the only problem i have w/delayed cbetting against good hand readers is good players pick up on teh fact that if you delay cbet, your hand strength is usually capped at 1 pear; and therefore they can just delay check-raise and u lose

this is a great cotw when applied against fish and weaker regulars though

ex

Grabbed by Holdem Manager
NL Holdem $0.25(BB) Replayer
SB ($26.31)
Hero ($25)
UTG ($30.17)
UTG+1 ($25)
CO ($25.58)
BTN ($48.76)

Dealt to Hero 5 5

fold, fold, fold, BTN raises to $0.70, fold, Hero calls $0.45

FLOP ($1.50) 7 Q J

Hero checks, BTN checks

TURN ($1.50) 7 Q J 9

Hero checks, BTN bets $1.00, Hero raises to $3.15, BTN folds

Hero shows 5 5



villain can almost never have a set here (maybe 99), no straights, no good fds, very few 2pairs, etc

not saying 55 is even a good hand choice for a bluff here either, but I think this works an absurd amount of the time (and if we chk down turn/riv I think I win a fair %)

Agree with both points.

On the part about a thinking player ..... Against this type of player, you'll need to mix up your game enough to not let them always know what you have. So sometimes you should have a strong hand - 2pair/set/nuts - a lot of times, they can't call 3 streets, so you won't get three streets of value.

So in that case, if you think they'll raise the turn if you check the flop and bet the turn, then do it with a set, call his turn bet, then you might be able to play for stacks or at least more money on the river than you had been able to get if you bet-bet, and he folds.

This is an area of my game i have been looking to improve, thank alot for the information

good way to compromise your strat with op is by checking back some hands that cant call a c/r on the turn whilest also checking back some very strong hands on the flop that totally miss opponent

I think that is just standard practice though. In position once villain checks the flop and turn I am firing at any turn really, they are basically done with the pot.

Oh yeah, if villain checks twice, I bet always. And most of the time, if you bet turn and he calls, bet the river, my river bet will be a little larger than normal in this spot, in fact, it's not a bad spot to overbet vs a TAG who will likely be pot controlling with that line, bet bigger so they can talk themselves out of calling.

When we check back this flop... it looks like we have some sort of made hand, since nearly all players bet 100% of their air on this flop. So when we delay c-bet the turn, how can the Villain call us down lighter, when there's zero air in our range?

Just call down with the top of your range.

I don't necessarily get this. Why do we rep less when we delay c-bet a AK3r board? Don't we just have more Kx in our range which we check back? I think the higher the second card is the STRONGER our range is after we check back the flop.


I don't really get this. Why can't we approve when we hit one of our 6 cards? If the Villain will fold an underpair on the flop, why won't they fold the under pair to a turn bet? How do you know that bluffing the turn isn't higher EV than bluffing the flop?


This doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense. Ideally, we want to bluff with hands which do well against our opponents continuation range, so you don't want to use the very bottom of your range.

However, just because you can profitably bet your entire range on this flop (which is what you're suggesting), still does NOT mean that betting your entire range maximizes your EV. So for this example, this hand might be +EV to bet on this flop, however, when the Villain calls, you win nearly zero percent of the time. So it's very important for the Villain to fold when you bet the very bottom of your range. And it's this characteristic that makes delay c-betting better. When the Villain checks to you again on the turn, his frequency for check-folding the turn will be HIGHER than it is on the flop (at least I think it should be theoretically).

Your point about c-betting the flop to set up future bluffs is really beside the point. This is a fair reason to make a bet, but you need to know what type of boards to do it on, and in this case, once again while it's probably +EV to do it with this hand, it's probably better to do it with stronger hands. I understand the concept, and I understand how it applies to this board against the Villain you described, but why is this hand better than any other one to use?

Gotta run... maybe I'll comment more later. I hope you don't feel that I'm being too critical. I enjoyed the read.

I don't understanding this. I understand that it's not a good idea to fire a second barrel when the board pairs like this. But here we're talking about a delayed cbet - we didn't in fact bet the flop. When a lower card on the board pairs, isn't the story we are telling more credible when we didn't bet the flop? I.e., "I raised the CO with A8o or 87s and checked second pair - now I'm betting because I just made trips."

(I understand the point about combos applies to both double barrels and delayed cbets, but the point about betting the flop with a strong hand seems to cut the other way.)

I've been really busy for the last couple weeks and was out of town last week, I'm just getting back to this.

First of all, there's not always a 100% right way to play a hand. There will be different things that are more correct, depending on the villain and their tendencies, and you'll need to decipher their weaknesses and attack that. If someone floats and gives up a lot, bluff them more. If they won't fold, don't bluff.

True. It will seem that we'll have a lower pair that doesn't like the A. So then, the person gets into the "well, some of his pairs beat mine, but some of his pairs don't" and I think you'll get called down by pairs that would have folded more often. Sometimes, you have to fire 2 barrels vs people that go "oh, he's betting any Axx flop automatically, and can't have that many Ax in his hand."

We rep less on AK3 type boards, because we'd be betting more value hands and draws, so our hands are such that we won't have that strong of a hand. True, we do sometimes check back Kx, but a lot of times, it's going to be weak Ax and really weak hands.

I agree that we should call down the top of our range. Unfortunately, I don't hit the top of my range very often. In this thread, I'm discussing times that you have a hand that isn't likely to win at showdown - cbetting more as a bluff, not for value.

What I mean about not improving as much, I meant that since we have undercards, we can't improve to top pair. It's not like the board is 853, we have QJ, and have a backdoor gutshot + 2 overs.

You do need to bluff with hands that are the bottom of your range sometimes. If you're not betting atc on any flop vs people who fold 75% + vs cbets, this is a huge leak.

You can't raise weak hands and then play fit or fold. So you either have to tighten up, or you have to buy pots you wouldn't have won at showdown.

If you have a hand that has very little chance of winning or improving, and it's +EV to take down the pot, it is maximizing your EV. I don't disagree with you here, but the point I would like to make is, the best way to play is villain dependent.

This is more for the 25NL+ stakes, and is designed to help you look for spots that you can win money you might not be winning. This isn't necessarily an ABC concept, it's to add to your ABC game and pick up some easy money in spots.

I think it's hard to rep trips, like it's hard to rep a set. You're getting called by a ton of draws here, and there's a lot of turn cards you'll really hate - see the list I made in OP for an example of how much you hate your life on the next street.

This is a good spot imo to overbet bluff the river if it checks through.