https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international    Contact            Users: 934 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 20:38

Article on Missed Cbet

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > Poker Blogs
Edjon   Netherlands. Jul 27 2009 06:55. Posts 1579
hi everyone,

I wrote an article on how missing a cbet may be more profitable than cbetting.

The Power of the Missed Cbet

Feel free to respond, remark or criticize!

I hope you like it though!


0 votes
Facebook Twitter
 Last edit: 27/07/2009 14:40

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Jul 27 2009 07:11. Posts 9634

Well i dont wanna sound like some arrogant asshole but this is a pretty useless article and it seems to me that u r a bit confused of when to check and when to cbet

Also it ll make new players that have a bad post flop play check more often and therefore probably lose more $ in long run

Your example is also bad but i think you r aware of that


Edjon   Netherlands. Jul 27 2009 07:20. Posts 1579

that's ok

I am not confused when to bet or to check, however it is often very close.

In this article I don't elaborate when to cbet or not to, because that would make the article too long. I am trying to argue that checking may be better than cbetting and the reasoning behind it.

my example is a simplification for the purpose of the article.


Garfed   Malta. Jul 27 2009 07:27. Posts 4818

I disagree with most of the article.

Also, that given example.. wtf.

 Last edit: 27/07/2009 07:30

SpeedyJack   United States. Jul 27 2009 07:50. Posts 618

pretty sure the whole crux of the article is that the same opponent who folds TT 50% to a cbet will bluff 56s 100% on a turn if you skip the cbet even when it misses completely is terrible and makes your calculations worthless

edit: wait rofl the example hand gets better

its against a guy who flats the original raise with 76o and then calls the 3bet after the initial guy folded

 Last edit: 27/07/2009 07:52

edzwoo   United States. Jul 27 2009 08:04. Posts 5911

I definitely understand the point you were trying to get across in the article.

The issue is, I feel like the article is intended for beginners, but this is a subject that they are a bit better off not trying to apply as it puts them in too many difficult spots postflop. There also is a lot of talk about hand ranges and math, and I feel like it doesn't apply so much to them.

I really believe that an article should either be geared towards a beginner or a more advanced player, and not really in between.

If you haven't already, check out Phil Galfond's Hidden EV article here: http://www.bluefirepoker.com/article.aspx?action=view&artid=1009

I believe it's kind of what you were trying to get across, except its geared towards better players and gets very in depth in various situations.


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Jul 27 2009 08:17. Posts 9634

to lazy to read is this the G bucks article ?


SpasticInk   Sweden. Jul 27 2009 10:10. Posts 6298

i thought it was fairly well written..

my biggest objection would be that check-calling QQ on a Kxx board puts our hand fairly face up, and any decent hand reader (opponent) will double barrel or even trippel barrel against us, making it to a pretty much a guessing game.


SpasticInk   Sweden. Jul 27 2009 10:12. Posts 6298

nutedawg has a video on this on cardrunners who was really good imo, it's called where da gold at and is his first video on cr.


Edjon   Netherlands. Jul 27 2009 14:39. Posts 1579

thank you all for taking the effort to read it and comment, both positive and negative

I read the article form Phil Galfond and this is indeed what I am trying to get across. For those who did not like my example, this is his example:

You’re playing a loose, very aggressive player heads up, 25/50 with $5k stacks. You raise A♠5♠ to $150 and he calls. Flop is J♥ 6♠ 4♥. He checks. Most people bet here, using the justification: “I probably still have the best hand here, so I’ll bet.” They’ve learned from experience that a bet here takes down the pot around 60% of the time, so they win money on average with a $250 bet into the $300 pot. The problem is that they don’t look at the “hidden” EV of checking. If you check, not only could you check down and win the pot, but you could pick up one of your two backdoor draws on the turn, or improve to the best hand with an ace. Also, he folds to your bet on the flop a lot of the time. But think a little bit about what hands he’s folding. Is he ever folding a pair? No. He probably isn’t even folding many better ace-high hands. He’s folding hands like Q-9 and 10-9 and K-2 suited hands that you likely will win the pot against anyways. So, he calls with hands like 6♠5♠, 5-5, etc. But he raises with hands like K-J, 8♠7♠, K♥5♥, and some random air hands. He then forces you to fold the best hand or a hand that had outs to improve. Now, I don’t want to be one-sided. He occasionally will hit a 9 on the turn with his 10-9 that would have folded. Or decide to bluff you off your hand with a picked-up turn draw that would’ve folded the flop. All in all, this is actually a close decision on whether or not to continuation.

the rational of checking or betting in both examples (Phil's and mine) is more or less the same, although there is a big difference in the strength of the hands.

@SpasticInk: you are right. And this is the point where knowing your opponent makes value imo. A good opponent will know that you are checking a hand behind with showdown value, but if we know his tendencies we can take advantage of his reaction to this. In position an opponent can only double barrel, which does not blow up the pot. oop I wouldnt check QQ so often in the same example.
thanks for the tip. Nutedawgs videos are great btw. I really enjoyed his last leakfinderseries.


Edjon   Netherlands. Jul 28 2009 15:54. Posts 1579

http://www.liquidpoker.net/h/722936

this is also a good live example imo


 



Poker Streams

















Copyright © 2024. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap