Hi all,

I was thinking about the claim, that in HU situation 100 % c-betting on the flop is the right thing to do.

But if I know, that somebody does this 100% c betting thing in HU situation, then I just should call him every time I have the smallest piece of flop (something like bottom pair), and I will be at least after the flop ahead, assuming we have same ranges of hole cards. Do I think wrong?

Nope, you're right.

there can always be exceptions. in a HU match c-betting 100% against everyone would probably be a leak. HU as the PFR vs a limper or the BB at FR/6m most of the time you'll be against a player where c-betting 100% is correct. Not always though.

How so?

Edit: I am assuming opponent does not donk as otherwise you can't cbet 100%.

I mean, I know the answer, but usually I have a super hard time implementing it and I haven't found any such good opponents to do it to. It's an exploitative play of good opponents anyway, not GTO based.

Is it not possible for 100% Cbet to be GTO?

I really don't think you can do much wrong with C-betting 100% on the flop.... Bella seems to think there are situations, but i really can't think of any, except maybe in the utterly most extreme case possible.

We don't know that for sure, but all seems to indicate it is, at least it is balanced, so it is a step in the right direction.
But if you had a choice to play exploitative or GTO, which would you choose?
;-)

exploitable in a lot of cases, to be honest.

why to be honest? it's the right answer, hence the smiley

but it is exploitable...... or?..... like I wrote in OP. or is it wrong?
no way, that 100 % flop betting is GTO

I think because most of our opponents are not good enough to exploit us, and GTO really only becomes relevant against villains of equal ability. Taking an exploitable line that saves you a bet in the short term is better than taking a GTO line against your average villain.

Why not? Villain can't narrow your range and exploit against it.

Edit: I'm sorry to be hijacking your thread, OP. While calling with stuff like bottom pair is fairly standard HU against a c-bet, it also really depends on reads and conditions *before* the hand to really know. During the hand, if your opponent c-bets 100% that does not tell you very much, so you can't exploit against it, really.

The only question is whether it is really GTO, i.e. if it is the balanced line that maximizes value, but it definitely is balanced, in that it can't be exploited.

its a good approximation, and its hard to fk it up . . .

Who's to say what a gto opening range is from x position? Since I don't know, I can't say whether or not 100% c betting is gto. However, by c betting 100%(assuming your range is wider than gto) you allow your opponent to exploit you by check raising more than optimal. If your range is thinner than gto, then I believe that c betting 100% could be gto by accident.

Against someone who's exploiting the bottom of your range by check raising a lot, I think checking back becomes a good play with draws that really want a free card and/or can't call a raise. Mix in some hands that can call a turn bet, and some hands that can raise the turn on blanks as well as scare cards, unless he's just a check raising idiot in which case there's no need to balance.

Against people that never fold the flop I check back an unbalanced range(weak draws/bluffcatchers) with no strong hands in it. If they're the type to fire any turn if I check back then I'll expand the bluffcatchers in an attempt to exploit the autobet.

I c bet nearly 100% against unknowns because it can lead to two mistakes(calling too much or folding too much) and because betting is fun.

even if its not, its not far off, and would lay somewhere in the 90-100% range, making it difficult to balance your checking back range due to it being so narrow. That is why everyone fires at 100%.

Dont forget that you hold the narrower range IP, betting 1 into 4, and the worse thing that can happen is you face calling at 7:1.