Two is Company. Three is a Crowd...

[Sordini]

Why is this my first Article? Having earthmoving Poker revelations get fewer and fewer the longer you play. Having the penny drop, and learning something new that will save you a fortune every single time you play poker. If you are interested in my latest revelation read on.

I dont want to ruin the suprise. You might know this, you might not. But you may have one of those "penny dropping moments".

Consider this simple situation, AJ Off Suit. You raise 4 Bigblinds preflop, and you do not hit anything on the flop. Forget position for a moment. I asked a good friend:
"you know what, I'm wasting a fortune continuation betting when I don't hit..."

After much brain storming and taking the sensible option to phone a friend (another brain in the know), The three of us came up with this:

1) Two is company, three is a crowd. Three or more that is. Your continuation bet is less effective. Thus voiding some of the advantages of continuation betting in the first place. This message is the purpose of this article. The mere acceptance of this fact is saving me a fortune right now. Even as you read this article its saving me money. If you knew this, well I tip my hat to you sir. If you did not know this, accept this as fact, have one of those penny drop moments, Intergrate it into your standard play, reply to this artice telling me how you are going to save a fortune, and get on with your life, which of course now will be happier.
2) Out of Position against a known Good Player. Another article could be devoted to this point alone. Firsty if you were first to act a continuation bet now is in essence a bluff. Enough said. Secondly,for this point a Good Player player is defined as someone who knows what a continuation bet is. Players who know what a continuation bet looks like, can play aginst this, Good players might re-raise you, wheather they have the cards to back it up is irrlevant. We are discussing the "value" of your continuation bet.
3) Against Aggressive Players. Need I say more about that. We all find it easier to fold against aggressive players, espicallw when you dont hit on the flop. This is independant of point no. 2.
4) General Dangerous Flops. I don't really want to get into this issue as it is the least important. And defining a dangerous flop should be with in the scope of just about anybody if they sit down and think about it.

- Sordini.

[PEter Gibney]

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.

[Sordini]

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.

[PEter Gibney]

Originally Posted by Sordini

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.

I've no urge to restrict this to just a discussion of continuation-sized bets, but I think it's got to be part of the whole approach to continuation betting in general. Continuation betting is a move that I think of as an obfuscation technique, allowing you both to steal pots when you've raised and not hit, and get value for bets made when you do hit. You can't allow there to be too discernible a difference between your value bets and your bluffs.

(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.

Clearly your continuation bets are larger than mine! I've taken the 1/2 pot bet size directly from Harrington, and found it useful. Obviously you should vary the size here and there, but I like the 1 in 3 success rate to break even. I'll assume, since you haven't specified, that your continuation bets are more around the size of the pot. While this further reduces your opponent's calling odds, it's true also that not every continuation bet can succeed. Consider the stipulations of your article - AJ, raised pot, flop no help, OOP. The continuation bet is made since you were the pre-flop aggressor. If the continuation bet is going to succeed, I think it will succeed if it is half the pot or 5 times the pot. Likewise if it is going to fail. Note that when I say this, I'm referring to the ideal flop for a continuation bet, something like T 6 2 rainbow. If your opponent has, say, AQ, what bet can they call? Your larger continuation bet seems to me unnecessary. Conversely, if your opponent has flopped a set of sixes, I don't really see where you can make any bet that will win the pot. Even if you have the discipline to give it up when your CB is called, it's still more money than you would have spent betting half the pot, with the same result. Again for this point I am assuming the opponent is netiher particularly good nor particularly aggressive, either of which would give me pause before making that bet.

So when you say you would NEVER give the 3 to 1 calling odds, I agree when there's a straight or flush draw out there it's not ideal. But your break-even point now depends on the bet succeeding half the time. Can you honestly say that a pot-sized bet on the flop wins the pot there and then half the time? Even in a heads-up pot that hasn't been my experience...

My dismissive stance to tournaments is well known in regards to preflop strategy. Yours differs greatly from mine. You know this.

I wonder what Hellish image of my pf strategy you have in your mind... I play 9-handed cash tables and generally hover around 20 -22%. MTT's I'm more on the 18-20 mark. I mean I'm tight, dude... any impression to the contrary will have come from the short-handed games we've played (I think 20% is a little too rocky for 6-handed, I'll be up around the 35% mark there)... or from our heads-up play... where you just don't fold the small blind if you can help it

[Cian]

Originally Posted by PEter Gibney

Clearly your continuation bets are larger than mine! I've taken the 1/2 pot bet size directly from Harrington, and found it useful. Obviously you should vary the size here and there, but I like the 1 in 3 success rate to break even. I'll assume, since you haven't specified, that your continuation bets are more around the size of the pot. While this further reduces your opponent's calling odds, it's true also that not every continuation bet can succeed. Consider the stipulations of your article - AJ, raised pot, flop no help, OOP. The continuation bet is made since you were the pre-flop aggressor. If the continuation bet is going to succeed, I think it will succeed if it is half the pot or 5 times the pot. Likewise if it is going to fail. Note that when I say this, I'm referring to the ideal flop for a continuation bet, something like T 6 2 rainbow. If your opponent has, say, AQ, what bet can they call? Your larger continuation bet seems to me unnecessary. Conversely, if your opponent has flopped a set of sixes, I don't really see where you can make any bet that will win the pot. Even if you have the discipline to give it up when your CB is called, it's still more money than you would have spent betting half the pot, with the same result. Again for this point I am assuming the opponent is netiher particularly good nor particularly aggressive, either of which would give me pause before making that bet.

Some v.good points Pete.

Personally (6-max cash game player) I think betting half the pot is too small a continuation bet. In tournaments I guess its different, because pot commitment is a much bigger factor. But in a cash game, I think people are too quick to call a continuation bet with any kind of hand, because they recognise it as just that...an obligatory continuation bet. Because of this I tend to be that bit more aggressive as many players could be calling with 2nd pair or worse. Another decent turn bet is usually enough to shake them off the pot, as they were calling to test you, and you answered back...enough strength is represented to give your hand credibility.

I think you raise some very valid points about the necessity to bet when you dont hit, as a means of encouraging action when you do.

The good thing about continuation betting (and being the preflop aggressor) is that you control the action, and you control your involvement in the hand. Whether a player has flopped the nuts, or absolute air, the standard play is almost always to check to the preflop aggressor. This means that if you are called, you can usually take a free river if you want to, purely because a player who feels they have a strong hand is likely to put far too much dependancy on the value of deception.

[PEter Gibney]

I guess in the face of overwhelming opposition, I have to concede the point about the size of the continuation bet. Especially since (as it only now occurs to me) typically a bet of half the pot in a raised pot will represent much less of a prospective caller's stack in a cash game than a tourney. Live and learn.

BTW, any chance of being able to change my screen name? I thought the 'User Name' field was for your actual name and the screen name would be on the next page...

[Sordini]

But you still get the tip of the hat Pete!

[NickyOD]

Originally Posted by Sordini

[imga=left]
4) General Dangerous Flops. I don't really want to get into this issue as it is the least important. And defining a dangerous flop should be with in the scope of just about anybody if they sit down and think about it.

I don't agree with this at all. Flop texture is very important when considering taking a stab at a pot.

Example 1) 5 players limp into your BB and you decide to thin the field with AK and the button and SB call you. The flop comes 3-3-8 rainbow. The SB checks. This is a great flop because there is no reason for you to beleive anyone has a piece of this. A 2/3 the pot bet makes you hand look a lot like an overpair and should take the pot down often enough to be s proffitable play

Examply 2: You open raise from the Cutoff with with A-J. The BB who is very loose aggressive calls you. The flop comes Q-9-8. There are 2 hearts and you have the Ace of hearts. Villain checks. I'm quite happy to check behind in this spot. Although there are a lot of ways to improve my hand, its easily the kind of flop the villain could have connected with and I can get check raised on, especially if up to this point I've been quite willing to keep firing when I've raised preflop. On a less co-ordinated flop like K-2-5r then I'm very happy to fire out and represent the king. Note that in this example I have position on one oponent but int he previous I have 2 oponents and I'm out of position to one of them but still make a continuation bet.

Example 3: 1/2 6 handed. You've been away from the table and you decide to post UTG and get dealt K4s. You check. called around to the BB who is extremely LAG preflop. He raises from the BB to $10. You decide to take advantage of you position and get HU with him so you reraise to $30. The flop comes A-8-3. He checks. There is about $70 in the pot. What should you do? You should bet about $35-$40. It's possbile villain has an ace, but this player could have a lot of hands that don't include one. An ace is also a good scare card. continuation bets tend to be more successful when an ace flops becuase its the only card poor players understand. Also note that by betting about half the pot you only need this play to work one out of 3 times for it to be correct. Half pot bets are perfectly sufficient to gain pot control on uncoordinated flops. It's also very scary for an oponent who knows you well if you do the same with TPTK, a set or 2 pair.

[Sordini]

Example 1. Your Point about a textured flop gets my firm agreement. Espically if the player narrows the field preflop with a raise.

In example 2, Youraise preflop. With a less dangerous flop you continuation bet. With a more dangerous flop you check behind your player. Is this not in slight agreement with the original posting? Or have I missed your point.

Example 3. Your ace point on the flop I also strongly agree with. If I do not hit in future in that situation, I would definitly consider reducing the size of my flop bet slightly. As this would save you a lot of money over a period of time.