After reading up on CBetting and Cbetting sizes in the grinder's manual I was left with some questions. When reading hand reviews here I often see the recommendation of Cbetting 1/3 pot.

When do we actually use this small of a size ? TGM advises to cbet anywhere small (50%-60% pot) on dry boards/weak range towards large which is 100% mostly onw et flops/strong ranges.



I don't see a clear use for 1/3d pot. When betting this small aren't we just giving V good odds with any slightly mediocre hand ?

bonusquestion: I've seen thing like range check. No comprende either.. When, how why ?

in position as preflop agressor on dry boards against opponents with high fold to cbet ratios, bluffs/semibluffs

You can use them for value as well on very dry boards.

Board texture and position are probably the major factors.

Upswing did a nice article on small cbet sizes and gave some scenarios were it made the most sense.

If you bet a small sizing on the flop most people don't defend anywhere near enough of their range. At the same time the correct strategy tends to be raising quite aggressively which people also do not do and even if people are playing well against it it turns out there isn't a huge amount they can do. It's obviously more specific than see flop bet 1/3 pot.

The grinders manual is a book for getting into theory and exploiting weak players. The wetter a flop the more weaker players are going to call too wide so the bigger we bet the better as it exploits their mistakes. On dry flop smaller bets are harder to defend against and we benefit from a lot of fold equity. Smaller c-bets with larger portions of your range seems to be a more meta-game change since I stopped playing a few years ago.

There aren't really right and wrong answers and there are perfectly viable c-betting strategies that aren't that a like.

As they other guys covered cbet sizing. Range check is a spot where our whole range will be checking. Most obvious example of this is we defend BB with a call Vs BTN open. Most players will not have a donking range; so this will be a range check as 100% of our range will be checking. We may choose to do this sometime IP or as PFR when the board hits Villains range much harder than our own but it will be less common.

isn't that a procedural check as we check to the preflop aggressor ?

I will use third pot cbets in position on flops like K62r or T T5

Why can't it be both?

didn't think of that ..
Any other situation than that for a range check ?

and once again.. Thanks for the responses guys

Never read any of this Grinder's Manual, but looking at the website, I wouldn't trust anyone with that ridiculous selfie.

Why are you so mean, sir.

Looks like he hasn't showered in a month.

Why would you say that

I don't really like the wet/dry terminology any more.

An AK2r flop is fairly dry, as is a 444r, and I'd consider overbetting as a c-bet on those boards, depending on positions.
A 754tt is stereotypically wet and I'd nearly always c-bet small on it IP in a SRP (e.g. BTNvBB).

I prefer to think in terms of range advantage, robust equity, and preventing the realization of equity. Janda's books are good primers on these concepts.
e.g. You open UTG, CO/BTN calls in position, board comes something like 864r. It's a board where the vast majority of your range missed, villain can float (or bluff-raise) at a high frequency, and the turn card changes the equities of everything so much (it's a "dynamic flop") that you could just check your entire range on the flop.
A monotone T87 would probably be checked OOP as the PFR close to 100% as well.

I like the idea of slagging off the author of the book based on an image he has. Seems legit.

Glad you like it, means a lot to me.

Have you given up recently or something? Your post quality is bombing.

I don't even like the guy who authors the book but trying to say it's bad because of some silly picture he has on his website is madness. Compare it to the utter **** blackrain was posting a couple of years before.

Umm, I hadn't posted for 2 years before a few weeks ago...

I never said the book was bad?