C-betting: check behind as the PF aggressor?

    • Th334
      Th334
      Bronze
      Joined: 26.11.2012 Posts: 971
      Hi all,

      I've been watching a podcast of the Beginners Course video 4 with veriz, and since I cannot find any feedback thread to ask directly the coach, I'll ask you guys :)

      There was a hand evaluation where the coach said that checking behind as the preflop aggressor is a leak and we should never do that (unless we are playing against a maniac). I myself tend to check behind from time to time if I completely missed the flop and the board is drawy.

      I don't think that most villains donk the flop with any playable hand and check/fold the rest. So what's the point in investing money into the hand where we have no equity and the board structure makes our fold equity pretty low as well?

      Thanks in advance,

      German
  • 4 replies
    • TinoLaan
      TinoLaan
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.10.2011 Posts: 6,411
      In such a scenario just checking back with little equity is perfectly fine, really. Especially if you're up against 2 players and the flop comes like 8h,9h,Tc or something, and you just have some overcards, it's not bad at all to just check behind, even if you are the aggressor. Your fold equity simply isn't good enough, because such a board hits their calling ranges pretty hard most of the time.

      I'm not sure in what context he mentions not to check back as the aggressor, but if he mentions it when he actually has a value hand, then I agree that simply value betting is far superior to checking behind. People will find plenty of spots to call with rubbish. So even if you have AK and the flop comes K82 rainbow, just value bet. You can easily get called by worse kings, 8x, pocket pairs, maybe some kind of players will even call with A high here. The point is, you want to bet for value whenever possible. Checking back does allow your opponent to catch some sort of hand on the river, but you're simply missing out on value if you don't bet.

      Of course, if your opponent is a maniac who will gladly bluff of his entire stack on the next two streets, you might consider checking it back.
    • Vygantas82
      Vygantas82
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.04.2010 Posts: 361
      There was a hand evaluation where the coach said that checking behind as the preflop aggressor is a leak and we should never do that (unless we are playing against a maniac).


      That is complete BS. Same BS as "you should always cbet on paired board". on micros against reg you can cbet on most flops except as you sayed very cordinated or small paired boards (bc you represent nothing and he probably will never fold pockets and A high(probably even rise), but if you have stats or reads then can acct accordingly) against fish without reads i would only bet any non coordinate board, wouldn't bet paired boards too(esp small paired), and always bet board with ONE high card. Against fish i wouldn't bet mono board bc if he has any card of that suite, even 2, he will not fold. No point to feed fish without use. If you have equty, like 8 or more outs offcourse you probably should continue. Later when you have more stats/reads you can acct accordingly. On microstakes esp if you play zoom/rush you can even vary your rises/cbets. with top hands against fish i would open 8 BB and cbet with nothing little more then 1/2 pot.
    • Th334
      Th334
      Bronze
      Joined: 26.11.2012 Posts: 971
      Tino, thanks for your reply!

      Yup, the whole confusion is about the bluffing case. I completely agree with you regarding cases where we hit something (TPTK in your example), and probably two of us could even write a novel describing why TPTK is not a check behind on a drawy board :) ...okay, stop flattering yourself...

      I'm glad to hear that my passive line in such spots (the bluffing case) is not wrong. Personally, the more I play on my limit, the more I adjust to it. On NL-2 you will way too often meet calling stations. I try bluff them as rarely as possible, and usually get rewarded with another buy-in once I hit something.

      However, I don't really want to focus on beating NL-2 :) I think this is achievable even by playing tight ABC poker. That's why I'm trying to improve my game in advance for various spots, even for those I rarely encounter on NL-2.

      You pretty much answered my question, but if someone has another opinion (or another reasoning), I will love to hear that ;)
    • Th334
      Th334
      Bronze
      Joined: 26.11.2012 Posts: 971
      Originally posted by Vygantas82
      There was a hand evaluation where the coach said that checking behind as the preflop aggressor is a leak and we should never do that (unless we are playing against a maniac).


      That is complete BS. Same BS as "you should always cbet on paired board".
      Vygantas, of course it's not like that. Just the coach wouldn't go into all the tiny details explaining the hundreds of exceptions during the session. What I was saying that during the game he bluffed c-bet in position, and his reasoning was as quoted. That's why I assumed that maybe it's not that important in these spots. "Not that important" and "we always ignore this" are quite different concepts: I was just trying to generalize to avoid all the redundant and obvious explanations.

      Sorry if I wasn't clear enough :)