-bet frequency then is directly tied into both our range and our opponent’s range. It then follows that as a pre-flop raiser's range gets wider/weaker and a calling range gets stronger, the c-bet frequency should decrease. Nits should be c-betting more frequently than SLAGs, and we should c-bet more when we 3bet than when we 2bet, and so on.

Obviously if you were to raise 100% of hands pre-flop, you couldn’t expect to profitably c-bet 70% of those let alone anything approaching 100%. We've all seen the drunk or maniac raising what seems like every pot pre-flop and bombing every flop. Sometimes they go on majestic runs building towers of chips so tall they couldn't see a flop texture even if they wanted to. But it usually comes crashing down. Why? It's unsustainable. You cannot open an extraordinarily wide range against 8 or 9 other players, c-bet nearly every flop and expect them to fold. They will make hands, they will open their calling ranges and the better ones will open their raising and check raising ranges.

It is useful to look at the mathematical theory to further illustrate the relationship between ranges and c-bet frequency. If you look within a theoretically balanced flop betting range the ratio of bluffs to value bets will mostly fall between 3:1 and 1:1. The math would show that essentially when the plan is to bet 3 streets (for value or as a triple barrel bluff) the flop c-betting range can include more bluffs than when only planning to bet flop and turn. If you consider those ratios you should see that in order to wind up on the flop with a range that allows you to bet 70% of the time and where roughly one third to one half of those bets are for value, you must have a pre-flop opening range that will support it.

Low stakes NL Hold’em can be a strange environment. Depending on the make-up of a given table, we may be able to profitably c-bet in a very unbalanced manner. We should however be aware that it is in fact unbalanced and therefore also quite exploitable. “But LLSNL players are terrible and incapable of exploiting” you may say. This may be true but the one adjustment Low Stakes players can and often do make is calling… even more.

When facing tougher opposition or opponents who have gotten very sticky post flop, we should understand that our C-betting frequencies, continuing frequencies and value to bluff ratios (and therefore our opening range) may need to be brought back in line.

For the sake of considering whether we should possibly be looking to scale back or increase our c-betting let's consider that if we tend to c-bet on average significantly more or less than 70% it might be worth a look. Of course even if we are betting a reasonable frequency, we want to be doing so in the right spots.

Which brings us to the practical stuff...

To C(bet) or not to C(bet)... that is the question – Shakespere

Next to deciding whether and how to enter a pot pre-flop, it's probably the most encountered betting decision in No Limit Hold’em… we’ve raised pre-flop, somewhere between 1 and 8 opponents (or eleventy-two as gg would say) have called. The flop has fallen and we whiffed. How do we decide whether a c-bet is right? And if we do, should we “one time it” or plan to double barrel or even empty the clip with 3 barrels?

At LLSNL, many villains don’t defend frequently enough on many boards, but over-defend on other boards. Since they are unbalanced, we can take a very exploitative approach with our c-bets.

We've already decided we aren't in auto c-bet mode so let's list the most important factors when considering a c-bet.

Considerations:

1.Our table image
2.Number of opponents in the pot with us
3.Type or tendencies of opponents
4.Stack sizes
5.Position
6.Board texture

a) vs. Opponent's range
b) vs. Our perceived range
c) and Our Equity when called

1. Table Image
If you have stacks of chips up to about your eyeballs you probably have a good image. If you just re-bought for the 3rd time after 3 betting pre-flop, betting flop and turn then ripping it in on the river only to get snapped off by 3rd pair... you might have a bad image.

When our image is bad we should be value betting more and bluffing less. A c-bet bluff is after all a bluff so this is a prime consideration when deciding whether or not to c-bet.

Let's think of our image as:
Winning = Good
Relatively unremarkable = so-so
Losing = Bad

When our image is good we can c-bet more frequently and when it is bad we should be dialing it back with the weaker parts of our range.

2.Number of opponents in the pot with us.
Generally speaking the optimal situation to c-bet bluff will be against 1 or 2 opponents. Instinctively we might think heads up is better than 3 ways because it's less likely an opponent made a hand. While it’s true there may be more of a chance someone connected with the flop in a 3 way pot, it doesn't necessarily mean c-betting is less likely to succeed.

The first player to act after us will have to worry about the opponent behind him and often will have had to connect hard with the flop to continue. Secondly because two players called, the pot is roughly 50% larger than the equivalent heads up pot. This means our c-bet will be larger in absolute dollars as well. At LLSNL a lot of players, even though they are somewhat aware of pot proportion, still look at the absolute value of a bet and see it as large. The mere fact that we are betting into multiple opponents lends some credibility to the notion that we actually might have a hand.

On the other hand, in a heads up pot, the bet will be smaller in absolute terms and the caller does not have to worry about beating a 3rd player post flop, only us. He may feel better about his TPWK or 2nd pair.

While the case can be made that two players might sometimes be at least as good as heads up, there is no denying that as the number of opponents increases beyond two, our chances of successfully c-betting as a bluff begin to plummet. The likelihood someone hit the flop increases significantly for each player added.

While all of the field will not be able to continue facing a flop bet, the opponents who do emerge from a crowd and continue to the turn will often have significant equity.

C-betting as a bluff into more than two opponents will be difficult.

A good rule in general is that if there are more than 2 opponents to a flop we should not be bluffing anything but the absolute driest of boards. We should also continue to tighten up our value betting range.

Let's consider a flop of T97, any over pair would be an easy value bet in a heads-up situation. Once this flop goes multiway, we should actually be considering a check/fold more and more as the number of players increase.


3.Type of opponents

The tendencies of our opponents are very important as well.

We will broadly classify players as follows:

Fit or fold - They play draws passively. They generally don't float, check raise bluff or otherwise make moves. They are unlikely to continue under heat with less than roughly top pair. We will want to pay carefu attention to how loose or tight these fit or fold players are. The looser ones are prime targets for iso-ing and c-bet bluffing.

Nits – Generally they are also fit or fold but with a much tighter range and strong continuing range.

Sticky – In a sense they are fit or fold but with very low standards for what constitutes a “fit”. They are loose. They play draws passively and therefore they may call flop and turn then fold river sometimes. They rarely c/raise bluff. They’re generally stations but can also be players who are slightly more aware that our range may be wide and decide to call us down.

Tricky - We may think of these players as good or bad but... they can usually play draws aggressively. They are more likely to call as a float than to station multiple streets. They tend to be at least level 2 thinkers capable of making exploitative plays against us such as c/r bluffing or floating? They will often bet in position when checked to with much of their range.

In general against a fit/fold player, we should c-bet much wider than against a sticky or tricky player. Against a super-tight nit who calls pre-flop, we can bluff ragged boards and those that do not contain broadways. Against tricky players we will likely want to be preserving at least some value hands for our checking range.

There are many player-centric adjustments that should be made. Pay attention to your opponents ranges and how they play post flop then try to predict how they will react to a c-bet on any given board. From that point the given adjustments usually become self-apparent.

4.Stack sizes

Sometimes overlooked, stack sizes are very important when considering a c-bet. If we have a short stacked opponent we need to be aware of how he might respond to our c-bet. Are we prepared to call off if he check raises all in? Will our c-bet size create a situation where our opponent’s all in raise lays us compelling pot odds that we will be tempted to employ some wishful thinking? The presence of a short stack must be considered when deciding on our sizing, whether we have room to barrel or whether to c-bet at all.

We should also consider what our sizing does in terms of setting up stacks on future streets. A common example would be in ¾ bet pots where we see flop with an SPR of around 1-3. We can take super aggressive lines and set stacks up on flop/turn or be more passive and set stacks up for river. Both options will have merits in different spots and dictate that we should consider stack sizes when sizing our c-bet.

5.Position

Because we can guarantee ourselves a free turn card, having position provides us the option to check more freely.

Some board textures will provide a positional advantage more than others. On boards where turn cards will likely change the strength of each players hand position is more important. Miller calls these “Dynamic” boards. They may be wet or not so wet. Examples of non-wet boards that are dynamic are those with a relatively low “high card”. Frequently on these boards the best hand on the flop will not be on the turn.

A simple test Matthew Janda suggests for evaluating how dynamic a board is to ask the question: If I were or am out of position on this flop would check / calling a bet be difficult? If the answer is yes then position is likely more valuable.

The value of position when we c-bet, barrel or check behind is influenced heavily by stack depths. If we see flops in a game where we are ultra-deep and SPRs are often very high then position is going to be advantageous and will greatly help our c-bet decision. On the other hand if our opponent started the hand 10bb deep and the SPR on flop is like .5 position is not going to matter much.


6 Board Texture
Many discussions of C-betting assume we are talking about c-bet bluffing. The discussion that then follows is usually “here are some good boards to c-bet as a bluff”... dry big lil' lil' … “

Note: The ultimate goal of this COTM is to generate good discussion on c-betting spots. What follows here are some brief examples of how board texture relates to our range and our opponent's range and influences our c-betting decision. We hope that the readers will post many more examples which will expand the discussion of these factors.

Considerations 6a, 6b and 6c will relate to the texture of the board.

6a Opponent's range
More important than looking at the texture of a board in a vacuum is how it hits an opponent's range.

6b Our equity when called
When our opponent's call our c-bet what kind of equity will we have and how many turn cards improve our equity?

6c Our perceived range
Although seen sometimes as the foundation principle of the c-bet bluff, at the lowest stakes this is sometimes also an over-rated consideration. Level 1 thinking players are looking primarily at the board and their hand. Yes they “put us on AK” when they have J9 on Q J 2 but they quickly put us on something else when they hold A9 on A 5 2. There are many posts here in LLSNL that focus on Hero's hand or range when deciding to c-bet or barrel. That is mostly backwards thinking at LLSNL. We should be first considering the Villain's range. Then determining if we are trying to get him to call or fold with that range based on our actual hand. The higher level thinker the villain is we then can accordingly also be considering how are range looks to him. But if he's a level 1 thinker its mostly going to be a question of can I get him to fold his better but weakish hands or can I get him to call with worse.

Having said that, when we raise pre-flop we are representing a strong range and regardless of our actual holding many players will at least be giving some thought to what we might have. But the point is worth emphasizing that at LLSNL us “repping” a K or an A because we were the pre-flop raiser is OK only so far as our opponent doesn't have an A or a K in their hand. And therefore their range vs. the board is far more important consideration than our perceived range vs. the board. At low stakes, our opponents tend to fold to our c-bets because they miss or nearly miss the flop not because they perceive us to have hit harder than them.

Relative Ranges:
Even though we generally have a range advantage as the pre-flop raiser, pre-flop equities in NL are not static. Certain boards will hit our range very hard and others will hit calling ranges much harder. We must understand this in making decisions on how we size our c-bet and how many bluffs we include in our c-betting range.

Boards on which we as the pre-flop raiser have a strong relative range usually include one or more broadways and are often not highly coordinated. An example of this would be an AK9r flop. A board like this is a great one to bluff at with a high frequency. It nails a pre-flop raising range, while calling ranges in live games typically consist of many suited connectors and one-gappers, small to medium pairs, some Ax, and broadways. This means most of their range is not comfortable continuing on this board. Because we expect to get folds so often and our range is so strong, we do not need very large sizing here at all. Our value hands and bluffs both have little reason to want to bomb this type of board since standard V folds so often. It’s also important that we understand what the continuing range of our opponent would look like here. If he does call our c-bet most of his hands will be pretty strong made hands (in his mind) which will not be folding turns and rivers. We generally should not barrel this board as a bluff against the standard LLSNL player.

Now compare this to when we get boards on which we are relatively weak. Returning to our earlier flop example of T97. This nails the heck out of a calling range and is not a great board for a pre-flop raiser at all. The adjustment to this then is that we should reduce the amount we bluff on this board, but when we do bet it should be relatively large. Since our opponent’s range will continue very frequently here both our value bets and bluffs want a larger sizing to either get value or capitalize on whatever fold equity we can have. In terms of bluffs on this board, we should have very few and those should have plenty of equity. Hands to bluff in this spot would be mostly good draws (8 outs or more).


Barreling as bluffs

So what type of boards should we barrel and with what hands? We should be looking for boards where villains have a relatively capped calling range that should not feel comfortable calling down. We should use hands that often have backdoor equity or can turn a higher pair. A good example of this would be a board like

T62

Let’s say we see the flop with QJ where we opened pre-flop and were called. This is a spot where we should be c-betting 100% vs pretty much all but the stickiest opponents. If they call, think about what they can have. Other than 22, 66, TT, what hands are they going to be happy calling down multiple barrels with? Most opponents would have 3 bet JJ+ so he has no over pairs. He rarely has two-pair combos. There are no big draws so most of his range is either gut shots, Ax, or one pair. AT is pretty much the top of his range. When we bet this flop, we are planning to barrel very frequently… especially with this hand, where almost half the deck gives us equity. Any 9, J, Q, K, A, or , when we barrel villain will be in a very uncomfortable spot with most of their range.

We should however avoid barreling cards that help his range here. The worst cards to barrel are ones that pair the board and the second worst are cards that give him pairs / gut shots, basically any card 8 or lower. 9 / low spades are not absolutely great cards, but we have enough equity combined with fold equity at that point to justify the semi-bluff.*

When we are considering barreling, we should consider what hands our opponent gets to the turn with, how often those hands fold, and what cards hit out perceived range or will make him uncomfortable. As mentioned earlier, our current table image will also be important in terms of pulling off barrels. If we are perceived as being on a heater, tight, or are winning lots of hands at showdown we can barrel more than we can when we are running bad, playing loose, or have been spewing.

Size matters
Just a few points about bet sizing.

Although bet sizing tells are obviously exploitable by good players, it will be correct to have different sizings within a range depending on flop texture, opponent ranges etc. Especially at LLSNL we can vary our sizing to suit our purpose without the danger of exploitation provided small isn’t always air and big isn’t always value or vice-verse. Typical c-bets will tend to range from ½ to full pot but by no means are limited to this range.

As mentioned above, stack sizes might determine our selected sizing. For example if we want to get stacks in by the river, taking a bet bet bet line with ¾ pot sized bets will get us all in with 80 BB. With 135 BB however we will need to go with pot sized bets on each street. If we are c-betting against a shorter stack and say we want to double barrel all in on the turn. We want to be careful not to choose a flop sizing that only leaves a ½ pot turn bet where we can expect little fold equity.

The effectiveness and profitability of our c-bet bluffs and semi-bluffs will be dictated in part by our bet sizing. It's worth reviewing the basics of bluff profitability here. If we hold complete air (ie: total bluff with 0% equity), our bluffs must produce the following fold equity to be profitable:

Obviously if we have equity when called the required fold equity is reduced accordingly. You can see that when we bet full pot versus half pot we only need our opponent to fold 17% more often. When considering sizing, think about what hands you are targeting for a fold. Are there a bunch of medium strength hands in a fit or fold player's range that he will fold for a pot sized bet but continue with a 1/2 pot bet? Against a level 2 thinker are there legitimate value hands in our range that would pot this flop? If yes a pot sized bet might be best.

With our value hands against a sticky opponent, is much of his range draws? Is he the type that simply didn't drive to the casino to fold the nut flush draw when he flops it? Bomb the flop for value... even over bet it.

OK so we checked Now What?

Getting back to those flops we decide we shouldn't c-bet. Does this mean we are surrendering the pot or resigned to checking the hand down? Not at all. Frequently the information gained through checking will enable us to make a better value or bluffing decision on a later street. When we are in position we control the free card. So a check by us takes us immediately to the turn. When we check out of position however there are two possible outcomes. Our opponent will either check behind or bet. When he checks we go to the turn. When he bets we can respond in one of 3 ways. Fold, Call, Raise.


Check /Fold

When the considerations above lead us to believe we have little fold equity and our hand has little actual equity the correct play is to check and fold to a bet. It really is that simple.

Suppose we raise 66 in the CO over 1 limper. The Button, the BB, and the limper all call. The flop comes JT8 and it checks to us. We are against 3 opponents. Further, this flop smacks limp calling and BB defending ranges as well as the button's overcalling range. It’s unlikely that a c-bet bluff will get through. We occasionally will have the best hand but even when we do only marginal equity. When behind as we will be much of the time, we are drawing to maybe 1 clean out and could be drawing dead running boat/quads. We check the Button bets the BB calls we should fold.

Check/Call

We raise QQ in the cutoff and are called by a tricky player OTB. The flop comes KT4 if we have the best hand we likely aren't getting much value with a bet and he's not folding a K. There are no Flush draws and we block the straight draws. He's a tricky somewhat aggro player who likes to stab at uncontested pots and will definitely bet when checked to a fair amount. We can check here and call his bet.

In Way ahead / Way behind spots or any spot where we mostly will fold worse or get called by better and there's no compelling reason to protect our equity, we should consider whether a check / call will be more profitable. This will especially tend to be against tricky / aggro opponents.

Check / call can also be used against SLAGs/Maniacs to induce. Let’s say a maniac opens and we 3b from the blinds with AA then he calls. The flop then comes 833r this is a good spot to check call vs extremely aggressive players who will always bluff when we show weakness.

Check/Raise

Let's take our earlier scenario except we opened QJ from the CO this time. The flop comes KT4. We have an OESD and a BDFD. We could look at our hand and decide with our equity and this board we should c-bet. But sometimes against a player we expect to frequently bet when checked to we can go for a check raise semi-bluff to maximize our fold equity. Where as we are always getting our c-bet called by Kx, a c/r here will actually fold some of villain's Kx.

The Delayed C-bet

The delayed C-bet is simply checking on the flop then after our opponents have either checked behind or checked to us again on the turn we bet the turn (or the river). The benefit of the delayed c-bet is that we gain an extra piece of information about our opponent's range when they check after our action. When opponent's check in front of us on the flop it tells us little. There range is in no way capped as they are simply checking to the pre-flop raiser. When they check after our flop action however it will often be a preliminary indication of a capped range and when they check on the turn they are almost always capped to medium strength, draws or worse. At that point, if our range was behind theirs on the flop, it is often now stronger again on the turn given this action.

Let's take the out of position case first. Using the earlier example we raise QQ in the cutoff and are called by a player OTB. Flop comes KT4 if we have the best hand we likely aren't getting much value with a bet and he's not folding a K. There are no Flush draws and we block the straight draws. We check and the button checks behind. Would he check a K? Maybe but not all that likely. Turn is a Ks. It is now almost certain V doesn't have a K. He should feel better about his Tx hands and even hands like 99 or 88. We can often go for 2 streets of value here against many stickier villains. They tend to think “this guy doesn't have a K” and don't consider that you would value bet QQ or JJ here for 2 streets. They will call turn and river with worse when they actually would have frequently folded to a flop bet. This can also be the case with TPGK/TPWK hands vs. certain opponents.

We can delayed c-bet even more marginal hands in position sometimes and of course when checked to again on the turn we can often bluff with more success while risking less on flops we are uncertain about. Many opponents will give up on their 8 or 9 out draws on the turn after they got a free card and bricked. If we raise 78 OTB and get called by the BB, the flop comes QT9 and BB checks. We have an OESD but the outs aren't very clean a J will give all the Kx hands a higher straight and the J or 6 may be bad for us we don't know if Villain has Qx or 2p or pair+sd all of which are squarely in his range. Even though we re heads up we can check here and take a free card. Let's say the turn is the 2h and Villain checks. Now we can bet here and get villain to fold most of his range. Including hands like 89 as well as some of his flush draws. We still have our outs that could win at showdown if we hit and we will control the free river card.

The delayed c-bet can also be used to induce or to get value on later streets in spots in which we have the board smashed. If we open TT for example and get multiple calls. The flop comes TT2r it is probably best to go for a delayed c-bet. We have the board so smashed that it is almost a guarantee a bet folds everyone out and we can possibly induce or allow people to catch value hands on the turn. Slow playing often isn’t a great strategy in LLSNL, but in extreme spots like this it is perfectly ok.

Since we cannot include examples here for all situations this is where you guys come in. We hope that this COTM will serve as a catalyst for posting flop examples where we can discuss in depth c-betting decisions.

TL;DR Cliffs: When we are the pre-flop raiser facing a c-bet decision we should evaluate our table image, number of opponents in the pot with us, type or tendencies of opponents, stack sizes position, board texture vs. opponent's range, our perceived range and our equity when called. Then we determine if we are going for value or bluffing and if we are likely going to barrel turns and rivers. If the considerations suggest betting we select the appropriate bet size. If not we check. We should recognize that checking will sometimes create more options for us than just “one and done” c-betting all flops. And yes sometimes we will waive the flag and check / fold.

Special thanks again to cbrewer4 for his contribution to this COTM.

Thank you, gentlmen. Stickied and off to read it.

Intro solid. Will finish later.


GTO is the promised land. Ask CMV

Very good post and has my wheels spinning already about some hands I played on Friday. Thanks.

Just finished and like it very much. C-betting too often is definitely something I'm working on. Getting better, but still have a ways to go.

Where is the youtube link

Cbetting is one of the few areas where villains are evolving and much of what was written 4-5 years ago is going out of date. Villains are calling bets on the flop more than they did 5 years ago. Thank you for this.

One common mistake I see a lot of posters make is that they interpret a cbet % as measuring just the times you have nothing. The % that the OP, Janda and Miller refer to includes every hand you have on the flop after you were the preflop raiser.

Most people on this forum never played poker before 2003. While Doyle talked about it long ago, the knowledge was primarily shared only by top pros. Most players simply bet if they hit the flop and c/f if they didn't. If someone bet, you simply folded if you had nothing or called/raised if you did (depending on how good it was). If you ever see a repeat of the 2002 or 2003 Main Event, you'll be shocked at how bad everyone was compared to today. It was Dan Harrington that brought the idea of cbetting to the masses in his Harrington on Hold 'EM which prompted Erik Seidel to write two emails to Harrington saying, "**** you."

this is some great stuff guys, thanks for taking the time to cover as much as you did.

The main problem I have c betting, is when I open a hand from my EP range (in EP)or MP range (in MP). I have found it difficult to make a cbet as a bluff, even though I should have a certain percentage of bluffs as cbets vs. value cbets. Mostly because my range in MP and EP is so much tighter, that I can't come up with a legitimate number of combos to bluff with.

Ex. If I raise with AQo in MP1, board K10x and there are 2 or 3 callers behind me.

Whereas I have no problems coming up with bluff combos if I were to be in the same spot if I'm on the CO or BTN.

I am MUCH MORE likely to just check/fold AQ with that board from EP and MP and continue on with my cbet bluff combos in position.

I know this is a function of having an wider opening range with position. I know it's not going to matter so much at the smallest levels, I just don't want to be so heavily skewed in EP and MP toward value cbets with little or no bluffs. I was wondering if anybody else had/has this problem. How did you go about fixing this?

Crow reminded me of something I wanted to mention. If you are still using pokerstove or just a smartphone app. Either invest the 35 bucs in flopzilla or (this is what I use) get Equilab for free.

In addition to the standard poker stove equity calcs you can store unlimited ranges for quick recall. You can see how ranges flop and filter by catagories like sd FD pair + gssd etc. you can also run an analysis showing a graph of all possible turn cards and how they change our equity against a range. Spending a few hours a week running different simulations can really pay dividends.

Given the example you used I would argue that AQ is very often a c-bet on that board. I wouldn't worry about "finding bluffs" though just know that if your opponent is thinking that you can bluff with a higher % of your air when you have a strong range because you have enough value hands to offset it. That being said against weak opponents if you have little equity and don't think they will ever fold to a bluff then it makes sense the natural c-bet adjustment is to not bluff anymore.

This also means that we should be having more thin value bets on flop

You can do this on Flopzilla for the most part. Zilla also has a hot cards table that shows what cards do the most for your range or for your actual hand. From what I've heard though, Equilab might be easier to actually see those kinds of things.

Either one is fine. I just meant to mention it because I know there are still a lot of folks who aren't using those tools and I think it is indispensable when trying to fine tune your continuation betting.

FWIW, I'd be c-betting that board with a fairly high frequency up to 2 players. 3 players I'd be carefully considering the individual players ranges. Keep in mind we are going to have something like 30% equity against a typical continuing range when we are called. Yes the difficulty is what is our play on the turn when it bricks and if it continues multiway we may only have 4 outs we really like but It's going to get through some and get heads up much of the rest of the time.

One other thing I'd mention is that once in a while (this is by no means standard and at the risk of sounding spewey) if it did go 3 ways and I checked then the first 2 guys happen to check for example and the button bet... I'm going to consider check raising that guy some of the time. It's by no means the most likely line I'm taking and it's villain dependent but I'm always thinking about it. If it checked to the button, the in between players are somewhat capped. The button's range here can still be quite wide when everyone checked to him (remember he overcalled 2 callers in position). A c/r is so strong there that it will fold out a ton of their range. Again that's a somewhat rare play but by no means unusual. I only bring it up because when I check here I'm not immediately giving up.

But I kind of think the key here is that Being OOP basically always sucks. When we expect to be OOP when called we have even more incentive to keep the field thin than when in position... ideally 1 or 2 callers. There's an entire thread devoted to that debate on preflop raise sizing and the debate should stay there but if this type of spot is giving you trouble I'd say try to make it easier on yourself by focusing on limiting the number of callers pre and following through.

cbet less with non-bluffs OOP.

I think for the purpose of spurring discussion, it is relevant to cite concept #17 from NLHE:T&P: If your preflop raise is called behind you, check a lot of flops.

I disagree here if it implies we should be c-betting less than IP. I think we should have a higher c-bet frequency OOP. The option to peel free cards/equity incentives to bluff less IP then OOP.

I think having a somewhat balanced checking range is the point (or at least the implication) of that concept. It mentions checking value hands and as I mentioned above not being afraid to have c/r bluffs in your range.

If our checking range is entirely hands we are check/folding we will obv be ridiculously exploitable.

I think this is Asian nits point. Having value hands in Hero's checking range provides some cover to check hands such as this if he elects not to c'bet.

Great topic guys. Something I have been working the last couple of years as I transitioned from $1/$2 NL to $2/$5 NL. Looking forward to completing the read, and providing input.

Nice read. Reassuring to know I have been incorporating most of these thought processes in my game. Still working through what is the optimal play on taking free turns vs. betting.

Separately, here’s a spot for discussion. For simplicity let's assume all players ($1/$2NL) have 100 bbs. We have a winning image and the 3 callers are F&F on the looser side, limp/call more than they should.

Folds to MP1 who calls, Hero (CO) raises to $15 with Jd Jc . BTN, BB and limper all call.

Flop ($61) of Td 9s 7s , checks to Hero. I would B/F $40-$45 for value. We have blockers to a straight and would get value from hands like TX/98/FD and perhaps some broadway cards that have BDFD potential.

Thoughts?

yeah, I'm cbetting this 100%. (I'm only betting $30-$35 though)

Bet/fold in this spot would be incredibly bad, especially in position.

What would your action be, facing 3 F&F opponents? In CO, BB and MP1 have checked to you, BTN obviously behind.

If you think there's high probability of getting check-raised, then the clear choice is to check behind.

Your hand has way too much equity to fold on flop. Folding would be a huge mistake.

Not intending to derail the thread, so feel free to PM me if you must continue.

But to get back on track a bit, another topic to consider is whether to check behind with high equity hands that are too thin against CR.

What if you think there is a low probability of getting check-raised, bet, and get check-raised by an opponent who only check-raises with a strong range that has no draws?

Against F&F Villains, isn't it always going to be about 50-50?

Obviously it depends on his high probability option.