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.


No announcement yet.

10Nl 6-max Zoom 22

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 10Nl 6-max Zoom 22

    Hi, villain is playing 21/17/6 over just 90 hands. Should I c-bet this flop ? and why ? Cheers! umbup:

  • #2
    Let's try something different.

    You tell me.

    Start by listing what you feel the benefits/detriments are for c-betting, and what you're hoping to accomplish with a c-bet, then compare the two lists.
    Last edited by TheLangolier; Mon Jan 13, 2014, 09:52 PM.
    Head Live Trainer
    Check out my Videos

    4 Time Bracelet Winner


    • #3
      If I assign him a range for flatting there of:
      22-TT, KQs,QJs,TJs,T9s

      He'll fold most of his range except his broadways with FD, and 55,33,99,TT,T9s.
      So he'll fold like 75% of the time.
      My bet profits if he fold at least 40% of the time. So if he folds pretty much more than half his range I'll show a profit here.

      -He should fold often enough to make it profitable
      -There's no reverse implied odds (as if I have 9T or 89) and I can comfortably fold the turn if unimproved.

      -My range could be completely wrong and the c-bet might no be profitable anymore

      Am I correct ?
      This is how we should analyze if a c-bet is profitable or not ?

      Last edited by fp_boss77; Tue Jan 14, 2014, 12:48 AM.


      • #4
        That's the right first step! Is c-betting immediately profitable?

        I do think your ranging is off, as it includes no Ax hands. Just using PokerTrackers's equity calc quickly, including 21% and excluding 6% as his 3B range, I get this:

        33-77,A2s-ATs,KTs+,A4o-AJo,KJo+ (14.93%)

        It's debatable on this small sample, and we can tweek it, but this is what I'm getting.

        I think he's continuing on this flop with any pair at least once, and any draw. So you can count up the card combos to determine what % of the time we expect him to fold to a c-bet.

        Since he's calling at least once with pairs like 44 and 66 we also want to factor in a turn barrel imo, and how often he'll fold those marginal floats to another shot.

        Then you can determine if it's profitable to simply bet as a bluff directly.

        Goal in c-betting: For value or as a bluff?

        It's a bluff basically... most hands that will call us will be ahead of us or have flip equity like 2 overs+flush draw. Those hands will not fold to 1 barrel, we'll need at least 2.

        Detriments for c-betting: We can't get much value from worse hands, and can't get better hands to fold with a single bullet. We have little chance to improve our holding on the turn. Some turns will improve villain, some will be scary, and we won't know which (a Q is scary to 66, but not to KcQc).

        Benefits: We protect our equity in the pot, and make us harder to bluff.

        Both benefits are tainted though imo, as we can still get floated/bluffed later in the hand, and we can get semi-bluff raised and can't continue. And our equity in the pot is undetermined and maybe quite low.

        So I would conclude that if there's enough combos in his preflop calling range that will fold to a cbet to make it squarely profitable, then c-betting is ok, but it could be an expensive and possibly not profitable line without knowing for sure due to the facts that we rarely improve, villain can improve more than us, villain has position, and trying to bluff him off slightly better hands seems to be a multi-barrel proposition.
        Head Live Trainer
        Check out my Videos

        4 Time Bracelet Winner



        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.