My reply is broken down in paragraphs Numbers, following your reply.
1
I am glad you agree with the basic break down of Skilled/Aggressive players. And yes I agree with you to do it “some of the time”.
2
My definition of a “Good Player” was only for the purpose of this article. To break it down even simpler, my point was a player who can play against a continuation bet. This is not my general definition of a good player.
The condition of the article was that there was no hit on the flop. These points lead me to think you wish to discuss “Continuation Sized Bets” which would be a far longer article than the one above.
(Heads up) I would NEVER give an opponent 3 – 1 calling odds from a continuation bet. Regardless of if I hit on the flop or not. That is ridiculous negative EV. Continuation bets are sufficient value to protect you from flushes & straights. The should give your opponents bad odds to call.
(In a Three Way Pot) I would use the principals in my article above. Especially if I do not I hit on the flop,
3
Continuation bets are not defined as weak bets. So I don’t agree with this point. However the second part of this paragraph is very valid.
4
Table image is not part of my strategy. Nor to I wish to implement it at this moment in time. However if you also meant this is an issue of aggression, I off course agree. The more aggressive you are, when you are actually holding you will be called more often (over a TAG). Excellent point Pete.
My dismissive stance to tournaments is well known in regards to preflop strategy. Yours differs greatly from mine. You know this. Other than that every other aspect of tournament play I respect, as I do I your opinion on the subject.
Thank you very much Pete for your relpy.
May there be more to come
- Sordini.