PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

checking instead of cbetting

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • checking instead of cbetting

    Hi guys,

    This is a potential issue that I might have. Playing zoom so don't see the same opponents as much.

    Hero OOP with AQo
    Loose/passive villain OTB calls my raise


    flop comes wet. Hero misses on the flop (as you do nearly 70% of the time)

    Now I am confused as to whether to cbet or not.

    Here are my reasons not to cbet:

    - no draws, have 6 outs at best to make a TPTK hand.
    - I have identified villain as a loose/passive and so without a good cbet fold stat I will assume that he will call down.


    Am I right to think that because hero only has high cards and nothing more, that we should be giving up when faced with a bet by the villain who is IP on the flop. I think this becuase he could literally have anything, 22+, a made pair, drawing to straights or flushes, where I literally have nothing.


    However, I can't help shake off the assumption that villain has nothing and therefore is just betting to win the pot, and if I call then what do I do when I don't hit my 6 outer. I would be checking again, and gives the villain the chance to bet again with aggression.

    I am sure that someone will respond and say "welcome to playing out-of-position"

    Would this be how we range an opponent based on villain calling IP:

    TAG: dominating hands, suited connectors, pocket pairs.
    Loose/Passives: a wide variety of hands.

    Cheers,

    Pullin
    Last edited by pullin1988; Thu Oct 10, 2013, 04:50 PM.

  • #2
    In general, you should be c-betting most flops when heads up. You need some pretty strong reasons for not doing so. A loose passive, and a very wet flop, would qualify as reason enough to think about check-folding.
    If he's loose passive, then he's unlikely to bet unless he has a hand with more equity than yours. Ergo, you can check-fold if he makes a bet that prices you out of calling with 6 outs.
    Against a tougher player, betting is usually still best, to prevent you being bluffed off your hand.

    And yes, playing OOP is horrible, which is why I don't play trouble hands in EP.
    Bracelet Winner

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by pullin1988 View Post
      Would this be how we range an opponent based on villain calling IP:

      TAG: dominating hands, suited connectors, pocket pairs.
      Loose/Passives: a wide variety of hands.
      A TAG shouldn't have any dominating hands in his range apart from when he occasionally flats with AK. One of the reasons he shouldn't have a dominating hand, is that you shouldn't be opening with a potentially dominated hand in the first place.

      If I open with something like AQs UTG+1, and a TAG reg calls, I can assign him a range of pairs and suited connectors with pretty high accuracy. He's not calling with QJo, obviously.
      Last edited by ArtySmokesPS; Thu Oct 10, 2013, 05:02 PM.
      Bracelet Winner

      Comment


      • #4
        Cheers Arty.

        So when we play QJ on the CO and a TAG can see that we open with a wider range, TAG on the button calls, can't he have dominating hands such AQ, AJ, etc. Wouldn't you play those against his wide range if you were on the button, or do you think the optimal play is to 3bet.


        Cheers,

        Pullin1988

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh, in CO vs BUT, there's a greater chance of you getting action from a better hand, but you wouldn't be playing a hand like QJ for 3 streets of value anyway. A TAG reg might 3-bet AQ in that spot sometimes, or just call. Most of the time at 2NL/5NL, he'll have a speculative hand when he calls, though, as his 3-betting range will be mostly QQ+/AK.
          It's been a while since I've played full ring cash, so I might be a bit more aggressive now I have some 6-max experience. The optimal play with AQ on the button facing CO open probably is to re-raise, but I guess it depends on how you are likely to react to a 3-bet. With AJs I'd call and with AJo, I'd usually fold, which may be a bit too nitty.
          Bracelet Winner

          Comment


          • #6
            cheers Arty

            Comment


            • #7
              Hey guys. If we dont cbet flop with overcards, would it be too exploitable to call twice on right boards for showdown value(since villain would bluff two streets)?

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi Morduk,

                I'm really not keen on check-calling with overs. It is indeed exploitable, or even spewy. If my hand is strong enough to call a bet, then it's usually strong enough to bet in the first place, or it's something with so little showdown value that I need to bluff with it. C-betting gives you the chance to take the pot down without contest, while check-calling obviously does not. Most of the time, if I check the flop as the pre-flop raiser, it's because I plan to fold to a bet, not call. (The occasions where I will x-call include when I have a marginal made hand like middle pair, not ace high).
                Bracelet Winner

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hey Arty, yeah that seems crazy at first glance, was thinking about situations where we c-bet, and double barrel all overcards. If we check call once, and our card hits, maybe we give our villain chance to double barrel in position again? Instead if we c-bet, then bet the turn like when our Q or A hits, it's more probable to him to fold, since we represent the turn card, and if we call it he might shoot 3rd bullet, trying to fold our pockets range in his eyes.

                  Anyways, I get your point, was trying to think something out of the line
                  Last edited by morduk666; Fri Oct 11, 2013, 04:46 PM.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X

                  X Cookies Information

                  We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.