re: Poker & "The Preflop Aggressor"
I mean it is true that after the flop, the guy in position is always better off, but the reason to c-bet is so that you do not lose control of the pot. What I mean by this is that, if you check, you have given all of the control to the other guy. You effectively now have no idea where he is. Then if you bet later, he can come back over the top, on a straight bluff and you really would have no clue what to do. If you c-bet, especially more than a min-raise, even if your flop is blank, you get a really good idea of where he stands with his hand. Of course anyone can play deceptively, calling to the river and then coming back over the top. I mean c-bets are what you said, and that is to be used against the average player that really isnt being tricky. You see Phil Ivey (Harrington at times as well with the squeeze play), do exactly these types of things. If they get their opponent to fold, then they get free chips. If they call and catch him doing it, all it does is make everyone at the table rethink how he is playing. Personally I always c-bet if the flop is blank(ish). I mean if there are 3 clubs out there and I have AQ hearts, then I probably wont throw anything out there. Even then sometimes I will take the chance, especially against a weak/passive player that I know will fold if they didnt catch a hand. The other reason that c-betting works, is when you want to trap. If they are used to you betting betting betting, then you check and they throw something out there, if you come back over the top, they really have a hard time figuring out where you are. It goes both ways...