So while I played a sh1t ton of hands really poorly in this vid, I'd like to defend my play in this hand:
Villain is a 26/7/29% that folds to 67% of c-bets over 58 hands.
Seat 3 is the button
Seat 1: kmj_64 ( $8.78 USD )
Seat 2: rob2776 ( $7.45 USD )
Seat 3: projectuber ( $26.98 USD )
Seat 5: ClaireBears ( $22.38 USD )
Seat 6: Hero ( $29.42 USD )
ClaireBears posts small blind [$0.10 USD].
Hero posts big blind [$0.25 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ As 3d ]
ClaireBears calls [$0.15 USD]
Hero raises [$1.00 USD]
ClaireBears calls [$1.00 USD]
** Dealing Flop ** [
** Dealing Turn ** [
** Dealing River ** [
ClaireBears bets [$2.50 USD]
Hero calls [$2.50 USD]
So BW07507 really advocates c-betting this flop, and I think that's pretty bad. Our hand has immediate showdown value against his range. Most of the time, against this fairly passive villain, we can check this hand down and win the pot.
However, when we bet, no worse hands are calling us. A2 is the only worse ace high, and no pairs are folding at this limit. So this bet is only for protection.
So if our opponent has a hand like 78os, then he has 27% equity in the pot, or $0.54 in this case. So if we bet half pot, we're charging villain $1 to get him to fold the $0.54 in equity that he has in the pot. It just doesn't seem like a good trade.
Add in the fact, that against villain's range of the top 26% of hands (altho, it might be wider than that) we only have 36% equity against.
So when we c-bet this flop, all worse hands fold, and all better hands call. Therefore, I don't think there's any value in c-betting this flop. Against all but the most loose/aggressive of opponents, who are going to be bluffing with air often, I check this flop behind in an attempt to showdown my ace high.