[FTR Quick Tip #001] To C-Bet or not to C-Bet?

This is the first installment of a new weekly video series, where we will be looking into various beginner strategies and aim to improve your game, in 5 minutes or less.

In week 1 we ask the age old question: to c-bet or not to c-bet?

Questions or comments? Discuss in this thread!

I enjoyed that.

Could maybe do with a few more examples though? Or do you not want the video's to be too long? ( I did notice the 5mins or less )

Originally Posted by Cobra_1878

I enjoyed that.

Could maybe do with a few more examples though? Or do you not want the video's to be too long? ( I did notice the 5mins or less )

Thanks for the feedback. We haven't decided on a format yet, but figured shorter videos (5 minutes or less) would be best. We can work on a few more examples, or maybe lengthen them a bit, because I agree that it's beneficial to see 6-10 situations over 2-3 to get a better understanding.

Originally Posted by givememyleg

Thanks for the feedback. We haven't decided on a format yet, but figured shorter videos (5 minutes or less) would be best. We can work on a few more examples, or maybe lengthen them a bit, because I agree that it's beneficial to see 6-10 situations over 2-3 to get a better understanding.

Completely agree, 6-10 situations at that speed and in that depth would be much more beneficial in my opinion.

Also, do you have a structure that you're going to go through or is it just randomly picked situations? What I am trying to say is, is there an order in the videos, such as pre flop play, then post flop; flop, turn, river decisions etc etc? Not sure if I explained that very well.

no set format yet, will jump around a bit based on whatever situation sounds good at the time. also taking suggestions anyone may have.

How about sticking to short videos but making them on more specific topics. (Something like: "3-way on the flop - to c-bet or not to c-bet?" or "Very wet board - to c-bet or not to c-bet?")

Originally Posted by givememyleg

no set format yet, will jump around a bit based on whatever situation sounds good at the time. also taking suggestions anyone may have.

How to extract value when you flop a royal flush.

Nice work, gmml.
'Bout time someone did something like this.

Agree that either the title or the video is too short. Specific topics are better, because hopefully, FTR will have hundreds of these awesome vids someday, and more than one of them will cover C-betting.

Next topic could be "Flop texture: What is a wet or dry flop?"

Next topic after that: "C-bet sizing: Using flop texture to your advantage."

Makes a nice trilogy... and everybody loves trilogies.

I would prefer shorter videos and looking at one c-bet spot really closely in one video, versus longer videos with multiple examples.

It might be interesting to do c-bets versus certain villains i.e. would the AJ situation have a different outcome if villain were SB or BTN, or if villain is a station, or if villain always calls c-bets no matter what he has.

Strongly agree with both hands. H2 is excellent exploitation. Whenever a 12/10 calls an MP open, it's like "GEE, I WONDER WHAT'S GOING ON HERE!"

After reading responses, I'm fine with a more haphazard style. There's something too comfortable or even spoonfeed-y about breaking this up into specific "types" of scenarios. In an in-game situation where you're playing 4+ tables, you're going to be put in situations pretty haphazardly and having a process based on "what's my range; what's villain's range; what's the board; what's my hand; how does villain react to bets" is really going to be the only constant.

Being a grandmaster wizard of what to do on wet boards and then watching another video to become the grandmaster wizard of what to do on dry boards and then so on for different types of villains, etc just seems really artificial.

All that being said, 3b cbet spots should probably be treated as its own can of worms and kept separate.

That's just my thoughts, though. I'm probably in the minority, and I probably won't be watching a ton of any of them, so feel free to ignore, haha.

Hi guys. I am the one who made the video. Thanks for all the feedback. I look forward to the chance to make more of these videos and hear your comments. I've been playing online poker since 2004, and have played poker for the majority of my income for 5 of those years. I have both coached others and been coached by better players, so I think I have learned a lot of concepts that I can explain in this video series.

Originally Posted by Cobra_1878

Completely agree, 6-10 situations at that speed and in that depth would be much more beneficial in my opinion.

Also, do you have a structure that you're going to go through or is it just randomly picked situations? What I am trying to say is, is there an order in the videos, such as pre flop play, then post flop; flop, turn, river decisions etc etc? Not sure if I explained that very well.

So far, I have been thinking that the topics will be kind of random, just small topics that I think of, or that are suggested for me to do. I think I understand what you mean about breaking them up into some kind of order, but at the same time, I don't want to do 10 videos on preflop stuff, then 10 on flop, then 10 about turn decisions, etc. I think it might get boring, both for myself and for viewers, if I make videos for 10 straight weeks about similar or related topics.

Originally Posted by Fielmann

How about sticking to short videos but making them on more specific topics. (Something like: "3-way on the flop - to c-bet or not to c-bet?" or "Very wet board - to c-bet or not to c-bet?")

Yeah, there's this dilemma between making the videos too specific vs too vague. I don't want to give advice that is too specific, as you might only face a specific type of decision once every 1,000 hands or more. At the same time, I'm trying not to make kind of high-level theory vids, which almost require you to know everything already before watching the video. So, I'm trying to strike a balance between explaining some of the theoretical ideas that you should keep in mind (opponent's tendencies, wet v dry flop, hand strength, and barrelability), while still giving a couple of concrete examples so that we see how these theoretical concerns actually combine and play out in practice.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

How to extract value when you flop a royal flush.

As all sophisticated players realize, the way to extract value with a Royal is by making sure that the turn pairs the board, giving your opponent trips, a boat, or quads. This will allow you to get value from your opponent's monster 2nd-best hand. See my future video "Owning the RNG: Rigtard's Delight" for more details.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Nice work, gmml.
'Bout time someone did something like this.

Agree that either the title or the video is too short. Specific topics are better, because hopefully, FTR will have hundreds of these awesome vids someday, and more than one of them will cover C-betting.

Next topic could be "Flop texture: What is a wet or dry flop?"

Next topic after that: "C-bet sizing: Using flop texture to your advantage."

Makes a nice trilogy... and everybody loves trilogies.

I am thinking about certainly making more videos about c-betting in the future, although I hadn't thought about making several of them in a row. But having a couple of small series, maybe 3-4 vids about similar spots, with each one building upon the previous one, is certainly something to consider.

Originally Posted by agnesamurphy

I would prefer shorter videos and looking at one c-bet spot really closely in one video, versus longer videos with multiple examples.

It might be interesting to do c-bets versus certain villains i.e. would the AJ situation have a different outcome if villain were SB or BTN, or if villain is a station, or if villain always calls c-bets no matter what he has.

Yes, it's interesting to consider what we would do in different positions, or against different villains. But then, we could also consider what to do if the board were slightly different, or if we held a very slightly weaker or stronger hand. Or if stacks were a bit different, or..., or... And then the 5 minute video turns into half an hour.

Originally Posted by surviva316

After reading responses, I'm fine with a more haphazard style. There's something too comfortable or even spoonfeed-y about breaking this up into specific "types" of scenarios. In an in-game situation where you're playing 4+ tables, you're going to be put in situations pretty haphazardly and having a process based on "what's my range; what's villain's range; what's the board; what's my hand; how does villain react to bets" is really going to be the only constant.

Being a grandmaster wizard of what to do on wet boards and then watching another video to become the grandmaster wizard of what to do on dry boards and then so on for different types of villains, etc just seems really artificial.

All that being said, 3b cbet spots should probably be treated as its own can of worms and kept separate.

That's just my thoughts, though. I'm probably in the minority, and I probably won't be watching a ton of any of them, so feel free to ignore, haha.

Yeah, I largely agree with everything you've said here, surviva. I think I agree that we need to have some level of distance from the specific examples given, which is why I talked a little bit about evaluating board texture, hand strength, and opponent's tendencies in the video; those things are helpful in other c-betting spots, not just the ones depicted in the video.

I'm looking forward to hearing more of your comments, and to making more of these videos. Thanks, everyone who watched.

I think this is a great idea, and look forward to the next video.

For this video I have one question, it might be stupid but hey We always look at the other player' stats to determine what to do, but must we not also look at what stats the opponent might have on us?

Yeah, PokerKing, sometimes we'll want to think about what the other player thinks about us. But in order for that to really matter, the following needs to be true:

1. Our opponent is aware enough to think about what we're doing
2. Our opponent has a good enough sample size on our play to accurately gauge what we are doing
3. Our opponent is sophisticated enough to correctly take advantage of his knowledge about what we are doing to adjust his play
4. The play we are going to make will actually change, depending on the adjustments the other player is making

I think the first thing is true maybe 50% of the time, the second perhaps 30% of the time, the third maybe 30% of the time, and the last one, perhaps, 30% of the time. If you multiply those percents together, you get about 1.4% of the time that you will need to consider what stats and reads the opponent has on us. Of course, I just made those numbers up out of thin air, but I think the general principle applies that you should generally play your own game, considering your ranges and opponent's ranges and tendencies, and not worry too much about how your opponent's reads on you are going to affect his play.

This changes a lot as you move up in stakes, but I think that at the micros, the most likely person to cause you to make exploitable mistakes is yourself. So, I would only consider opponents' reads on you as a significant factor in your decision-making process when you're playing against somebody whom you know is a tough reg, or somebody against whom you have tons of hands and who has shown the ability to adjust to your play. And actually, those situations will be further limited if you are using good table-selection skills.

Originally Posted by Mike1013

Yeah, PokerKing, sometimes we'll want to think about what the other player thinks about us. But in order for that to really matter, the following needs to be true:

1. Our opponent is aware enough to think about what we're doing
2. Our opponent has a good enough sample size on our play to accurately gauge what we are doing
3. Our opponent is sophisticated enough to correctly take advantage of his knowledge about what we are doing to adjust his play
4. The play we are going to make will actually change, depending on the adjustments the other player is making

I think the first thing is true maybe 50% of the time, the second perhaps 30% of the time, the third maybe 30% of the time, and the last one, perhaps, 30% of the time. If you multiply those percents together, you get about 1.4% of the time that you will need to consider what stats and reads the opponent has on us. Of course, I just made those numbers up out of thin air, but I think the general principle applies that you should generally play your own game, considering your ranges and opponent's ranges and tendencies, and not worry too much about how your opponent's reads on you are going to affect his play.

This changes a lot as you move up in stakes, but I think that at the micros, the most likely person to cause you to make exploitable mistakes is yourself. So, I would only consider opponents' reads on you as a significant factor in your decision-making process when you're playing against somebody whom you know is a tough reg, or somebody against whom you have tons of hands and who has shown the ability to adjust to your play. And actually, those situations will be further limited if you are using good table-selection skills.

Interesting read Mike. The way you put it, it does indeed look like as if you only have to worry about this on higher stakes, or against players that you have played a lot with, and of who you think they are good enough players to use the stats they have on you. Thank you Mike