Cbets often get "better" hands to fold in terms of equity. I cbet the flop after my open w/67s, it's very likely that anything that gets mucked was a "better" hand than mine. Collecting dead money is obviously a big piece of the rationale too, but a bet is either for value or a bluff and I would think cbetting is frequently a bluff.
Not as often as youd think.
People peel a lot of flops.
When you cbet you dont expect to fold out better (you will fold out some better but its actually a much smaller percentage than you think.)
When you c-bet you do so because you think that a large % of your opponents range cannot continue on the board not because you have visions of folding out made hands.
An example might be cbetting an underpair on a drawy board.. most made hands peel. Most FDs are also overcards to your underpair. C-betting an underpair in this case is suicide because so much of the villians range calls and even the draws have more equity than an underpair on the flop... and you wont be barrelling often enough for them to realise that equity by showdown.
Realll cbets are not bluffs they are bets made with the soul intention of taking down dead money. If you know your opponents range and you know how that hits the board you should have an idea of how much dead money there is.
I suppse the easiest example would be this.
You hold 66s
Villian holds KK
Board is A39
If villian folds to a c-bet then that is a bluff. Do you expect KK to fold to a single bet on the flop? What about QQ, JJ, TT,? These are weak made hands on this board and you very rarely get them to fold to a c-bet!
22... 44.. 55 against those hands you are value betting but they probably wont call so your c bet dosent get value from hands you beat.
Hands like KJ with no FD do have some equity and should fold, but you arent bluffing when you fold out a hand you are ahead of!
