Please set your LearnWPT Password now. Your username is the email address you joined with. Having trouble? Email us at [email protected]



C-betting 100% of the time vs 1 villain: could it be more +EV to tweak this "rule"?

  • donthomasj (Silver Spring, MD)

This is a question to get past the basics. There are some pros/coaches who currently argue against c-betting blindly vs 1 villain, and that it is more +EV to do so more selectively. To me, this does make sense. NLHE is such a complex game, that it does make sense to not have an "all or none" rule such as this. I suspect that there are more +EV situations to not always c-bet vs one, and I was hoping to get your opinion, Eric. For example, some situations I was wondering about (assume that we are talking about medium to deep stacks and tournament opportunity costs are not in the equation... such as in cash games and deeper tournament situations): when out of position, when have a particular player type (exploitative plays), very wet vs very dry, etc.

Eric, another reason I am asking this, is that after tracking over 4000 tournament hands, my c-betting HUD stat is 85%. I stick to the c-bet rules strictly, so I suspect that I am doing a really good job at narrowing down the field to one villain causing this stat to be so high. To an observant HUD villain, it seems like this stat could also get me more action post flop than I want.

btw, I am a winning player playing the LearnWPT c-betting strategies, I am just trying to delve into more nuances,


Answers are only available to members.