Sunteți pe pagina 1din 27

C-beting in NLHE 6-max- Part 1

3 years ago | Written by Bugs

Like

We build on material discussed in previous articles about optimal postflop play, and look into flop cbetting in more detail, taking flop texture into account.
1. Introduction
This is the first part of an article series about flop c-betting in NLHE 6-max. In the previous series
"Optimal Postflop Play in NLHE 6-max" we looked at postflop play in the scenario where one player has
raised preflop and gotten called by another player in position. We discussed how the player in position
can defend optimally against c-bets on the flop, and against 2- and 3-barrels on the turn and river. Then
we discussed how the preflop raiser can play the turn and river optimally after c-betting the flop and
getting called, to prevent his opponent from exploiting him by floating.
For both the preflop raiser out of position and the flatter in position we built postflop strategies that
prevents their opponent from exploiting them by betting or floating with any two cards on any street. The
flatter in position has to defend enough against c-bets to prevent the preflop raiser from c-bet bluffing any
two cards on the flop. And those times the preflop raiser has c-bet the flop and gotten called, she has to
play the turn in such a way that she prevents the flatter from floating on the flop with any two cards
(planning to steal the pot on the turn).
In our discussion of turn and river play for this scenario, we simply assumed that the preflop raiser had
started postflop play by c-betting her entire range on the flop. When we looked at turn and river barreling
we limited our study to dry flop textures, so this assumption was reasonable.
In this article we'll look more closely at c-betting with "air" on the flop, heads-up as the preflop raiser.
We'll use a model where one player (Alice) openraises out of position and gets flatted by another player
(Bob) in position. The flop comes, and Alice has a c-bet decision to make. We want to train our ability to
recognize flop textures where Bob's preflop flatting range has connected poorly, so that Alice can c-bet
any two cards profitably on the flop.
We are then assuming that Bob is not willing to defend optimally. Because if he does, we can't profit from
c-betting any two cards per definition of optimal play. So we are assuming that Bob will fold more than
the optimal amount on flop textures that are bad for his preflop flatting range (for example, a dry flop like
J 6 2). In "Optimal Postflop Play in NLHE 6-max" we built optimal postflop strategies for Bob to use in
this scenario, but now we'll assume he behaves more like the players we meet in practice. And they will
typically fold too much on flop textures that mostly misses their range.
In Part 1 of this series we'll study how well different flop textures hit a typical preflop flatting range (we'll
use our standard 10% "IP flat list" range). Based on this, we can estimate the EV of a c-bet bluff with a
worthless hand on different textures. In Part 2 we'll vary the preflop flatting range and see how the EV of
the c-bet changes when we're up against a tight (~5%) and a loose (~15%) flatting range. This analysis
will train our ability to identify profitable c-bet bluffing spots based on the flop texture and our
knowledge about the preflop flatter's range.
The modeling we do in these articles is inspired by the video Alans Common C-betting Spots by

Bluefirepoker coach Alan Jackson.


Our approach in this article series about c-betting is exploitive. We make assumptions about various
opponent mistakes, and then we move away from optimal play in order to exploit these mistakes. Our
previous work on optimal play gives us a starting point, and tells us in which direction we should move
our strategy. The main mistake we focus on in this article series is the mistake of folding too much to a cbet. We want to find spots where our opponent is making this mistake, thus giving us an opening for c-bet
bluffing any two cards profitably.
2. Our model
Here are the assumptions we'll use in this article:
2.1 Assumptions about preflop ranges

Alice (100 bb) openraises in CO

Bob (100 bb) is on the button and follows the previously defined optimal strategies for 3/4/5betting. Other than that he flats his standard range in position ("IP flat list").

Alice knows Bob's flatting range based on observations and HUD stats

Alice uses our standard 25% opening range from CO:


22+
A2s+
K9s+
Q9s+
J8s+
T8s+
97s+
87s
76s
65s

A9o+
KQo
QTo+
JTo

326 combos
25%

We assume Bob uses the optimal 3/4/5bet strategy against a 25% opening range, given in the table of
optimal strategy pairs built in "Optimal 3/4/5-betting in NLHE 6-max - Part 2":

Download link (right-click and choose "Save as"): IP_3-bet_summary.doc


So Bob will use the following preflop strategy against Alice's 25% CO raise:

3-bet {QQ+,AK, 12 air} for value, planning to 5-bet all-in against a 4-bet

3-bet bluff 70% of "IP 3-bet air list", planning to fold against a 4-bet

Flats the entire "IP flat list": {JJ-22,AQs-ATs,AQo-AJo,KQs-KTs,KQo,QJs-QTs,JTs,T9s,98s}


=140 combos when {QQ+,AK} is 3-bet for value

Bob's standard preflop flatting range then has 140 combos, which is 140/1326 =10.6% of all hands. This
range is representative for what many players will flat on the button in this scenario, and it's a reasonable
assumption to use against unknowns.
When the flop comes, Alice tries to determine whether or not she has a profitable c-bet for 0.75 x pot with
any two cards. She bases her analysis on her knowledge about Bob's preflop flatting range, the flop
texture, and assumptions about which hands Bob is willing to defend with.
Since Alice c-bets 0.75 x pot, she is giving herself pot odds 1 : 0.75 on a bluff with any two cards. A c-bet
bluff will be automatically profitable if Bob folds more than 0.75/(1 + 0.75) =57%. If Alice's analysis
concludes that Bob in practice will fold more than 57%, she can c-bet her entire range profitably on the
flop. If not, she has to check and give up with some of her weakest hands. How much hand strength we
need to c-bet proftiably in this case will be discussed in future articles.
The purpose of the work we do in Part 1 is to train our ability to come up with a qualitative yes/no answer
to the question about whether or not we can c-bet any two cards profitably. We look at the flop, we think
about our opponents preflop flatting range, and we analyze how the flop and the range interact. We then
introduce some assumptions about which hands opponent will defend in practice against our c-bet, and
we have our answer.
2.2 Assumptions about Bob's flop strategy
We'll look at two example flop textures in this article:
- Very coordinated
- Very dry
For both textures we'll first build Bob's optimal defense against Alice's c-bet. The optimal defense
strategy is designed to prevent her from c-betting any two cards profitably. If Bob uses this strategy, there
is nothing Alice can do to exploit him by bluffing a lot on the flop.
Then we'll make some assumptions about the strategy Bob will use in practice. We'll assume that Bob will
fold some weak hands (for example overcards and weak pairs) that he should not fold on flops where his
range is weak and difficult to defend correctly. Then we'll analyze whether or not Bob's deviation from
optimal play will make it possible for Alice to exploit him by c-bet bluffing any two cards.
Exactly how Bob deviates from optimal play will be a function of the flop texture. Here are three general
assumptions we'll use for the non-optimal version of Bob:

1. He is not willing to bluffraise against Alice's c-bet

2. He is not willing to call the c-bet with pairs lower than two of the cards on the board (for
example, he will fold 77 and all lover pairs on a A 8 2 flop)

3. He is not willing to call the c-bet with naked overcards and gutshots, with no additional draws

In addition we can make specific assumptions about how Bob will play on specific flop textures. If we do
make extra assumptions, we'll use good poker sense and let Bob play the way a typical opponent in our
games will play.
In general, we'll assume that the non-optimal Bob plays like a typical decent-but-not-great low limit
player. He plays mostly straightforward, he bluffs little when others have the initiative, and he has limited
knowledge about the interaction between flop texture and hand ranges. Also, he does a poor job changing
his postflop strategies and ranges based on the pot odds he's getting.
The non-optimal version of Bob mostly sees each hand as an isolated case, and he does not think about
the hand as a part of an overall range. This is typical for how the majority of poker players think. They
think things like "I have top pair, which is a good hand" or "I have bottom pair, which is a very weak
hand", and they don't think about all the other possible hands they could hold in this particular scenario.
3. C-betting on a coordinated flop
In "Optimal Postflop Strategies in NLHE 6-max" we concluded that our standard positional flatting range
"IP flat list" is easy for Bob to defend on coordinated flops like J 9 3, since these flops hit his preflop
range hard.
Now we'll show through analysis why c-bet bluffing any two cards on these flops is a bad idea heads-up
and out of position against a preflop flatter, even if our opponent is tight and straightforward. This is
something most players intuitively understand, but not we'll "prove" it using theory, and we'll get a much
clearer picture of exactly why this is so. Then we'll repeat the process on a dry flop, and we'll see that dry
textures give us opportunities for profitable any-two-cards c-bet bluffing if our opponent is somewhat
tight.
3.1 Optimal defense against c-betting on a coordinated flop
Alice (100 bb) raises her standard 25% range from CO, and Bob flats his standard 10.6% flatting range
"IP flat list" ={JJ-22,AQs-ATs,AQo-AJo,KQs-KTs,KQo,QJs-QTs,JTs,T9s,98s} =140 combos.
Our coordinated flop is:

When Alice c-bets, she bets 0.75 x pot, and Bob needs to defend at least 1/(1 + 0.75) =57% to prevent her
from c-betting any two cards with automatic profit.

Bob has 120 remaining combos in his range after adjusting for card removal effects, as shown below:

Bob's optimal defends is then to defend 0.57 x 120 =68 combos. We remember from "Optimal Postflop
Play in NLHE 6-max" that Bob's defense on coordinated flops has three components:
- Raise the best hands for value
- Flat the next best hands
- Bluff raise some weak hands using a 1 : 1 value/bluff ratio
Below is a suggestion for a near-optimal flop strategy for Bob. At this point in the analysis our only
concern is to defend with 68 combos (or thereabouts) overall. If this leads us to folding or bluffing with
hands that could have been played more profitably by calling, this is not a problem for us.

Value raise:
{TT,55,QTs,AQ,AJ,KJ} =23 combos

Flat:
{KQ,QJs,JJ,ATs} =24 combos

Bluffraise:
{KTs,JTs,T9s,KJ,KJ,KJ,98,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ,98,98,98} =22 combos

Total: 69 combos (optimal: 68)

As we have seen in previous articles, the optimal flop defense ranges are strong on very coordinated flops
after we have flatted our default "IP flat list" preflop. We have so many strong hands to use that we can
get away with only flatting top pair + best underpair (JJ) + 2nd pair/top kicker (ATs). All lower pairs can
be folded or used as bluff raises.
3.2 Non-optimal defense against c-betting on coordinated flop
Now we'll limit the strategies Bob is willing to use when he defends against Alice's c-bet:

1. He is not willing to bluffraise against Alice's c-bet

2. He is not willing to call the c-bet with pairs lower than two of the cards on the board (for
example, he will fold 77 and all lover pairs on a A 8 2 flop)

3. He is not willing to call the c-bet with naked overcards and gutshots, with no additional draws

We remember that Bob has to defend less than 57% to give Alice a profitable any-two-cards bluffing
opportunity when she c-bets 0.75 x pot. So the question we want to answer is this:
Will the restrictions above make it impossible for Bob to defend at least 57% on the flop?
If this is the case, Alice can c-bet her entire range profitably. We now try to build a defense strategy for
Bob where he defends 57% (68 combos) given the limitations above:

Value raise:
{TT,55,QTs,AQ,AJ,KJ} =23 combos

Flat:
{KQ,QJs,JJ,ATs,KTs,JTs,T9s,98,KJs,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ} =43 combos

Bluff raise:
None

Total: 66 combos (optimal: 68)

We can easily get to around the optimal defense, even if we're not willing to bluffraise, call with 3rd pair
or lower, or float with naked overcards and gutshots. The weakest draw Bob has to call with is AdJx/AxJd
(overcard + gutshot + backdoor flush draw).
3.3 Conclusion for defense against c-betting on coordinated flop
Both the optimal and the non-optimal versions of Bob could easily defend the optimal 57% on this flop
texture. These flops hit Bob's preflop flatting range so hard that the can get away with folding lots of
marginal hands, and still defend enough.
A range analysis with Pokerazor illustrates this with numbers:

On this flop we have 2nd pair or better 45% of the time (see the list "Cumulative frequency" to the right).
So we can cover most of the optimal 57% defense with good one pair hands. And the rest is easily
covered by our draws. Even if we never bluff raise, flat pairs below 2nd pair, or flat naked
overcards/gutshots, we can get to 57% defense.
We therefore conclude:
Alice can't c-bet any two cards profitably on our very coordinated flop texture, even if Bob plays tightly
and isn't necessarily willing to defend an optimal amount. He can easily build defense strategies that
defend the optimal amount, even with strong limitations on the hands he is willing to defend.
In future articles we'll talk more about how much hand strength we need to have a profitable c-bet on
these flops. We obviously have to be willing to semibluff a bit, and c-bet some weak draws. But we
should check-fold our pure air, like 76, 22 and A4 on this flop. Bob simply doesn't fold often enough to
make it profitable, even if he plays somewhat tight postflop.
4. C-betting on a dry flop
Next we'll show why c-bet bluffing with any two cards on very dry flops generally is a good idea Even
players who defend loosely on the flop will find it difficult to defend the optimal amount, since this
requires them to float with lots of air.
4.1 Optimal defense against c-betting on dry flops

Alice (100 bb) raises her standard 25% range from CO, and Bob (100 bb) flats his standard 10.6% flatting
range "IP flat list" ={JJ-22,AQs-ATs,AQo-AJo,KQs-KTs,KQo,QJs-QTs,JTs,T9s,98s} =140 combos.
Our dry flop is:

This is the classic super-dry flop with one Broadway card, two medium/low cards, and no flush or openended straight draws possible. Again, Alice c-bets 0.75 x pot, and Bob needs to defend 57% to prevent her
from bluffing with any two cards, as in the previous case.
After adjusting for card removal effects, Bob has 126 remaining combos in his range:

Bob's optimal defense requires him to defend 0.57 x 126 =72 combos. We remember from "Optimal
Postflop Play in NLHE 6-max" that Bob defends only by flatting on very dry flops. So he slowplays all
his monsters (only sets are monsters on this flop), together with hos good hands, and some weak hands.
He is often forced to flat with all his one pair hands, and perhaps also float some naked overcards and
gutshots in order to defend optimally.
Below is a suggestion for an optimal flop defense strategy for Bob:

Value raise:
None

Flat:
{99,22,KQ,KJs,KTs,JJ-TT,T9s,98s,88-44} =72 combos

Bluff raise:
None

Total: 72 combos (optimal: 72)

Bob has to flat all his pocket pairs, except 33. As an alternative, he can fold some low pocket pairs and
float his best overcards instead (AQ):

Value raise:
None

Flat:
{99,22,KQ,KJs,KTs,JJ-TT,T9s,98s,88-66,AQ} =76 combos

Bluff raise:
None

Total: 76 combos (optimal: 72)

But regardless of how he chooses to do it, Bob has to flat lots of weak hands on this flop texture in order
to defend the optimal 57%.
4.2 Non-optimal defense against c-betting on a dry flop:
Again, we introduce limitations for Bob:

1. He is not willing to bluffraise against Alice's c-bet

2. He is not willing to call the c-bet with pairs lower than two of the cards on the board (for
example, he will fold 77 and all lover pairs on a A 8 2 flop)

3. He is not willing to call the c-bet with naked overcards and gutshots, with no additional draws

Then we see how far he can go:

Value raise:
None

Flat:
{99,22,KQ,KJs,KTs,JJ-TT,T9s,98s} =42 combos

Bluff raise:
None

Total: 42 combos (optimal: 72)

It turns our that if Bob is unwilling to flat with naked gutshots, naked overcards, and pairs lower than two
of the cards on the board, it is impossible for him to defend the optimal amount. He gets to 42/126 =33%
defense, and folds 100 - 33 =67%.
Let's say Alice c-bets with a worthless hand that will never win the pot when Bob doesn't fold on the flop.
Her EV for the bet is:
EV (c-bet)
=0.67 (P) + 0.33 (-0.75P)
=+0.42P

Where P is the pot size on the flop. If the preflop raise was 3.5 bb, the pot is P =2(3.5) + 0.5 + 1 =8.5 bb
on the flop. Alice's c-bet bluff is then worth 0.42 x 8.5 bb =3.6 bb. This is a very nice profit for an anytwo-cards bluff with a hand that can only win when Bob folds.
4.3 Conclusion for defense against c-betting on dry flops
Bob could defend our dry flop texture optimally without floating with extremely weak hands, but he had
to drop down to the "cellar" and use his lowest one pair hands. Alternatively, he could fold some low pairs
and float with some of his best overcard hands instead.
When Bob's strategies were limited, it was impossible for him to defend enough. If he is unwilling to call
with his lowest one pair hand, good ace high hands, or gutshots, he can't defend our dry example flop
optimally. This opens him up for getting exploited by Alice's any-two-cards c-bet bluffs.
A range analysis with Pokerazor illustrates this with numbers:

On the coordinated example flop we had 2nd pair or better 45% of the time, in addition to many draws.
On the dry example flop we have 2nd pair or better only 33% of the time, and we have no strong draws,
only naked overcards and gutshots.
Most NLHE players know (or intuitively see) that our dry example flop is an excellent flop to bluff at. So
you can expect the preflop raiser to c-bet a lot when you are the preflop flatter on such a flop. Therefore,
if you believe the preflop raiser will try to exploit you by c-bet bluffing with any two cards, don't be
afraid to float!.
Remember that you will also call with some good hands like sets, top pair, and good 2nd pair/underpair
hands. So if he 2-barrels a lot with air, he will get punished by your strong flatting hands. Think about
what his range looks like on this type of flop. If he has raised from CO, his range is full of garbage like
A8o, 76s, etc. Force him to play turns with these hands if he is aggressive enough to c-bet any two cards
on the flop.
If he keeps betting on the turn, you have to fold low pairs like 55 and floats like AQ, but you will still
plenty of hands to continue with (remember, you have slowplayed sets and top pair hands in your range).
So your turn range will be decently strong, even if you floated the flop with a weak range.

5. Summary
In this article we have begun studying c-betting on the flop in heads-up pots as the preflop raiser.
We saw that coordinated flops are easy to defend optimally for the preflop flatter, even if he isn't
necessarily willing to defend optimally. When we did the same model study on a dry flop, we saw that it
was impossible for the flatter to defend optimally if he was unwilling to float his weakest one pair hands,
and/or some floats (overcards/gutshots type hands. When you have identified such players at the table
(and they are common at the low limits), you can c-bet dry flops with your entire range against them, and
"print money".
The gist of it is that all flops can be defended optimally, in principle (it's only a matter of including more
and more weak hands, as the flop texture gets drier), but many players are unwilling to do so if it requires
them to defend with very weak hands. These players can be exploited by c-bet bluffing a lot on dry flop
textures. On the driest of flops, you can c-bet your entire range profitably,.
In Part 2 we'll continue our modeling. Now we'll let Bob use two other preflop flatting ranges (tight =5%
and loose =15%) in addition to his standard 10% "IP flat list". This gives us an opportunity to learn about
how various preflop flatting ranges hit various types of flop textures, and the consequences this has for
our c-betting strategy.
Being able to classify flop textures as coordinated or dry gives us possibilities to c-bet profitable with any
two cards, and this was what we learned in this article. If we also train our ability to distinguish between
different opponent ranges, we add one extra dimension to our analysis. This will enable us to find even
more profitable c-bet bluffing spots. A particular flop texture can give us a profitable c-bet bluff against
one opponent range, but not against another. This is the topic for the next article.
Note that the work done in this article defines a method for training our ability to recognize profitable cbet bluffing opportunities. You can generate random flops using Flopgenerator.com and perform this type
of analysis, using assumptions about your opponent's flatting range and postflop tendencies. This will tell
you whether or not you have a profitable any-two-cards c-betting opportunity on the given flop.

C-beting in NLHE 6-max- Part 2


3 years ago | Written by Bugs

Like

We build on material discussed in previous articles about optimal postflop play, and look into flop cbetting in more detail, taking flop texture into account.
1. Introduction
This is Part 2 of the series "C-Betting in NLHE 6-max" where we take a closer look at flop c-betting in
NLHE 6max. In Part 1 we looked at c-betting heads-up and out of position as the preflop raiser. We
studied c-betting with "air" (worthless hands) on two example flops:
Coordinated flop

Dry flop

We assumed that the raiser had opened our standard 25% CO range:
22+
A2s+
K9s+
Q9s+
J8s+
T8s+
97s+
87s
76s
65s

A9o+
KQo
QTo+
JTo

326 combos
25%

While the flatter used our standard ~10% "IP flat list", defined in the article series "Optimal 3/4/5-betting
in NLHE 6-max", and given in the summary document below:

Download link (right-click and choose "Save as ..."): IP_3-bet_summary.doc


We wanted to find out whether or not c-betting any two cards was profitable on these two flop textures,
against this preflop flatting range. First we let the flatter defend optimally against the c-bet on both flop
textures. When he does, the preflop raiser can (per definition) not profit from c-betting any two cards as a

bluff. The flatter defends just enough to prevent it (1/(1 + 0.75) =57% defense if the c-bet is 0.75 x pot).
Next, we let the flatter deviate from optimal flop play. We let him play closer to the way a typical weaktight opponent plays, namely folding too much on certain flop textures and not defending aggressively
enough. More specifically, we gave him the following restrictions on the flop:

1. He is unwilling to bluff raise

2. He is unwilling to call c-bets with pairs lower than two of the board cards (e.g. he will fold 77
and lower pairs on a A 8 2 flop).

3. He is unwilling to float naked overcards or naked gutshots without additional draws

In other words, we assumed that the flatter would play straightforward against c-bets, and that he would
see each hand as an isolated case. He does not think about defending his total range sufficiently against cbets, but thinks only about whether or not the hand he has right now can be played profitably on the flop
in a vacuum.
Folding a lot on the flop can be better for him than calling c-bets with lots of weak hands, if he does a
poor job of stealing on later streets (you need to be willing to sometimes steal on the turn and river if you
are floating a lot of weak hands on the flop). But note that if you're not willing to defend correctly on the
flop, you might lose money by flatting preflop. For example, if you're not willing to sometimes raise J9 as
a bluff on a T72 flop, or float and bluff turns when checked to, you might not have a profitable flat
preflop with this hand.
Based on the assumptions above we reached the following conclusions:

It was unprofitable for the raiser to c-bet any two cards on the coordinated example flop, even
with restrictions on the flatter's flop defense strategy

It was clearly profitable for the raiser to c-bet any two cards on the dry flop texture, when we
imposed restrictions on the flatters flop defense strategy

We concluded that the preflop raiser should check and give up with his total "air" hands (like 22, 22, A3,
and 76) on the very coordinated example flop. Also when the flatter defends in a weak-tight manner on
the flop. Simply put, such very coordinated flops are very easy to defend correctly, and there is nothing
the preflop raiser can do about it.
However, on the very dry flops we can c-bet all our "air" hands against an opponent who plays weak-tight
on the flop. If he is not willing to defend with all his pairs and some naked overcards and weak draws on
dry flops, we can fire away. The reason is that very dry flops mostly miss a typical preflop flatting range.
So in order to defend optimally on these flops, it becomes necessary to defend with some very weak

hands. Most players are uncomfortable doing that.


In Part 2 we'll build on the modeling we did in Part 1. There we let the preflop flatter use our standard
~10% "IP flat list" that we introduced in "Optimal 3/4/5-betting in NLHE 6-max - Part 2". This is a
flatting range we defined as our standard range in position outside of the blinds, regardless of the raiser's
position.
Now we'll give the flatter the option to vary his flatting range. We'll give him two more choices:
- A tight ~5% flatting range
- A loose ~15% flatting range
We'll repeat the modeling process from Part 1 using these two ranges, and we'll see if our conclusions
change. We'll find answers to the following questions:

Which range is easier to defend on a coordinated flop?

Which range is easier to defend on a dry flop?

Will the weak-tight restrictions we impose on the flatter's flop defense strategies be more limiting
for him with a tight range or with a loose range?

When this work is done on the very dry and very coordinated example flops. we'll look at some more
intermediate flop textures in Part 3. This will give us more insight into how various preflop flatting ranges
interact with various flop textures, and the consequences this has for the profitability of c-bet bluffing
with any two cards.
2. Assumptions about ranges
Assume the following model:

Alice (100 bb) raises to 3.5 bb preflop with her standard 25% CO open range. She gets flatted by
Bob (100 bb) in position

Alice c-bets 0.75 x pot on the flop, and we want to know if this is automatically profitable for her
with any two cards

We let Bob use 3 different preflop flatting ranges:


- A tight 5% range
- A medium 10% range (our standard "IP flat list")
- A loose 15% range

Bob's 10% "IP flat list" range was given earlier in the article. His other two options are defined as:
Tight 5% flatting range
JJ-55
AQs-AJs AQo
KQs
66 combos
5.0%

Bob here chooses to 3-bet or fold his lowest pocket pairs 44-22, and then he flats his remaining pairs and
the best high card hands that he doesn't 3-bet for value ({QQ+,AK} are value hands for Bob against
Alice's 25% CO range). This is a very tight flatting range, and Bob is giving up some profit by folding
hands like 44-22, ATs and QJs. On the other hand, this range should be easy to defend on many flops,
since it's so strong.
Loose 15% flatting range
JJ-22
AQs-A6s AQo-ATo
K9s+ KQo
Q9s+
J9s+
T8s+
97s+
76s
65s
200 combos
15.1%

Bob now flats all pairs plus a wide range of high/medium unpaired hands. The unpaired hands are
weighted towards suited and coordinated hands that will often flop draws (while hands like ATo depends
more on flopping a decent pair).
We expect this flatting range to be harder to defend correctly postflop, since it often flops medium/weak
hands and draws. When we start out with a wide and weak range, we will often have to defend with weak
hands against a flop c-bet. If we're not willing to do that, we risk folding so much that the preflop raiser
can exploit us by c-betting any two cards profitably.
It follows that in order to flat preflop with a wide and weak range, we have to be comfortable bluffing and
floating with weak hands postflop. If we're not, many of the hands we flat preflop might be unprofitable
for us. This is something we want to look at in our model study.
3. C-betting on coordinated flop

We'll now build Bob's defense strategies on the coordinated example flop from Part 1 with the 3 preflop
flatting ranges he has at his disposal (and the work for the 10% range was done in Part 1). For each range
we first estimate his optimal flop strategy. On coordinated flops, Bob's defense consists of:
- Raising his best hands
- Flatting his next best hands
- Bluff raise with some weak hands in a 1 : 1 value/bluff ratio
Then we build a strategy that the non-optimal version of Bob can use under the following weak-tight
restrictions:

1. He is unwilling to bluff raise

2. He is unwilling to call c-bets with pairs lower than two of the board cards (e.g. he will fold 77
and lower pairs on a A 8 2 flop).

3. He is unwilling to float naked overcards or naked gutshots without additional draws

When Bob defends optimally on the flop, Alice can't c-bet any two cards profitably per definition. When
Bob deviates from optimal play, she might be able to. She c-bets 0.75 x pot, so she can c-bet any two
cards with a profit if Bob folds more than 1/(1 + 0.75) =57%.
If we conclude from our analysis that the non-optimal version of Bob will defend less than 57%, Alice has
an automatically profitable c-bet bluff, regardless of her cards. We can then estimate the EV of her bluff
with an EV calculation.
3.1 Defense against c-bets with a tight 5% flatting range
On this flop, 55 combos remain in Bob's 5% flatting range, as shown below:

Optimal defense against a 0.75 x pot c-bet means Bob has to defend 57% of his total range, which is 0.57
x 55 =31 combos. Here is one way to do it:

Value raise:
{TT,55} =6 combos

Flat:
{AQ,KQs,AJ,JJ} =22 combos

Bluff raise:
{AJ,AJ,AJ,99,99,99} =6 combos

Total: 34 combos (optimal: 31)

Bob can easily get to the optimal defense and then some. Note that a queen high flop texture "smashes"
his flatting range, since almost all of his unpaired hands contain a Q. A king high flop would have given
him fewer pairs to use, but on the other hand a K high and coordinated flop would have given him various
draws he could use.
Now we restrict Bob's flop defense strategy and see what we get. A possible strategy for Bob to use under
these conditions is:

Value raise:
{TT,55} =6 combos

Flat:
{AQ,KQs,AJs,JJ} =25 combos

Bluff raise:
None

Total: 31 combos (optimal: 31)

Bob has to stretch a bit by floating AJ,AJ, and AJ that only give him overcard + gutshot combos. He is
unwilling to float naked overcards or naked gutshots, but he can float hands that give him a combination
of such weak draws. AJs makes the cut.
We see that the non-optimal version of Bob manages to (barely) get to optimal defense with his tight 5%
flatting range on our coordinated example flop. Alice can not c-bet any two cards profitably in this
scenario. But note that she might have been able to, if the flop had been king high instead of queen high
(we can always to a separate analysis if we want to look further into this).
3.2 Defense against c-bets with a medium 10% flatting range
This scenario was discussed in Part 1, and we only include the results here:
The remaining number of combos in Bob's range is 120:

Optimal 57% defense with 0.57 x 120 =68 combos:

Value raise:
{TT,55,QTs,AQ,AJ,KJ} =23 combos

Flat:
{KQ,QJs,JJ,ATs} =24 combos

Bluff raise:
{KTs,JTs,T9s,KJ,KJ,KJ,98,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ,98,98,98} =22 combos

Total: 69 combos (optimal: 68)

Non-optimal defense under weak-tight restrictions:

Value raise:
{TT,55,QTs,AQ,AJ,KJ} =23 combos

Flat:
{KQ,QJs,JJ,ATs,KTs,JTs,T9s,98,KJs,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ,AJ} =43 combos

Bluff raise:
None

Total: 66 combos (optimal: 68)

Bob can easily get to optimal defense with his 10% flatting range on our coordinated example flop. Alice
can't c-bet any two cards profitably in this scenario either.
3.3 Defense against c-bets with a loose 15% flatting range
The number of remaining combos in Bob's 15% flatting range is 174:

Optimal 57% defense means Bob has to defend 0.57 x 120 =99 combos. Here is one way to do it:

Value raise:
{TT,55,QTs,AQ,AJ,KJ,J9} =24 combos

Flat:
{KQ,QJs,Q9s,JJ,AT,KTs,A9,A8,A7,A6,98,97,87,76,65} =48 combos

Bluff raise:
{JTs,T9s,KJ,KJ,KJ,J9,J9,J9,AJ (not AJ)} =27 combos

Total: 99 combos (optimal: 99)

It's still easy for Bob to defend optimally on the coordinated flop, even with a loose preflop flatting range.
His range is dominated by suited and coordinated high card hands, and it hits this type of flop very hard.
He has more than enough strong/medium hands and draws to use.
When Bob is given weak-tight restrictions, defending enough will be harder. Mainly because he now
loses the option to bluff raise, which is an important component of the defense on coordinated flops. Now
he has to call more, but it might be difficult for him to come up with enough flatting hands, since he can't
use naked overcard/gutshot draws or his lowest pairs.
Here is one way to defend under weak-tight restrictions:

Value raise:
{TT,55,QTs,AQ,AJ,KJ,J9} =24 combos

Flat:
{KQ,QJs,Q9s,JJ,AT,KTs,JTs,T9s,T8s,A9,A8,A7,A6,98,97,87,76,65,KJ,KJ,KJ,JS9,J9,J9,AJ (not
AJ)} =72 combos

Bluff raise:
None

Total: 96 combos (optimal: 99)

Bob can get to optimal defense is he is willing to call the c-bet with all pairs 2nd pair or better, as well as
AJ for a overcard + gutshot draw. Alice still can't c-bet any two cards profitably on our coordinated
example flop.
4. C-betting on dry flop

Now we build Bob's defense strategies on the dry example flop from Part 1. For each range we first build
his optimal strategy. On dry flops, Bob's defense consists of
- Flatting with all his defense hands
The reason for using a flatting-only strategy on dry flop textures has been thoroughly discussed in the
article series "Optimal Postflop Play in NLHE 6-max". When the optimal strategies have been found, we
impose the weak tight restrictions:

1. He is unwilling to bluff raise

2. He is unwilling to call c-bets with pairs lower than two of the board cards (e.g. he will fold 77
and lower pairs on a A 8 2 flop).

3. He is unwilling to float naked overcards or naked gutshots without additional draws

Raising is not an option on dry flops regardless, so the restrictions only concern the hands Bob is willing
to flat with on the flop.
4.1 Defense against c-bets with a tight 5% flatting range
Bob has 62 remaining combos in his 5% flatting range after accounting for card removal effects_

Optimal defense means defending 57% of these, which is 0.57 x 62 =35 combos. Here is one way to do it:

Value raise:
None

Flat:
{99,KQs,JJ-TT,88-66} =36 combos

Bluff raise:
None

Total: 36 combos (optimal: 35)

Bob can easily get to optimal defense with his tight 5% range, without having to float with naked
overcards. Then we impose the weak-tight restrictions and see how that changes things. Now Bob can't
flat naked overcards, naked gutshots or pairs lower than the 9 on the board. This makes it impossible for
Bob to defend enough. If he goes as far as he possibly can, he ends up with:

Value raise:
None

Flat:
{99,KQs,JJ-TT} =18 combos

Bluff raise:
None

Total: 18 combos (optimal: 35)

Bob's problem in this scenario is that he is not willing to flat his lowest pairs and best overcards (AQ).
When he folds these hands, he can only get to about 1/2 of the necessary defense. He defends only 18/62
=29% of his range (as opposed to the optimal 57%), and folds 100 - 29 =71%. Alice can now exploit him
by c-betting any two cards.
Alice's EV for a pure c-bet bluff that can never win unless Bob folds on the flop is:
EV (c-bet)
=0.71 (P) + 0.29 (-0.75P)
=+0.49P

Where P is the pot size on the flop. If the preflop raise was 3.5 bb, the pot is P =2(3.5) + 0.5 + 1 =8.5 bb.
The EV of Alice's c-bet bluff is then 0.49 x 8.5 bb =4.2 bb.

Note that when Bob's preflop flatting range is tight, our conclusions are very dependent on the exact cards
that come on the flop, as well as the exact hands Bob's range is made up of. For example, if Bob had
elected to flat the 12 KQo combos instead of the 12 66/55 combos, he would have been able to defend
about optimally on this king high flop texture, also with the restricted strategy.
When Bob's range is very tight, we can gain a lot from paying close attention. Some players flat all pairs,
others fold or 3-bet-bluff the lowest pairs and flat more Broadway hands instead. Observe hands that go
to showdown, and take notes. If your PokerTracker/HEM database has many hands on a player, you can
use it to extract information and take notes between sessions (this is a smart thing to do for opponents you
meet regularly).
4.2 Defense against c-betting with a medium 10% flatting range
This work was done in Part 1, and below is a summary of the results:
The number of combos after card removal is 126:

Bob defends 0.57 x 126 =72 combos when playing optimally. Here is one way to do it:

Value raise:
None

Flat:
{99,22,KQ,KJs,KTs,JJ-TT,T9s,98s,88-66,AQ} =76 combos

Bluff-raise:
None

Total: 76 combos (optimal: 72)

And here is one way Bob can defend under the weak-tight restrictions:

Value raise:
None

Flat:
{99,22,KQ,KJs,KTs,JJ-TT,T9s,98s} =42 combos

Bluff-raise:
None

Total: 42 combos (optimal: 72)

Bob now defends only 42/126 =33% of his range and folds 100 - 33 =67%. Alice can exploit this by c-bet
bluffing any two cards. Her EV for a c-bet bluff with a worthless hand is:
EV (c-bet)
=0.67 (P) + 0.33 (-0.75P)
=+0.42P

Where P is the pot size on the flop. With a pot of 8.5 bb, the EV is 0.42 x 8.5 bb =3.6 bb.
4.3 Defense against c-betting with a loose 15% flatting range
We'll see that this is a difficult job for Bob when we impose weak-tight restrictions. The number of
combos that remain in his range after accounting for card removal effects is 180:

Optimal 57% defense means Bob has to use 0.57 x 180 =103 combos. Here is one way to do it:

Value raise:
None

Flat:
{99,22,K9s,KQ,KJs-KTs,JJ,TT,A9s,Q9s,J9s,T9s,98s-97s,88-55,AQ,QJs,JTs} =104 combos

Bluff raise:
None

Total: 104 combos (optimal: 103)

Bob has to flat almost all of his pairs, plus some overcard hands (AQ) and gutshots (QJs, JTs). It's hard
enough to defend optimally when Bob can use all hands, and when we impose weak-tight restrictions, it
becomes impossible. Here is what Bob comes up with when he goes as far as he can:

Value raise:
None

Flat:
{99,22,K9s,KQ,KJs-KTs,JJ,TT,A9s,Q9s,J9s,T9s,98s-97s} =56 combos

Bluff-raise:
None

Total: 56 combos (optimal: 103)

The defense is more or less identical to the optimal defense, except that we have dropped all pairs lower
than 9, all naked overcard hands (AQ) and all naked gutshots (QJs, JTs). Bob now defends about 1/2 of
the optimal amount: 56/180 =31% of his range. So he folds 100 - 31 =69% on the flop, and the EV for
Alices' c-bet bluffs becomes:
EV (c-bet)
=0.69 (P) + 0.31 (-0.75P)
=+0.46P

Where P is the pot size on the flop. With P =8.5 bb, the EV becomes 0.46 x 8.5 bb =3.9 bb.
So a c-bet bluff will be automatically profitable on the flop, but note something else as well: Bob is
forced to defend on the flop with many low pairs and weak draws, also under weak-tight restrictions. So
Alice should have many opportunities to 2-barrel profitably on the turn. Bob can protect himself
somewhat against 2-barrel bluffs by slowplaying his strongest hands on the flop, but life will still be
tough for him on the turn if Alice decides to bluff a lot.
So a good player with knowledge about Bob's preflop flatting range and his postflop tendencies should be
able to make even more money from c-bet bluffing by sometimes continuing to bluff on the turn and the
river. But note that we don't have to continue out bluffs in order to have a nicely profitable c-bet bluff in
isolation on the flop.
5. Summary
We used the two example flop textures (very coordinated and very dry) from Part 1 and continued our
modeling of c-bet bluffing. This time we let Bob use 3 preflop flatting ranges:
- A tight 5% range
- A medium 10% range (our standard "IP flat list")
- A loose 15% range
Based on our modeling, we conclude the following:

We can't c-bet bluff profitably with any two cards on a very coordinated flop against any
reasonable flatting range, even if our opponent defends weak-tight

On very dry flops we can c-bet bluff profitably with any two cards, if our opponent defends weaktight

We noted that the profitability of a c-bet bluff against the tight 5% range on a dry flop was very sensitive
to the exact flop texture and the exact composition of the flatting range. At the other end of the spectrum,
this became relatively unimportant against the loose 15% range.
A wide and weak preflop flatting range is impossible to defend correctly against c-bets on a very dry flop,
unless the player is willing to flat just about any pair plus lots of overcard and gutshot combos. Exactly
what the flop is, and exactly which hands we flat is now less important, since we have to defend lots of
weak hands/draws regardless.
We summarize:
On very coordinated flops we can't get away with any two cards c-bet bluffing regardless of our
opponents preflop flatting range. If he defends weak-tight, this does not help you a lot, since very
coordinated flop textures are so easy to defend.
On very dry flops you can probably get away with any two cards c-bet bluffing regardless of your
opponent's flatting range, as long as he isn't willing to always defend optimally. A wide flatting range
gives you the best opportunities, since wide ranges are very hard to defend optimally on very dry flops. Of
course, against an opponent that always defends optimally, we can't buff any two cards profitably, per
definition. But most players are unable or unwilling to defend enough on dry flops. So our starting
assumption can be that any-two-cards c-bet bluffing is profitable on very dry flops. If we are wrong
against a particular opponent, we can adjust later, and start checking more hands.
In Part 3 we'll look at some other flop textures in the region between very coordinated and very dry flops.
We'll also introduce a software tool ("Flopzilla") that lets us quickly analyze the profitability of a c-bet
bluff, without having to write out complete strategies like we have done up to this point.
Good luck!
Bugs

S-ar putea să vă placă și