Harrington On Hold'Em: Continuation & Probe bets in SNGs

[pastabatman]

Hi,
I just read Harrington On Hold 'Em (loved it). One thing that stood out in the book for me was the discussion of continuation and probe bets. Under certain conditions, when the flop doesn't hit you well, Harrington suggests a range around 1/2 the pot for such bets. Should such plays be used in good SNG strategy, when you the flop doesn't hit you well? Sometimes? Never?

Usually, I haven't done so well when I've tried them, but my sample size is small, and I very likely mis-applied them at least some of the time. Also, it seems like trying this kind of thing can eat up your stack quickly. Maybe you should save it until you're ITM, or only when you've got a big stack?

Should I study them harder, or just forget about them when playing SNGs?

Thanks,
Pasta

[spentrent]

I haven't read the book but it seems like advice that applies more to big multi-table tournaments where starting stacks are considerably bigger relative to the blinds for many more hands. In fact it sounds like great ring game advice.

[lacky]

It's good poker and therefore it applies to sng's. If you fold or check everytime the flop misses you, you are weak-tight, the easiest type player to play against. BTW, weak-tight discribes the majority of non-LAG players in the mid priced sng's in the early rounds.

Steve

[lorinda]

weak-tight discribes the majority of non-LAG players in the mid priced sng's in the early rounds.

It also describes the winners, and this post just made me call 100 UTG with 47s

Lori

[lacky]

Lori,
I have a ton of respect for you, but I find it hard to believe you are advacating playing a predictable fit or fold style.

[ QUOTE ]
this post just made me call 100 cold UTG with 47s


[/ QUOTE ]

I admit I'm pretty tired, but you lost me here. I have no idea what that means.

Steve

[lorinda]

I don't necessarily think that weak-tight early is the BEST formula for success, but it certainly recieves too much scorn. It is not a losing formula in the mid limits as long as you play well late on.

I cunningly had "Reply" positioned over my call button. The 47s was nothing compared to the AA vs JJ loss the next hand anyway /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Lori

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
It's good poker and therefore it applies to sng's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this assertion. So here's a counter-example. To me, an SNG is a metaphor for a poker career where your stack is your bankroll.

Say you're on your LAST 200 bucks and you face a decision to play for a 6 to 1 pot on a 5 to 1 shot for every last penny. Calling is FANTASTIC POKER but you have an 80% chance of going FLAT BROKE and nobody loves you.

[lorinda]

As for the predictability, I would certainly mix it up at a game with regulars in.

I recently started using pokertracker for SNGs to check out one or two things that had me interested, and in 397 tourneys I have only met two people 10 times, my third most common opponent has played me 6 times.

Lori

[lorinda]

I haven't read Harrington (In fact I've hardly read anything /images/graemlins/blush.gif ) but it might be interesting to find what he says about hands as you approach the money.
A SNG afterall is a tourney where you start off only seven places away from the cash.

Lori

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read Harrington (In fact I've hardly read anything /images/graemlins/blush.gif ) but it might be interesting to find what he says about hands as you approach the money.
A SNG afterall is a tourney where you start off only seven places away from the cash.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

That's volume 2! /images/graemlins/mad.gif Volume 1 is more like full-table MTT stuff, though it is really good. We're all waiting like little birds for Volume 2 for him to dump it all in! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[lacky]

the post was about continuation bets on a flop that missed you, not on calling with marginally correct odds on a draw.

The situation he is talking about is:

You raise to 80 from the button with AQs, BB completes for 50 more. Flop is 10 6 4 rainbow, you got none of it, BB checks. If you bet that is a continuation bet.

If you check every time here it is increadably weak-tight and plain wrong. You should make a continuation bet here at least 80% of the time and will take the pot right then the huge majority of the time.

Steve

[lorinda]

I would agree that betting is the way to go here.

I guess my definition of weak-tight is a little less weak than yours /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Lori

[lacky]

lol, I tried to keep it simple. If I made it:

You raise to 80 from the button with AQs, BB completes for 50 more. Flop is 10 6 4 rainbow, you got none of it, BB bets out for 80, you raise to 160

I would just start another argument

Steve

[lorinda]

I learn more from arguing than from agreeing /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Lori

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
I learn more from arguing than from agreeing /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[lacky]

I'm too tired to agrue, I'm going to bed. Get me started earlier next time I'm having a hard time biting my tongue. Then we can talk about how bad I think the whole conserve chips at all costs in the early rounds idea is.

Steve

[ChrisV]

It totally depends on the circumstances.

I think in general it's a bad idea to bet a small amount to see if your opponent will fold. People do this all the time against me and I raise them off their hands constantly. You're better off making a decision about whether to bet a normal amount or just check.

[AA suited]

[ QUOTE ]
lol, I tried to keep it simple. If I made it:

You raise to 80 from the button with AQs, BB completes for 50 more. Flop is 10 6 4 rainbow, you got none of it, BB bets out for 80, you raise to 160

I would just start another argument

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

when you start off w/800 chips, putting in 240 (80+160) is ALOT.

that would mean you're betting on the turn too?

usually i would fold to the 1/2pot bet. if i raise preflop, and he bets out on a ragged rainbow flop then i put him on either a mid/low pair or has pocket pair.

if you raise, you'll probably see the turn and river for free. but if you dont catch that Q or A, then you just lost 30% of your stack if he has a pair (240/800=30%).

[AA suited]

[ QUOTE ]
It totally depends on the circumstances.

I think in general it's a bad idea to bet a small amount to see if your opponent will fold. People do this all the time against me and I raise them off their hands constantly. You're better off making a decision about whether to bet a normal amount or just check.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you as the bb checks on the rainbow ragged flop, the button bets 2/3 pot, and you raise him? how much would you raise him by?

and do you find that you usually end up with more chips this way than just folding to his bet?

[DrPhysic]

I would agree that the continuation bet commits too much of your stack when you have completely missed the flop.

I definitely think there is a place however for the probe bet.
Similar example:
You raise to 80 from the button with AQs, BB completes for 50 more. Flop is K Q 4 rainbow. You got some of it, but maybe not enough.

1:BB bets out for 80, you raise to 160, or
2:BB checks, you bet 80,

In either case as a probe bet. If you get re-raised, he probably has a K. Deal with it, gamble or fold, but you have gained valuable information at a reasonable price.

Doc

[Michael C.]

I think you have to make continuation bets a lot of the time. Lets say you raise with AK, and the flop is J 10 8 rainbow, or even suited. The flop missed the other player more often than not, and while you are committing 1/2 to 2/3 of the pot (or even the pot with lower antes), he's committing most of his stack. So it's a winning play. Also, if you make a bet and lose or check/fold, you'll get a lot more action when you really do hit your hand. I think the key is that your bets are the same amounts if you hit or miss. Of course sometimes you know your opponent has something and you check/fold. I also sometimes bet the turn when I think the opponent is on a draw. That's worked for me more often than not, but I've also had times where I've blown off most of my chips without hitting anything, which makes you feel about as stupid as can be...

One thing that I don't think works at all is to make mini bets or 1/4 of the pot or stuff like that. It's too easy for people to then raise you off, and if you bet the same way when you do have a hand, you're giving people odds to draw at you.

[AA suited]

you would raise to 160 if he bets out 1st with 1/2pot? now you've just committed 30% of your stack on this hand.

you're now down to 560 chips (assuming you start off w/800 chips.)

i would have cut my loses, folded, and have 720 chips to fight another battle. why gamble so early in the tourny?

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely think there is a place however for the probe bet.
Similar example:
You raise to 80 from the button with AQs, BB completes for 50 more. Flop is K Q 4 rainbow. You got some of it, but maybe not enough.

1:BB bets out for 80, you raise to 160, or
2:BB checks, you bet 80,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Harrington would call either of these a probe bet. The first is a raise, and the 2nd is a continuation bet (since you raised pre-flop).

He usually talks about probe bets when you call pre-flop. On the flop or turn, nobody else seems to be showing much strength, so you fire out a 1/3 pot sized bet to see what's up. You commit very little to the hand, but your opponent will need to put in a decent sized bet if he wants to raise you. This puts your opponent in an tough spot since your small bet could also indicate a trap.

Most of Harrington's SnG examples have bigger stacks (ie 1500) than we get at party. I think his advice is fantastic (who am I to argue), but be careful when applying it to shorter stacked games. One of his best themes is to always take into account all the stack sizes, so don't forget to do that when looking at the examples.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
It totally depends on the circumstances.

I think in general it's a bad idea to bet a small amount to see if your opponent will fold. People do this all the time against me and I raise them off their hands constantly. You're better off making a decision about whether to bet a normal amount or just check.

[/ QUOTE ]

A continuation bet is a "normal amount" bet. You should bet exactly the same as if you hit the flop with something like TPTK. The point is that those times you bet and get called/raise and have to resort to check-fold, are made up by those times when you get called or raise and have the goods.

[DrPhysic]

I agree. I thought about not using the raise example at all as it is not completely representative of what I had in mind.

The second example is however. The BB has shown either weakness or is slowplaying top pair (or any big hand) probably waiting to bet on the turn. You need to know which. Therefore the probe bet.

From Phil's post: [ QUOTE ]
On the flop or turn, nobody else seems to be showing much strength, so you fire out a 1/3 pot sized bet to see what's up. You commit very little to the hand, but your opponent will need to put in a decent sized bet if he wants to raise you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood the continuation bet as being a bet on the flop after you had bet preflop, but in a circumstance where you have basically missed the flop and you are making the continuation bet as a bluff to see if you can steal the hand.

More significantly, I understood the probe bet to be one where you need information. You have flopped a decent hand but a long way from the nuts, (regardless of who bet before the flop), and you need inexpensive information to find out if your hand is probably good or completely dominated.

I will go back and re-read the entire section of the book, but please educate me if I am mis-understanding the intent of the two bets.

Doc

[stillnotking]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It totally depends on the circumstances.

I think in general it's a bad idea to bet a small amount to see if your opponent will fold. People do this all the time against me and I raise them off their hands constantly. You're better off making a decision about whether to bet a normal amount or just check.

[/ QUOTE ]

A continuation bet is a "normal amount" bet. You should bet exactly the same as if you hit the flop with something like TPTK. The point is that those times you bet and get called/raise and have to resort to check-fold, are made up by those times when you get called or raise and have the goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! The key is to bet the same amount whether you hit the flop or not. It is generally very easy to spot players who bet the pot when they hit and 1/2 pot when they miss, and play accordingly. If you are watching for it, it is often very obvious when someone is making one of those "I don't like my hand so please do me a favor and fold" bets. I believe Doyle Brunson calls them post-oak bets.

[Pulplife]

I understood the continuation bet as being a bet on the flop after you had bet preflop, but in a circumstance where you have basically missed the flop and you are making the continuation bet as a bluff to see if you can steal the hand.

More significantly, I understood the probe bet to be one where you need information. You have flopped a decent hand but a long way from the nuts, (regardless of who bet before the flop), and you need inexpensive information to find out if your hand is probably good or completely dominated.

I will go back and re-read the entire section of the book, but please educate me if I am mis-understanding the intent of the two bets.

Doc

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Harrington, the only difference between a probe bet and a continuation bet are two things:
1) A continuation bet takes place on the flop after a pf raise vs. a probe bet takes place on the flop after a pf call.
2) A continuation bet is about 1/2 the pot vs. a probe is a bit less (closer to 1/4 the pot).

In both cases, you have either missed the flop or have a piece of it but not the nuts.

Hope this helps clear up Harrington's definition of the bets.

Pulp /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[pastabatman]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are watching for it, it is often very obvious when someone is making one of those "I don't like my hand so please do me a favor and fold" bets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, before reading HOH, my general understanding was that you should always bet the same amount, so you don't give information. But, if you're sometimes betting half the pot with something better, isn't that a good way to mix up your game?

BTW, great discussion! Thanks for the reponse.

Pasta

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A continuation bet is a "normal amount" bet. You should bet exactly the same as if you hit the flop with something like TPTK. The point is that those times you bet and get called/raise and have to resort to check-fold, are made up by those times when you get called or raise and have the goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! The key is to bet the same amount whether you hit the flop or not. It is generally very easy to spot players who bet the pot when they hit and 1/2 pot when they miss, and play accordingly. If you are watching for it, it is often very obvious when someone is making one of those "I don't like my hand so please do me a favor and fold" bets. I believe Doyle Brunson calls them post-oak bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrington does not advocate pot-size bets (which are the mantra on the 2+2 boards) -- he likes 1/2-pot bets a good portion of the time when you hit the flop... yes, I know that you may be giving people correct odds to call, etc. But if your usual bet is in the 1/2-pot range, then the probe/continuation is a normal size bet.

Also -- if you bet 1/2-pot, you only need to be "right," i.e., induce a fold one out of three times to break even... any more and you are in the money.

Note that Harrington also distinguishes online games from live games. He finds that online players don't respect bets that appear small (although they may be correct compared to the pot) and therefore you may need to bet more...

One last Harrington point in response to someone else -- his book DOES apply to S&Gs -- he uses many satellite/S&G examples in his book.

That's it for now...

[Pulplife]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I definitely think there is a place however for the probe bet.
Similar example:
You raise to 80 from the button with AQs, BB completes for 50 more. Flop is K Q 4 rainbow. You got some of it, but maybe not enough.

1:BB bets out for 80, you raise to 160, or
2:BB checks, you bet 80,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Harrington would call either of these a probe bet. The first is a raise, and the 2nd is a continuation bet (since you raised pre-flop).

He usually talks about probe bets when you call pre-flop. On the flop or turn, nobody else seems to be showing much strength, so you fire out a 1/3 pot sized bet to see what's up. You commit very little to the hand, but your opponent will need to put in a decent sized bet if he wants to raise you. This puts your opponent in an tough spot since your small bet could also indicate a trap.

Most of Harrington's SnG examples have bigger stacks (ie 1500) than we get at party. I think his advice is fantastic (who am I to argue), but be careful when applying it to shorter stacked games. One of his best themes is to always take into account all the stack sizes, so don't forget to do that when looking at the examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

This brings up a very important point, which applies to the thread discussing raising pocket tens after five players have limped in. I play at Poker Stars where your starting chip count is 1500. This allows you to play a stronger, less passive style. I'm not saying you turn into a LAG, but you are able to play your hands with strength...such as making a continuation bets without worrying about committing too much of your stack.

I like hate having to play defense right out of the gate because every bet or raise could cripple me. I think this naturally breeds tight/weak play (because you have to protect what little you have).

Pulp /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[DrPhysic]

Ty,

Now I will go re-read it.

Doc

[AA suited]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I definitely think there is a place however for the probe bet.
Similar example:
You raise to 80 from the button with AQs, BB completes for 50 more. Flop is K Q 4 rainbow. You got some of it, but maybe not enough.

1:BB bets out for 80, you raise to 160, or
2:BB checks, you bet 80,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Harrington would call either of these a probe bet. The first is a raise, and the 2nd is a continuation bet (since you raised pre-flop).

He usually talks about probe bets when you call pre-flop. On the flop or turn, nobody else seems to be showing much strength, so you fire out a 1/3 pot sized bet to see what's up. You commit very little to the hand, but your opponent will need to put in a decent sized bet if he wants to raise you. This puts your opponent in an tough spot since your small bet could also indicate a trap.

Most of Harrington's SnG examples have bigger stacks (ie 1500) than we get at party. I think his advice is fantastic (who am I to argue), but be careful when applying it to shorter stacked games. One of his best themes is to always take into account all the stack sizes, so don't forget to do that when looking at the examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

1/3 pot on a rainbow flop seems good. but what does he say to do on a 2tone flop? a 1/3pot bet will give drawers the odds to call.

[Pulplife]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I definitely think there is a place however for the probe bet.
Similar example:
You raise to 80 from the button with AQs, BB completes for 50 more. Flop is K Q 4 rainbow. You got some of it, but maybe not enough.

1:BB bets out for 80, you raise to 160, or
2:BB checks, you bet 80,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Harrington would call either of these a probe bet. The first is a raise, and the 2nd is a continuation bet (since you raised pre-flop).

He usually talks about probe bets when you call pre-flop. On the flop or turn, nobody else seems to be showing much strength, so you fire out a 1/3 pot sized bet to see what's up. You commit very little to the hand, but your opponent will need to put in a decent sized bet if he wants to raise you. This puts your opponent in an tough spot since your small bet could also indicate a trap.

Most of Harrington's SnG examples have bigger stacks (ie 1500) than we get at party. I think his advice is fantastic (who am I to argue), but be careful when applying it to shorter stacked games. One of his best themes is to always take into account all the stack sizes, so don't forget to do that when looking at the examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

1/3 pot on a rainbow flop seems good. but what does he say to do on a 2tone flop? a 1/3pot bet will give drawers the odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

He basically sticks to 1/2 the pot in that case, giving 3:1 pot odds. His main point is to force the caller to make a mistake. So calling a 3:1 pot with 4.1:1 hand hands is a mistake.

He also make the point that in a single table online game to increase the amount, up to 2/3 the pot.

Pulp /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
1/3 pot on a rainbow flop seems good. but what does he say to do on a 2tone flop? a 1/3pot bet will give drawers the odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are only talking about "probe" bets here. Most of the time Harrington recommends greater than 50% pot bets.

With a small probe bet, you are up against 1 or maybe 2 opponents that have shown weakness and you have no idea where you stand in the hand.

- If against multiple opponents, a probe bet is not advisable.
- Against 1 or maybe 2 opponents, most times your opponents do not have a flush draw on a 2 toned flop.
- If he calls your small bet with a draw, you may be able to put him on a draw. That's the point of betting for information (I think).

[tricolore]

In the situation where you either bet or raise pf without having an A in the hole, then what is your reaction when seeing an A on the flop (let's says with 2 rags). Do you still put a continuation bet? Automatic check/fold? CR to represent AK hoping to chase a weaker A?

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
what is your reaction when seeing an A on the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

My reaction? Sadness, followed by a continuation bet.

Often pre-flop raises are flat called by pocket pairs, so the A may look just as scary to your opponent holding JJ.

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
Should such plays be used in good SNG strategy, when you the flop doesn't hit you well? Sometimes? Never?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is generally a useful tool, but whether to use this strategy depends largely on the skill of your opponent. From my experience, after a continuation bet the response is:

80% chance fold from a weak-tight player if the flop didn't hit him; if you get a call or check-raise, assume you are behind and bail out.

50% chance fold from a tricky player; 50% chance of call or check-raise. Much harder to tell where you are.

No science to my numbers, just rough estimates. My point is, against weaker players this strategy is more effective. Against tricky players, even when they have nothing you might get hit with a re-raise (as some have pointed out above).

So, it helps to watch closely and judge the skill of your opponents as early as possible in the game, and use this probe-bet strategy against the lambs. If you don't have a read on your opponent in the hand, then the "information" you get from your probe bet is not very useful.

You don't want to be in a situation, after having made the probe bet, asking yourself: "OK, he called. Now, is this guy a weak player and he called because he has a pair, or is he tricky and just playing back at me?" Make sure you have an approximate answer to this question BEFORE you make the probe bet.

[wahooriver]

This philosophy works nicely at Poker Stars - the best place for SNGs in my opinion.

Starting with 1500 chips (even when playing Turbo) gives you room to use more skills. I cannot understand why so many on this board play SNGs at Party.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot understand why so many on this board play SNGs at Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can multiply then you have the requisite skill and ability set to understand why one might want to play on Party over Stars.

Whether or not you want to understand and/or simply disagree is another question and only you know the answer to that.

Yugoslav

[Pulplife]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cannot understand why so many on this board play SNGs at Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can multiply then you have the requisite skill and ability set to understand why one might want to play on Party over Stars.

Whether or not you want to understand and/or simply disagree is another question and only you know the answer to that.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

I am truly interested in your thoughts on this. I play on Stars (as stated in previous post), but would like it if you expanded your explaination for playing on Party.

Your response felt a bit condesending towards wahooriver IMO.

Pulp /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Scuba Chuck]

Unfortunately new 2+2ers ask questions that have been asked ad nauseum. I think it would suit many well to have done some homework on how to use 2+2. How to find the answers to your questions so they aren't asked over and over.

The one that gets me the most is that many here still don't know how to ask each other at the table who we are. I still cringe when I see someone write in the chatbox "ru a 2+2er?"

Anyhow, Yugo's intended response was well intentioned and suggestive for those of you who are new to do some research.

But for you MTV ADDers, (oops, guess that is condescending too) if you are more interested in the "play" of your game, and using more of your skill set to win, then Stars is better. But if maximizing your earnings is your dominant objective, then multi-tabling on a site where the average game is 38 minutes is better.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cannot understand why so many on this board play SNGs at Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can multiply then you have the requisite skill and ability set to understand why one might want to play on Party over Stars.

Whether or not you want to understand and/or simply disagree is another question and only you know the answer to that.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

I am truly interested in your thoughts on this. I play on Stars (as stated in previous post), but would like it if you expanded your explaination for playing on Party.

Your response felt a bit condesending towards wahooriver IMO.

Pulp /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, here's the deal:

Per Scuba's post this gets hashed out *all the time*. FWIW I understand why people would want to play at either Party or Stars or both. What I do not understand is how people 'cannot' understand why people would prefer one over the other (or prefer both).

As far as being condescending:

If the meaning of my post was taken that way, then I apologize. Seriously, it's generally not my intention to be straight up 'mean' to people. I am afraid that much of what I say is too sarcastic or blunt for *everyone* to arrive at my intended meaning. FWIW I think I do a decent (not great) job of not flaming posters. Feel free to pm me otherwise as I always welcome feedback/criticism/sh!t to read (that last bit was sarcastic btw, I actually do welcome pms).

One final thought:

The really good posters on here can be blunt, sarcastic, and condescending all at once. I feel the thrust of their comment is more forceful and ultimately more helpful. Poker plays weird psychological tricks on the mind that make it much easier to overestimate rather than underestimate one's ability/skill and/or opinions. The really good posters seldom give direct public props/dap/credit, but when they do, you know your idea is solid and you're on the right track. Similarly, if one of the really good posters pops up in your discussion or replies to your post, it is for a reason and is a hugely +$EV (and + food for thought EV) situation.

Yugoslav

PS If a poster is looking for hand-holding or sympathy/empathy please visit the QLC (http://www.quarterlifecrisis.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19) message boards.

[stillnotking]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A continuation bet is a "normal amount" bet. You should bet exactly the same as if you hit the flop with something like TPTK. The point is that those times you bet and get called/raise and have to resort to check-fold, are made up by those times when you get called or raise and have the goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! The key is to bet the same amount whether you hit the flop or not. It is generally very easy to spot players who bet the pot when they hit and 1/2 pot when they miss, and play accordingly. If you are watching for it, it is often very obvious when someone is making one of those "I don't like my hand so please do me a favor and fold" bets. I believe Doyle Brunson calls them post-oak bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrington does not advocate pot-size bets (which are the mantra on the 2+2 boards) -- he likes 1/2-pot bets a good portion of the time when you hit the flop... yes, I know that you may be giving people correct odds to call, etc. But if your usual bet is in the 1/2-pot range, then the probe/continuation is a normal size bet.

Also -- if you bet 1/2-pot, you only need to be "right," i.e., induce a fold one out of three times to break even... any more and you are in the money.

Note that Harrington also distinguishes online games from live games. He finds that online players don't respect bets that appear small (although they may be correct compared to the pot) and therefore you may need to bet more...

One last Harrington point in response to someone else -- his book DOES apply to S&Gs -- he uses many satellite/S&G examples in his book.

That's it for now...

[/ QUOTE ]

I like pot-size bets, but I may bet less depending on stack size, i.e. if I need to save chips to make a credibly large bet on the turn/river. This applies whether I am value betting or bluffing/semi-bluffing. The important thing is simply to avoid varying your bet size based on your holding. FAR too many online players commit this cardinal sin.

I can see Harrington's point about 2/3 pot-sized bets, but I believe my opponents make more incorrect calls than incorrect folds, so I prefer pot-sized bets overall.

[Michael C.]

If you were the raiser I think you have to make a continuation bet when an ace hits. Because very few opponents are going to go after you without an ace or other premium hand themselves. And it's also simple: continuation bet, and barring a miracle turn card you're done with the hand. I actually think three rags is a worse flop. You make a continuation bet there and a lot of players will play back at you to see if you had AK rather than a wired pair. That's a difficult situation for me, but more often then not I'll still make a continuation bet just for consistency and when I do have a hand.

[wahooriver]

I did not find your post condescending.

I think the key here is ones goals in playing SNGs. If the sole goal is winning a lot of money quickly, then it is possible that Party would give a slight time advantage (although the Turbo tables on Stars go fairly quickly).

If one's goal is to win some money, and improve your game, I find Stars SNGs to give me more opportunity to hone my game.

I wonder what the expected win rates are on each site. I would think that the larger number of starting chips should give a larger win rate to better players. I admit that is just a theory - but one worth considering.

I apologize for being a "newbie" on this forum - and my thoughts may be old news on this forum. Everyone has to start sometime.

[Michael C.]

I should have added that my last post was assuming it was heads up. If it's a multi-way pot, I raise with a pp and an ace hits, I'm much more likely to check/fold.

[Absolution]

For sure. He even says in the book that you have to adjust your play online. I go with whatever is getting respect. I play at UB a lot and they have that nasty 'Bet Pot' button. At most tables, anything less than a pot bet will get called. This is great to get action. At some tables a 2/3 pot bet is enough and late in the tournaments 1/2 might get the job done. You might also earn some respect if you show down some good hands after a 1/2 pot bet early.

[Michael C.]

[quote.

50% chance fold from a tricky player; 50% chance of call or check-raise. Much harder to tell where you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would mean you should definitely make a continuation bet vs. a tricky player. If you bet half the pot you are getting 2-1 odds that he folds, which you correctly estimate he will do half the time. If it works only one time in three you break even. And even then it's worth doing for the times when you do have a hand and he comes over the top of you and you take his stack.

[wkoch]

I read the book also and think it is great! granted I don't have as much experience as most on this board. I think that the section Drphysic refers to is just what Dan Harrington meant, continuation bet is if you were the pre-flop bettor and probe is if you were not and wanting to get info fairly cheap to see where you're at. IMHO

Walt

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not find your post condescending.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am glad to hear it. Seriously.

[ QUOTE ]

I think the key here is ones goals in playing SNGs. If the sole goal is winning a lot of money quickly, then it is possible that Party would give a slight time advantage (although the Turbo tables on Stars go fairly quickly).


[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhh. You not only *can* understand the difference but you understand it better than many (if not most), /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]

If one's goal is to win some money, and improve your game, I find Stars SNGs to give me more opportunity to hone my game.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good reason to play on Stars. I will continue to play on Party, /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder what the expected win rates are on each site. I would think that the larger number of starting chips should give a larger win rate to better players. I admit that is just a theory - but one worth considering.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, more starting chips and slower blinds will increase ITM and ROI for the skilled player. However this does not seem to be enough to offset the $/hr considerations at Party for the skilled player. Most knowledgeable posters agree with this view. In fact, I'm convinced that PokerRoom may allow for the highest ITM and ROI of any low limit SNG game having not even played a game there myself -- due to such posters.

[ QUOTE ]

I apologize for being a "newbie" on this forum - and my thoughts may be old news on this forum. Everyone has to start sometime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to the forum! (not that I'm much of a veteran or greeter)

If you would like to know more about different views on Stars/Party you can become even more acquainted with the search function (it's not the best search function in the world but the results are worth the hassle and frustration 100000 fold).

Yugoslav

[eMarkM]

Well, look at the examples in his book. He gives dozens of examples from online SNGs. The book does not just address HE MTTs. Most of the early chip accumulation you get in SNGs will come from continuation bets you make with position. With so many playing the rock in the early going, you can win a lot of smaller pots this way. Later in the tourney when the blinds are high, you or your opponent are often just pushing (the "inflection" point has been reached, something Harrington will cover in part II), so there's no continuation bet possible, but for the first three rounds they should be used when appropriate.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
The one that gets me the most is that many here still don't know how to ask each other at the table who we are. I still cringe when I see someone write in the chatbox "ru a 2+2er?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since it's not in the forum FAQ, and since I couldn't turn it up after 15 minutes of searching with the forum's archaic search, perhaps you could enlighten me...

ss

[The Yugoslavian]

There are *many* ways to identify yourself as 2+2 without actually saying it. The classic line has something to do with brown trout and then there is some stupid response. The short way to implement this is to ask if there are any 'brown trout' at the table and/or say 'yes, I'm a brown trout.'

I generally prefer a solid, 'Sup Bro?' And/or a 'Well, I was all county back in '95.'

Or, just make a reference to something uniquely 2+2 like:
At least I don't fold quad aces like Dali does
You should have rivered quads there
Do you like Salt Crackas?
The Yugoslavian is a huge moron and sucks, anyone here agree??

But always keep in mind the first rule of Fight Club! I see experienced 2+2ers mentioning the forum and while I guess it's fine I just don't see the point in advertising our secret hand-shaking illuminati club to anyone.

Yugoslav

[DrPhysic]

I think you'd have to run our wonderful fav search program for about a week on internet forum to get the original answer, but as it was passed on to me as urban legend or some such, it was: "Does the brown trout sleep in the closet?"

To which the traditionally correct answer was "Aye".

Unless of course you are Jewish in which case it is "oi" or "oy". (I have seen both used on line!)

However, I kind of like the 1 table tourn forum version which is: "Do you know the code?"

The proper response being: "It's an Enigma."

Doc