Micro's small c-bet strategy proposal

Posted by

Posted by posted in Low Stakes

Micro's small c-bet strategy proposal

As I have experimented with smaller c-bet sizing (30-35% pot ish) in the micro stakes, especially w/ a wider range from the BTN vs blinds, I have found they rarely achieve the desired effect (of a wide c-bet often used to fold out equity). I know that the blinds will be continuing w/ a wider range vs a smaller bet sizing's + the BTN's already wide range, but It's not become rare for me to see players end up at the river w/ ridiculous hands (seemingly 100% of the range they get to the flop with), often w/ no flopped equity or SDV. I am regularly using these small c-bets in 3b pots on dry texture's, or even in a normal pot (from any position), entirely dependent on range's, board texture, and obviously how those ranges interact w/ that texture. I have also spotted micro/small stakes streamers come up against player often spazzing vs small-c-bets.

Therefore I propose the use of smaller c-bets for an entirely different purpose at the micro/small stakes. Instead of the more traditional use of folding out hands w/ equity OTF/OTT (delayed), and perhaps using the smaller sizing to exploit ranges on certain textures, and give yourself a 'good price' to take down the pot. Perhaps we can begin to extract maximum value, and exploit an overly wide continuing range, as well as to allow opponents to 'spaz'.

For example, vs a 50% pot c-bet V is continuing with 40% range, whereas vs a 33% pot c-bet, V is continuing with 75% range. To really exploit this strategy players will need a much more developed post flop ability than with the traditional c-bet (in order to optimally play turns/rivers vs such a wide range).

To further detail, I am suggesting these smaller c-bets w/ a stronger range OTF/T in order to exploit wide continuing ranges. This is as w/ a wide/light c-betting range OTF (as traditional), the suggested sizing often does not produce effective results at these stakes. Now I am not saying these sizing's cannot be used for the more traditional purpose in certain spots, as they definitely can (in-fact I recommend the use of these sizing's for both purposes, not only to exploit different spots, but to remain balanced).

Not sure if a similar strategy has been suggested in the past, just find this quite an interesting strategy, and I am further interested in how these smaller c-bet sizing's can be used effectively.

Also interested to see how players utilize these smaller c-bets in their game, and how you can potentially use them to exploit opponents (in what spots, from what positions, vs what ranges etc.)? And how do you find players react to these sizes in different spots?

P.s First time posting on this site, also created a thread on this strat/topic over at 2+2.

6 Comments

Loading 6 Comments...

Gaffero 7 years, 9 months ago

I'm finding that tayloring c bet size according to HUD stats is a really good strategy. Against better players my c bets are smaller and against the passive players i make them really big, generally in 3b pots i'll go for around 60% because i believe there is a big difference in fold equity between 40% v 60% which overcompensates for the price.

screamdustry 7 years, 9 months ago

Hey.

Not sure what limits/site you're playing, but from a huge database at 50/25nl PokerStars, population is still overfolding and not defending properly against low sizings.
They're not calling enough, but even if they would, its still not enough. They're definetely not raising enough. Proper response to 100% 1/3 cbet is often a 20-25% raising range and almost no one is using this counterstrat to 1/3.

For example, vs a 50% pot c-bet V is continuing with 40% range,
whereas vs a 33% pot c-bet, V is continuing with 75% range.

I know its example, but there is no way for a numbers to be that diffrent. I think in most cases the FEQ diffrence in 1/3 and 1/2 bets, for same textures, will be lower than required 8%.

HappyZKoala 7 years, 9 months ago

Hi. I am playing 5/10nlz on stars.
This is very interesting, as unfortunately I am not using a tracking software (PT4 etc.), which means I can't look over a database of my hands. This post was simply going of the way I noted players were reacting to the smaller sizing's, there is obviously problems w/ this method of collecting data - A). human error B). sample sizes C). No statistics (in terms of percentages of calls/raises etc.), and so on.

Due to this I shouldn't (and wont be) looking into this strategy much more until I get a tracking software, where I can properly look over data/info - this was more of just a proposal to the community to hear feedback lol.
Cheers for the input - really useful to hear about findings over a large sample of data at the micro's

johnny118 7 years, 9 months ago

from my experience (NL25-NL50), when a player cbet 33% OTF, he has nothing and, when IP, i just always call it off and then bet the turn with my air if checked to, exactly as if the flop went check check and i was probing the turn.

When oop, I will obviously be forced to play more straightfowardly as i am not fond of floating oop, even against a weak range.

When you think about it, the incentive to be balanced in a huge player pool is weak and it wouldnt make sense to bet stronger holding like that appart from balancing, i.e when you have a hand, you loose so much EV when betting so small.

I find that check raising those bets on the flop dont yield a lot of fold equity as the cbettor will usually be happy to float at least one street IP and the population in general likes to fight more OTF then on any other streets.

HappyZKoala 7 years, 9 months ago

'from my experience (NL25-NL50), when a player cbet 33% OTF, he has nothing and, when IP, i just always call it off and then bet the turn with my air if checked to, exactly as if the flop went check check and i was probing the turn.'

This is exactly why I am proposing the strategy. these small c-bets often indicate weak holding's (and in truth, are often used when pre-flop aggressor has flopped little), which in turn induce's floats/more action from V. Or at the very least induces as wider continuing range (as it should). As you mentioned, you 'always call it off IP vs smaller c-bet sizing (33%)', now imagine if I were to utilize this bet sizing with my strong holdings, as well as some weaker combo's (to balance, and make it hard for you to adjust). Now I'm getting action from 100% of your range (I'm sure you don't call 100% of your range, but let's just say a much larger percentage than vs a 50% c-bet).

This was the basis of the strategy, but as I think others have commented, there are certainly flaws in the strat (as expected).

Be the first to add a comment

Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy