Poker.ie Forums - View Single Post

PEter Gibney · 03-10-2006, 08:58

One of my favourite points about the continuation bet (and here I'm thinking in terms of Dan Harrington's prescribed 1/2 of the pot) is that it only needs to succeed one time in 3 to be a break-even play. As you rightly point out, this breaks down in the face of skilled or just plain agressive players, and I think you will indeed save money by not continuation betting into them as often as you would against a weaker or more passive player. But I do believe strongly that it's essential to do so some of the time.

Supposing we take the 'Good Player' opponent. Such a player is likely to be monitoring your actions, trying to figure out what you are doing and why. If this player knows/thinks that any bet made by you on the flop with a raised pot is likely to be a value bet, you will likely never get any action from them. Consider how many raised pots you might check-fold to such a player when the flop doesn't help, only to see them fold when you offer them 3 - 1 calling odds the first time you do bet - frustrating, and in the long term, cutting profits (here I'm talking about continuation-sized bets, where the flop has helped you and you are betting for value).

Similarly, while an aggressive player (assuming you mean LAG) is likely to raise what they sense is a weak bet, they are in my experience somewhat less likely to do so if they perceive the bettor as only ever betting solid hands for value. In other words, if you should flop the nuts, you can only hope to extract full value from your hand if the aggressive player has seen you fold in the past when your continuation bet has been raised.

It's almost an investment in table image, if you follow me. Giving action to get action. I think it's definitely worth firing off a continuation bet in some of those situations you mention, purely to maintain the implied odds for when you're betting with a hand. It's not that you would make the continuation et in all cases, that would indeed be a waste of money.

I realise you're talking about cash play here, but I would again urge you, Sordini, to read Harrington on Holdem. You owe me a tip of the hat, since the 'Two's Company, Three's a Crowd' principle - as well as others - are discussed by Harrington thoroughly in the first 2 volumes. I was not even aware that the continuation bet was a known tool of the cash game player. Even if you plan on maintaining your dismissive stance towards tournaments, there's an extent to which 'poker is poker' and if you're only now realising that continuation bets decrease in effectiveness in multi-way pots, well, it's possible there's more that Harrington can tell you.

03-10-2006, 08:58	#2 (permalink)
PEter Gibney Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5 vCash: 500	Re: Two is Company. Three is a Crowd... One of my favourite points about the continuation bet (and here I'm thinking in terms of Dan Harrington's prescribed 1/2 of the pot) is that it only needs to succeed one time in 3 to be a break-even play. As you rightly point out, this breaks down in the face of skilled or just plain agressive players, and I think you will indeed save money by not continuation betting into them as often as you would against a weaker or more passive player. But I do believe strongly that it's essential to do so some of the time. Supposing we take the 'Good Player' opponent. Such a player is likely to be monitoring your actions, trying to figure out what you are doing and why. If this player knows/thinks that any bet made by you on the flop with a raised pot is likely to be a value bet, you will likely never get any action from them. Consider how many raised pots you might check-fold to such a player when the flop doesn't help, only to see them fold when you offer them 3 - 1 calling odds the first time you do bet - frustrating, and in the long term, cutting profits (here I'm talking about continuation-sized bets, where the flop has helped you and you are betting for value). Similarly, while an aggressive player (assuming you mean LAG) is likely to raise what they sense is a weak bet, they are in my experience somewhat less likely to do so if they perceive the bettor as only ever betting solid hands for value. In other words, if you should flop the nuts, you can only hope to extract full value from your hand if the aggressive player has seen you fold in the past when your continuation bet has been raised. It's almost an investment in table image, if you follow me. Giving action to get action. I think it's definitely worth firing off a continuation bet in some of those situations you mention, purely to maintain the implied odds for when you're betting with a hand. It's not that you would make the continuation et in all cases, that would indeed be a waste of money. I realise you're talking about cash play here, but I would again urge you, Sordini, to read Harrington on Holdem. You owe me a tip of the hat, since the 'Two's Company, Three's a Crowd' principle - as well as others - are discussed by Harrington thoroughly in the first 2 volumes. I was not even aware that the continuation bet was a known tool of the cash game player. Even if you plan on maintaining your dismissive stance towards tournaments, there's an extent to which 'poker is poker' and if you're only now realising that continuation bets decrease in effectiveness in multi-way pots, well, it's possible there's more that Harrington can tell you.