Two Semi-Common Logical Fallicies: Continuation Bets

[Jman28]

1) Folded to me in the sb with xx. If I raise 3x the BB, the BB will call. If I bet pot-size the flop, he will fold over half the time, and raise the rest (I fold to a raise). Since I win an even money bluff over half the time, raising preflop with the intention to bluff the flop is a profitable play.

2) I raised preflop with AK. I missed the flop heads-up in position. It's checked to me. If there is a 55% chance I will win the pot with a pot-sized bet, I should make it. EDIT: I will be raised the other 45% and have to fold.

(Each probably has a few reasons why they are wrong. Assume pot-size bets are the only ones allowed.)

Discuss.

[Nick B.]

1) position position position. If he pushes pf, which a lot of bb's will do you are screwed. If he raises any flop you are screwed.
2) With AK I like to C-bet when i think i have the best hand.

I know that probably doesn't answer either of those questions but that is what came to my mind when i read your post.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
1) position position position. If he pushes pf, which a lot of bb's will do you are screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specified that the BB will always call. Don't worry about stack sizes either. The only possibilities after raising pf are:

a) You bet pot size. He folds.
b) You bet pot size. He raises. You fold.
c) You check. He bets. You fold.

We are assuming that you will not hit a hand (I know this isn't exactly a real life situation.)

[ QUOTE ]
If he raises any flop you are screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. He will raise less than half the time though, and fold more than half the time. That makes a flop bluff profitable.

[ QUOTE ]
2) With AK I like to C-bet when i think i have the best hand.

I know that probably doesn't answer either of those questions but that is what came to my mind when i read your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't the specific answers I had in mind, no. But I don't expect everyone to think like me. I like to hear everyone's thinking processes.

I may be thinking about these situations incorrectly myself.

[ChuckNorris]

Looks like these are high variance plays with a pretty small +CEV. Also in number one it's obviously wiser to complete and then bet the flop, if BB calls 100% of the time (edit: and you have crap).

In real life you can adjust your bets, so making pot-sized continuation bets is just silly. That's why I don't quite get the point of this post.

[gumpzilla]

In the first case, the flop bet itself may be profitable on average while the whole sequence - raise PF followed by flop bet - loses chips, and so you can't break it up if the play really consists of both parts. To see this quickly, now assume that the flop bet is breakeven in terms of EV. You're losing the 2.5 BBs you put in above your SB as well in this situation, so it isn't very good. You need the BB to fold quite often if you're making a bet that large; however, you can probably scale down the bet without scaling down the frequency of how often he folds, and then this move gets more profitable.

I'll look at case 2 later.

[fnord_too]

1. Folding will result in you losing .5BB. In scenario 2, there is a 55% chance you win 3BB and a 45% you lose 6BB (assuming you always fold to his raise). That is .55*3 - .45*6 = -1.05BB, that's .55BB worse than folding pre flop.

2. Here c-betting is profitable if the hand ended on the flop. The question is whether it is more profitable to check. If you are ahead, you are giving a free card to a 3-many outer, that's bad. If you are behind, an A or K may give you the better hand, your may not. Also, there are redraw issues. I just finished my last S&G for the night, and am grabbin a beer so I am not going to do the math. (And the math is much more of a pain than in the frist case, but that has NOTHING to do with my not wanting to do it, nothing at all, nope, nada damn thing...)


Edit loosing != losing

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]

In the first case, the flop bet itself may be profitable on average while the whole sequence - raise PF followed by flop bet - loses chips, and so you can't break it up if the play really consists of both parts. To see this quickly, now assume that the flop bet is breakeven in terms of EV. You're losing the 2.5 BBs you put in above your SB as well in this situation, so it isn't very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. (And by correct, I mean what I had in mind when posting)

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Folding will result in you loosing .5BB. In scenario 2, there is a 55% chance you win 3BB and a 45% you lose 6BB (assuming you always fold to his raise). That is .55*3 - .45*6 = -1.05BB, that's .55BB worse than folding pre flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. And just a minute late to be the big winner.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Here c-betting is profitable if the hand ended on the flop. The question is whether it is more profitable to check. If you are ahead, you are giving a free card to a 3-many outer, that's bad. If you are behind, an A or K may give you the better hand, your may not. Also, there are redraw issues. I just finished my last S&G for the night, and am grabbin a beer so I am not going to do the math. (And the math is much more of a pain than in the frist case, but that has NOTHING to do with my not wanting to do it, nothing at all, nope, nada damn thing...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Good work again. You don't have to go into the math. I think actually the math is impossible without knowing a whole lot more about your opponent. Anyways, I didn't want this to become a huge math project, just a simple conceptual one.

You got the main point I was getting at here, which was that just because a bet wins you the pot over half the time doesn't mean you should make it. You still usually have plenty of pot equity if you check behind.

There are always more factors in a hand than you realize.

More thoughts?

[Degen]

run those numbers w/ 1/2 pot bets and they look even sweeter /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ilya]

Hmm well the more clean outs you have and the fewer clean outs or outs to redraws your opponent figures to have, the more you should be inclined to check if he always folds 55%/raises 45% on the flop. Intuitively I think you want to have more than a 11:9 edge on equity from outs against your opponent's range before you check. That way you figure to get a bigger edge from taking a free card than you do from checking the flop. But that's if you're for some reason always folding to a raise on the flop.

edit: I just realized it's more complicated than that since there are 2 cards to come. Crap, I dunno. I guess I think you should check if you figure to have more than an 11:9 on equity against just turn outs, then check again on turn if the same limitations apply and you have more than an 11:9 edge on equity againt river outs.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

I specified that the BB will always call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then don't raise with crap.

Edit: in other words, your situation is kind of meaningless with all these restrictions, it doesn't allow you to generalize to a real situation.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Folded to me in the sb with xx. If I raise 3x the BB, the BB will call. If I bet pot-size the flop, he will fold over half the time, and raise the rest (I fold to a raise). Since I win an even money bluff over half the time, raising preflop with the intention to bluff the flop is a profitable play.

2) I raised preflop with AK. I missed the flop heads-up in position. It's checked to me. If there is a 55% chance I will win the pot with a pot-sized bet, I should make it. EDIT: I will be raised the other 45% and have to fold.

(Each probably has a few reasons why they are wrong. Assume pot-size bets are the only ones allowed.)

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]


You dont have 0 equity by checking behind with AK in the 2nd example. I bet its something like that you are looking for. Also you will often win the pot by just having it checked down the wohle way and showing down an unimproved AKo, meanwhile if you are losing you might hit one of your 6 outs.

Of course this is just a general example and usually I will bet in such situations, as the % that people will fold is often higher, and your bet doesn't need to be a pot sized one.

[FlyWf]

What fallacies do you believe are being committed by people who say those things?

If your point in #2 is "A +cEV move may not be the most +cEV move", that almost goes without saying. Calling to close the action on the river with the nuts is +cEV yet exceptionally stupid.

Beyond that, your restrictions about the BB calling every time, us never hitting, and our inability to make less than pot sized bets make these 'fallacies' statements I certainly wouldn't call semi-common. I'm new here, do people often speculate on how to play the SB with crap that never hits a flop against a BB that always calls PF?

When people talk about why you can profitably raise the BB with crap from the SB they are taking into account the possibility of him folding preflop and of you making a showdown-worthy hand. But after you've raised the BB with crap and he called, it's still smart to make a PSB that takes it down 55% of the time. When he called those chips ceased to be yours. The flop bluff is winning 6 BB or losing 6 BB, whose stacks they were in before the flop is as relevant as whose stacks they were in 15 hands ago.

[billyjex]

To comment on #2, it seems like at the higher buy-ins your opponents may start noticing if you check behind with overcards and bet w/ your made hands. To keep your opponents guessing is another reason for the contiuation bet.. but of course that's assuming they're paying attention.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm well the more clean outs you have and the fewer clean outs or outs to redraws your opponent figures to have, the more you should be inclined to check if he always folds 55%/raises 45% on the flop. Intuitively I think you want to have more than a 11:9 edge on equity from outs against your opponent's range before you check. That way you figure to get a bigger edge from taking a free card than you do from checking the flop. But that's if you're for some reason always folding to a raise on the flop.

edit: I just realized it's more complicated than that since there are 2 cards to come. Crap, I dunno. I guess I think you should check if you figure to have more than an 11:9 on equity against just turn outs, then check again on turn if the same limitations apply and you have more than an 11:9 edge on equity againt river outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop thinking so hard. It's totally complicated if you want it to be.

My point was simply that people have learned that bluffing profitably has to do directly with pot odds and % of time it will succeed. I'm pretty sure that's straight outta TOP, and is correct. However it's talking about hands where you have practically no equity without bluffing, and usually without cards to come.

What some people do is then extrapolate from that way to far and come up with things similar to the two examples I posted (but much more realistic). That's all.

[Jman28]

I just realized that example #2 is somewhat similar to this thread (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1112659&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=all&vc=1) started by Sklansky a while back. Much different hand, same concept.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
If your point in #2 is "A +cEV move may not be the most +cEV move", that almost goes without saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this judgement. It may be natural to you, but many people don't understand EV well enough, in part because the way people discuss EV is unclear. Sklansky asked a question in the theory forum about bluffing with the nut low on the flop with a similar desired answer, and it took a long time and many incorrect responses before someone posted the answer. The Live-At-The-Bike commentators often get this wrong.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]

Stop thinking so hard. It's totally complicated if you want it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only tried to because you asked for "more thoughts." But I promise I'll never think hard again. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Stop thinking so hard. It's totally complicated if you want it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only tried to because you asked for "more thoughts." But I promise I'll never think hard again. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. You're right. I shouldn't have said that. Good thinking.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
I just realized that example #2 is somewhat similar to this thread (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1112659&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=all&vc=1) started by Sklansky a while back. Much different hand, same concept.

[/ QUOTE ]\

Jesus lord why did you link to that thread. That was back when I was a huge moron and I recall making some absurd responses to it.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just realized that example #2 is somewhat similar to this thread (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1112659&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=all&vc=1) started by Sklansky a while back. Much different hand, same concept.

[/ QUOTE ]\

Jesus lord why did you link to that thread. That was back when I was a huge moron and I recall making some absurd responses to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I'll have to read your responses so I feel better about when I make a mistake.

We were all newbies once Curtains.

[curtains]

I wasn't actually a newbie. I was already a semi successful pro poker player. I just had a lot to learn still...

I agree with curtains. Linking to that thread is simply a very poorly disguised insult to everyone who responded dumbly. Wow, sklansky must've been really frustrated.

[curtains]

lol, Im sort of joking. I just wasnt so clear on some concepts back then, and it made it much harder for me to solve such questions. The good news is that iff a similar puzzle was presented to me now, I'd be able to solve it almost immediately.