Mailbag: To C-Bet or Not to C-Bet

Q: My understanding is that I should generally continuation bet a polarized range consisting of both bluffs and strong hands but check medium-strength hands for pot control. Sometimes I have difficulty determining which category my hand falls into. For example, if I raise in middle position, the BB calls, and we see a Ks Jd Ts flop, is JT strong enough to bet? What about As Js?

A: Very good question. As with many tough decisions, this one is easier if you think in terms of not just whether or not to continuation bet with the cards you currently hold but what your plan will be for the entire hand. How you would play other hands in the same spot is also an important consideration.

Let’s start by thinking about JT. Two-pair is a strong hand, even on a flop like this one where it’s nowhere near the nuts. Depending on your opponent and how the board runs out, I can certainly envision scenarios where you’d be looking to bet three times for value.  That’s a reason to bet now, because you can’t bet three streets if you don’t bet the flop.

Of course, there are lots of turn cards that will greatly reduce the value of your hand. I’m thinking especially for an A, K, Q, 9 or spade. That might sound like a reason to check and wait for a safe turn before building the pot. However, these cards are bad not just because they potentially give your opponent a better hand but also because they make the board scarier for hands you are beating. AJ will almost certainly call a bet on the flop, but it may fold if the turn is a spade. The fact that board could get worse for you is a reason to bet now, before that happens. So my default play is to bet JT on this flop, even though it is in some sense a medium-strength hand.

With As Js, on the other hand, I like a check. Granted you have a lot of equity with the pair + flush draw, but I see two important considerations:

1. You ought to continuation bet almost all of your flush draws on this board. Thus, when you do check behind, spades become excellent bluffing cards for your opponent. Flush draws that also have some showdown value, which in this case is really only pair + flush draw, are the most obvious ones to check. This isn’t nearly enough to alleviate the problem of exposure to bluffs on flush card turns, but it helps.

2. Part of the reason As Js is a good candidate for (1) is that, although you have a lot of equity, betting doesn’t dramatically affect that equity. In other words, you don’t cause hands with a lot of equity to fold, nor do you cause hands with very poor equity to call, particularly not across multiple streets (worse pair + draw combos being the only exception). This by itself isn’t a reason to check, but it is a reason why you aren’t losing terribly much if you choose to include this hand in your checking range for the purpose of (1).

This is a step in the right direction, but it’s actually really difficult to balance both your betting and checking ranges. You simply don’t have enough big hands to distribute across both ranges. In Easy Game, Andrew Seidman actually advocates giving up on this goal entirely and continuation betting everything. In my opinion this is an extreme response to a problem that few opponents are good enough to exploit, but it’s an interesting idea that may have more relevance against really tough competition.

If you’re interested in learning more about this kind of “value planning” and the process by which you decide which streets to bet and why, there’s still space available in next week’s Maximizing Value seminar.

Do you have a question for the Thinking Poker Mailbag? Please leave it as a comment below!