CB: General theory question

[MAYHEM45]

In position against one opponent, I'm CBing 99% of the time.

[Talking Poker]

-Multiple opponents
-You are OOP
-The board is very draw heavy
-You completely missed the flop and have no draw.

I just listed four criteria. It wouldn't necessarily take ALL FOUR to make me not CB, but it would take me at least two. Generally, I'd say that if three of the above are true, I'll likely not CB.

Like anything else, you can't really put "rules" into place for this, but I think this is a pretty decent guideline, and it's simple to understand.

You could also add in things about your images, like:
-You have an overly aggressive image

Or things about your opponents:
-Villain is a huge calling station and rarely folds postflop.

Those could go in the list above too, but I think the first four are a good start.

[Wes]

There are spots where I do think auto cbetting in position is a leak.

[Zybomb]

Good post -- I also used to think along these lines in the above example and often played it as you suggested. The problem was I found that often I would simply give an opponent free cards and he would pair up later on in the hand, and I wind up kicking myself for not cbetting (when its so likely opponent missed flop). Yes I realize it's only 28% that opponent will pair the turn or river but after seeing it multiple times I began to rethink my strategy and began to bet these type of flops with AK type hands often again. What about TWO opponents. I think with two its one of the rare times that Im MORE like to CBet (since there could be 4 live cards potentially and its unlikely anyone hit this flop) What's your take on everything here?

[Wes]

I used to think that giving free cards was a major pitfall, but not so much anymore. Generally, if a bet is solely to protect myself from 6 outs, I think it is a bad bet. Certainly I'm not saying that checking with AK on a T44 rainbow flop to be an automatic play against 100% of opponents, but just automatically doing it because you raised preflop seems foolish to me.

Like, people apply this concept on the turn when they check behind with weak made one pair hands, but they don't do it on the flop because everyone loves cbetting, even if it will lead to worse decisions for more money than if they didn't.

[melioris]

So then you are comfortable calling thin (never knowing if villain is value betting some wacky hand or bluffing-probably the same thing actually) in small pots?

As the games change and aggression becomes even more emphasized, I have been wondering if an appropriate adjustment is to ratchet down aggression and let folks bleed chips. I usually wonder this after donating to some donkey that played a monster passively. Is this tangent somewhat related to what you are thinking?

[Zybomb]

As you move up in limits, players thinking levels move up

Low Limit: Flop T44, Player A CBets AK because flop likely did not hit opponent, Player B folds bc flop missed him

High Limit: Flop T44, Player A CBets AK because flop likely did not hit opponent, Player B raises because flop likely did not help PFR

Notice how player B is playing his cards in Low Limit and his opponents card in High Limit. In some games (high or low limit) when players are simply not content of calling a PFR and just check folding if they miss, CBs are not as effect as in a game where players are playing ABC poker

[melioris]

I appreciate what you said, but it doesn't really address my question.

I was asking something along the lines of if player B is going to raise your CB and put in you an uncomfortable position in a larger pot, and because aggression is so valued these days player B will most likely fire if the flop gets checked, it is better to allow player B to bluff into you (and still keeping the pot smaller than if you got c/r on the flop) when you can only beat a bluff instead of continually CBing?

[Wes]

That has a lot to do with it. Games are getting tougher and it takes an ability to read hand ranges well and to know what you expect your opponent to think what your hand range is to be successful now. This probably deserves another thread though to discuss further.

[Invigilator]

These last few points are very interesting. I would think that raising the bet, whether it was a CB or a check bet would be a much riskier play than the whiff bet.

I have found myself making the raise of the CB latley (and profitably), but it usually because I have caught some part of the flop or have high cards myself.

[Talking Poker]

Along the lines of this thread, and especially the above quoted post, please check out . It's not the exact same thing, as I wasn't the preflop aggressor, but I think it still applies. I'll be interested to see what you all think.

[Zybomb]

Another Question I wanted to bring up based on this statement (because I include this as well in my game)

Would this include not CBetting AT on a A83 rainbow flop?

[Wes]

AT probably like 100% of the time. It's almost always best + people call with worse a lot. Also not cbetting AT just lends itself to making your range almost all bluffs.

[Zybomb]

So youre assuming people call a raise with A9- and then call a flop bet enough of the time then?

[Wes]

87, 89, t8, a2-a9s, 99-tt