HOH2 on continuation size bets: don't agree they should be half pot

[betgo]

Harrington says continuation bets should be half pot to get a good return on you bluffing dollar. However, he says you should vary the size so it is not obvious.

I usually like to make a continuation bet the same size as if I hit. I want it to look identical. If I raise with AK and there is a low flop, I want it to look like I have JJ and I want to protect my hand, but wouldn't mind a call. If I raise with 88 and the flop is ace high, I want to bet it like I had AK.

[C-Dog]

If you make the bet Half Pot, they dont have the odds to draw to anything. So if they are behind, they make a mistake to call. And if they are ahead you saved yourself some money, and kept the pot manageable in case you need to get away.


C-Dog

[LethalRose]

Ive said it once, I'll say it again.

HOH is a dangerous book.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
Ive said it once, I'll say it again.

HOH is a dangerous book.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've said it once, I'll say it again, please elaborate. This type of a comment is more harmful than good. If you have issues bring them up but don't just keep saying it's dangerous. That doesn't contribute anything.

[Lloyd]

A 1/2 pot sized bet is charging people enough so they can't chase most draws. You only have to win more than 33% of the time to make this profitable. From my own experience I win much more than 33% of the time. And I bet the same whether I connected or not. It's amazing how many times I'll bet 1/2 the pot hitting the flop strongly only to have someone raise me and spew more chips. If it's a very coordinated board and it wouldn't make sense for you to bet 1/2 the pot with something like top pair then you have to bet more or check behind. You don't need to make a continuation bet always but heads up I think it's very powerful and very profitable.

[curtains]

Relax...just make it 65%-75% then and bet the same with made hands. I don't think that Harrington would call this a mistake over making it 50%.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Relax...just make it 65%-75% then and bet the same with made hands. I don't think that Harrington would call this a mistake over making it 50%

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I do.

[Crispy]

I think the problem with betting 60-75% is that a) you will lose more when your bluffs get called, and b) even when you have a good hand you are giving your opponent the correct odds to fold their draws therefore making it easier for them to avoid making mistakes with pot odds. 50% is good enough to give draws improper odds and tempt them into making mistakes.

[curtains]

Your logic is way too simplified. Your opponent's calling you with a draw isn't a good thing if you are going to give away your entire stack if it hits. You are basically saying that you are omnipitent and know the exact hand of your opponent and that they will make no money from you if they should happen to get there.

To argue something as silly that betting 50% of the pot on the flop is better than 65-70% of the flop is really absurd. It's so situation dependant to begin with.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem with betting 60-75% is that a) you will lose more when your bluffs get called, and b) even when you have a good hand you are giving your opponent the correct odds to fold their draws therefore making it easier for them to avoid making mistakes with pot odds. 50% is good enough to give draws improper odds and tempt them into making mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]


Also did you ever consider that it's possible your bluffs will get called somewhat less because you are betting slightly more?

[Annulus]

[ QUOTE ]
Ive said it once, I'll say it again.

HOH is a dangerous book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Id also like some elaboration. This is the 2nd time you have made this comment, and the 2nd time you have been asked to elaborate. Please inform us idiots.

[curtains]

All information is dangerous if you dont know how to apply it.

For instance if someone says to be very tight preflop and you go around folding QQ in absurd situations, then the information was dangerous for you.

When Harrington starts yammering on about M and Q and the like, a large percentage of people will completely misinterpret everything he's saying and start making faulty decisions based on these "M" and "Q" numbers. Then the information was dangerous for them.

Almost all good information will be misinterpreted by a good percentage of the readers, and will lead them to make plays that have no bearing on what the author was trying to say. Just look at the number of "Gigabet plays" that have been posted on this forum. Look at the examples of the "Stop and Go" that are posted and have nothing to do with the actual point of the stop+go.

It's clear that a lot of these people would have been better off if they never heard of the concepts to begin with, or at least they would have been better off for that particular hand that they posted.

[Annulus]

i cant argue with that curtains. i totally agree.

[Degen]

'a little information is a dangerous thing'

[Annulus]

[ QUOTE ]
'a little information is a dangerous thing'

[/ QUOTE ]

so we shouldnt read poker books?

[Degen]

we shouldn't listen to curtains /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[LethalRose]

[ QUOTE ]

When Harrington starts yammering on about M and Q and the like, a large percentage of people will completely misinterpret everything he's saying and start making faulty decisions based on these "M" and "Q" numbers. Then the information was dangerous for them.


[/ QUOTE ]


Almost every day I see a thread that mis applies what M and Q mean. Usually by posters who have little experience. I think reading HOH is a good start, however reading this forum from top to bottom is bar none the best way to go.

I see these posts like a beginning basketball player walking up to michael jordan and asking him how to shoot a jumper. He could easily talk to you for an hour on the best footing to take before even starting the shot. Take 1000 jumpers for 6 months, ask him again. Maybe then you'll get something out of what he says.

when i first started playing poker, I read SSNL. It stated if you have a set and the turn brings a possible straight, fold. If you have a flush and the board pairs, fold. This is a big reason why a lot of SSNL players arent killing the lower stakes tables.


I see a 1/2 the pot size bet as a probe bet and will almost always raise it, especially if its out of the blinds, my hand is irrelevant. This is more a deep stacked play, if i have 20BB im either folding or pushing.


I just think people read these books and follow them like the bible. Can a virgin read a book and know how to make love? Absolutely not.

im rambling, blah.

[Annulus]

thats fine and dandy lethal. no one here is suggesting a beginner player read HOH. i just wanted some elaboration from you, but its all good. its getting late and im rambling also.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
I see a 1/2 the pot size bet as a probe bet and will almost always raise it, especially if its out of the blinds, my hand is irrelevant. This is more a deep stacked play, if i have 20BB im either folding or pushing.

[/ QUOTE ]


So when someone raises preflop, and then bets 1/2 the pot on the flop you almost always raise on the assumption that it's a probe?

A probe is when you do not have the lead (or no one does) in the hand and you're looking for information... what we're talking about is a continuation, and Harrington never says that his book will make you a great player, it's a foundation for players to learn to make continuation bets and he suggests 1/2 pot, which is a good amouunt. Not that theres anything wrong with more (or less sometimes) but it's a start.

If some player was going to read HOH and never let their game evolve then sure it's dangerous, but the reason you see people asking questions about M and not understanding all the concepts is because they're trying to get better, and you have to start from somewhere.. HOH is a good base.

[LethalRose]

Generally I'll raise probe bet in an unraised pot. it depends on a lot of things...but you always see 1 person who likes to take stabs at pots from the blinds when everyone limps in, this is who i target. Depends on my image, the table, the person, the flop, etc..

[curtains]

HOH2 probably isnt dangerous towards ones long term results. If they are smart they will work out all the misunderstandings that they take away from the book eventually, and figure out what situations to ignore the book's advice. However it could cause some serious short term confusion.

How exactly do people generally misinterpret the concepts in HOH or HOH2? As someone who recently read both books and was really impressed, I'm concerned that I am making decisions based on misinformation. I thought I understood the concepts underlying M and Q and the rationale for the size of recommended continuation bets. Why don't I?

[curtains]

You might be fine, just some people get confused! Anyway I don't like the approach of thinking of things in terms of M+Q, it seems very cumbersome to me, however it may be the best way to get the point across to as many people as possible.

Once again, with almost any book/information source, a decent % of people will not process the information correctly. This is often not a fault of the information, but instead of the one trying to follow it.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]

All information is dangerous if you dont know how to apply it.

For instance if someone says to be very tight preflop and you go around folding QQ in absurd situations, then the information was dangerous for you.

When Harrington starts yammering on about M and Q and the like, a large percentage of people will completely misinterpret everything he's saying and start making faulty decisions based on these "M" and "Q" numbers. Then the information was dangerous for them.

Almost all good information will be misinterpreted by a good percentage of the readers, and will lead them to make plays that have no bearing on what the author was trying to say. Just look at the number of "Gigabet plays" that have been posted on this forum. Look at the examples of the "Stop and Go" that are posted and have nothing to do with the actual point of the stop+go.

It's clear that a lot of these people would have been better off if they never heard of the concepts to begin with, or at least they would have been better off for that particular hand that they posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but you also learn an awful lot by misinterpreting information, then posting it here so that everyone can tell you you are an idiot. Making mistakes is a big part of becoming a better player, as long as you learn from them no mistake is all that bad. HOH and HOHII are going to make some of the new players that read it better, even if they do make a whole bunch of mistakes and have a zillion leaks to plug before they get there.

Mack

[curtains]

Yes, as I said it may learn to short term poor results for an intelligent and hard working player. I believe I mentioned that in one of my previous posts.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, as I said it may learn to short term poor results for an intelligent and hard working player. I believe I mentioned that in one of my previous posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this as inevitable, I have had a couple of stretches like that, usually followed by a decent improvement in my all round game. My point is I think you are right, but I don't think it matters too much if the player is doing what he should be doing (analysing his game).

Mack

[diebitter]

Does anyone here actually use Q at all in their decision-making? It's so insignificant compared to M, after all.

[rockythecat99]

I agree with Lethal Rose here. I have seen sooo many bad calls with hands because someone read a book and completely misinterpreted the material. For example just yesterday I was playing a sng and I raise on the button with AQ to 300 he miniraises me to 500 on the BB and I push. He insta calls and shows K10suited. I asked him why he didnt think about it at least for a bit before calling and he said that K10s is a group 3 hand so that it was the correct call. He had read a two plus two book and now instant calls without figuring out pot odds (which he didnt have) and figuring out my range. Also I have seen many people start pushing with M=6-8 with air misapplying HOH2. I don't mind the moves but hearing them try to justify donk moves because they "read a book" is just irritating.

Also I use to make 50% continuation bets but have found that 65% are better. Fish just don't fold enough for the 50% to be profitable at least for me.

[hurlyburly]

Ok, but can you win often enough to cover the reduced odds? 1/2 pot is a good starting point.

I agree in the earliest levels where the pot is smaller anyway a pot or 2x pot can be much more reasonable.

[hurlyburly]

How can that be when they're getting 3/1 on their call? 1/2 pot prices in some draws, prices out others.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone here actually use Q at all in their decision-making? It's so insignificant compared to M, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where you are in relation to the average stack in the tourney is as useless as tits on men.

What matters is the blinds, your stack, the stack of eveyone else at the table.

Regards,
Woodguy

[rockythecat99]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but can you win often enough to cover the reduced odds? 1/2 pot is a good starting point.

I agree in the earliest levels where the pot is smaller anyway a pot or 2x pot can be much more reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm my experience, yes. Even when called and you fire another barrel you win here enough to make it profitable. When I used to make it 50% I would get called with anything. But again let me stress this point. 65% works better against the fish. Against a thinking player it gets much tougher. Very read dependent. Sometimes against a tough player I will check/raise or check/call the flop.

[diebitter]

re the 50% thing - I find if the pot has a nice round number (say 300), 1/2 a pot seems to work okay, whilst soemthing like 155 for a 310 pot doesn't. I think people think it's significantly less that half, but it obviously isn't.

For an odd amount, a little over half (say 65%) works much better. So for a 310, I'd probably go 180-200

I'm not sure why. Maybe round numbers close to increments of 50 work better as a scare?

[rockythecat99]

[ QUOTE ]
re the 50% thing - I find if the pot has a nice round number (say 300), 1/2 a pot seems to work okay, whilst soemthing like 155 for a 310 pot doesn't. I think people think it's significantly less that half, but it obviously isn't.

For an odd amount, a little over half (say 65%) works much better. So for a 310, I'd probably go 180-200

I'm not sure why. Maybe round numbers close to increments of 50 work better as a scare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with this post. Odd numbered pots, half pot bets dont work for some reason

[fnurt]

I'm baffled. I just read HOH, and I think I remember it saying that probe bets should be half the pot or a little less, while continuation bets should be a little more than half the pot. Am I just making this up, or is this entire thread arguing about a claim that doesn't exist?

[zoobird]

I think I remember this too. 1/3-1/2 for probes, 1/2-2/3 for continuation.

[ghostwriter]

[ QUOTE ]
How can that be when they're getting 3/1 on their call? 1/2 pot prices in some draws, prices out others.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's 3/1 to see the turn (1 card) not the turn and river (2 card).

[adanthar]

The trouble with HOH2 is that it completely accurately describes M (M in particular, like curtains said, being a pretty cumbersome but probably necessary way to explain a really important thing to lots of people) and then uses examples that often suck so much they completely contradict the whole point of what he was trying to say. For example, one thing that you should NOT do with an M in the yellow zone is to make extra large raises with marginal hands UTG in an effort to tie yourself to the pot when you get reraised anyway. HOH2 has two examples (IIRC) where that happens.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
The trouble with HOH2 is that it completely accurately describes M (M in particular, like curtains said, being a pretty cumbersome but probably necessary way to explain a really important thing to lots of people) and then uses examples that often suck so much they completely contradict the whole point of what he was trying to say. For example, one thing that you should NOT do with an M in the yellow zone is to make extra large raises with marginal hands UTG in an effort to tie yourself to the pot when you get reraised anyway. HOH2 has two examples (IIRC) where that happens.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't bother to distinguish between orange and yellow, mainly cos I don't know if he does in any clear way.

He's still the guvnor though.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington says continuation bets should be half pot to get a good return on you bluffing dollar. However, he says you should vary the size so it is not obvious.

I usually like to make a continuation bet the same size as if I hit. I want it to look identical. If I raise with AK and there is a low flop, I want it to look like I have JJ and I want to protect my hand, but wouldn't mind a call. If I raise with 88 and the flop is ace high, I want to bet it like I had AK.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right.... so what's wrong with betting half the pot when you hit with AK?

[benneh]

Harrington recommends 1/2 a pot size bet because it charges the right amount for draws and you only need to be successful 1 in 3 times. Maybe not for you, but my continuation bets work more often than that.

Maybe re-read the section on continuation bets. He recommends mixing it up, he just states that 1/2 pot is ideal because of how efficient it is.

[bruce]

I love players who 1/2 bet the pot from the blind or after raising. In a deepstacked tournament I'll reraise their sorry
asses with air. They'll hit the flop one in three times or be
afraid of sleeping dragons and fold. Obviously I'm selective
about who I do this on, but long term my success rate with this
strategy is pretty good.

Bruce

As Lloyd said, I'll bet the same way if I have then if I don't have it.. 1/2 the pot is a good size because it allows me to conceal my hand and of course gives myself great odds.. furthermore, pot sized bets aren't my thing, 2/3-3/4 is fine when it's a dangerous board, but making big bets had the old addage of "The only person that will call a big bet is a hand that can beat you"

Harrington's also not advocating to make a continuation bet all the time.. first of all, it becomes too obvious to attentive players when you are constantly betting after raising the pot yourself.. Secondly, it really depends on the flop. If I have 2 10's and raise preflop and the flop comes A Q K with 2 other people, I'll probably check.. And stemming from that, also depends on the # of people in the pot and if I actually get to take the lead in the betting..

You'll find that the right scenarios for a continuation bet aren't there as often as many people think.. Still a useful tool though which has vastly improved my game.. nothing better than betting half the pot and have someone re-raise you when you have a big hand /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
I love players who 1/2 bet the pot from the blind or after raising. In a deepstacked tournament I'll reraise their sorry
asses with air. They'll hit the flop one in three times or be
afraid of sleeping dragons and fold. Obviously I'm selective
about who I do this on, but long term my success rate with this
strategy is pretty good.

Bruce

[/ QUOTE ]

I love players who reraise me with air. I'll three-bet them and get paid off handsomely. Blah blah blah...

The point is that there is nothing wrong with Harrington's advice, but that anyone who plays according to a predictable formula will get pounded by an observant player, no matter how good the formula may be. This is why most of Harrington's recommendations come with the advice to mix it up.

[rockythecat99]

[ QUOTE ]
As Lloyd said, I'll bet the same way if I have then if I don't have it.. 1/2 the pot is a good size because it allows me to conceal my hand and of course gives myself great odds.. furthermore, pot sized bets aren't my thing, 2/3-3/4 is fine when it's a dangerous board, but making big bets had the old addage of "The only person that will call a big bet is a hand that can beat you"

Harrington's also not advocating to make a continuation bet all the time.. first of all, it becomes too obvious to attentive players when you are constantly betting after raising the pot yourself.. Secondly, it really depends on the flop. If I have 2 10's and raise preflop and the flop comes A Q K with 2 other people, I'll probably check.. And stemming from that, also depends on the # of people in the pot and if I actually get to take the lead in the betting..

You'll find that the right scenarios for a continuation bet aren't there as often as many people think.. Still a useful tool though which has vastly improved my game.. nothing better than betting half the pot and have someone re-raise you when you have a big hand /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Harrington really doesn't advocate continuation bets when you have 2 or more people in the hand with you. Sometimes he will make one with 2 people.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As Lloyd said, I'll bet the same way if I have then if I don't have it.. 1/2 the pot is a good size because it allows me to conceal my hand and of course gives myself great odds.. furthermore, pot sized bets aren't my thing, 2/3-3/4 is fine when it's a dangerous board, but making big bets had the old addage of "The only person that will call a big bet is a hand that can beat you"

Harrington's also not advocating to make a continuation bet all the time.. first of all, it becomes too obvious to attentive players when you are constantly betting after raising the pot yourself.. Secondly, it really depends on the flop. If I have 2 10's and raise preflop and the flop comes A Q K with 2 other people, I'll probably check.. And stemming from that, also depends on the # of people in the pot and if I actually get to take the lead in the betting..

You'll find that the right scenarios for a continuation bet aren't there as often as many people think.. Still a useful tool though which has vastly improved my game.. nothing better than betting half the pot and have someone re-raise you when you have a big hand /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Harrington really doesn't advocate continuation bets when you have 2 or more people in the hand with you. Sometimes he will make one with 2 people.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea, that's what I'm saying, I think (It's early heh)

[bruce]

MIX IT UP: that's the key. Against observant players I will
vary my flop bet anywhere from half the pot to a full pot bet.
I will, on occasion move all in, but the situation has to be perfect. If I move in with swish cheese I'm guestimating that
my opponent will fold 90 + percent of the time. Against a clueless idiot, it really makes little difference how much
you bet. Your bet size is helpful for your observant opponents not in the hand to use for future hands.

Dan does talk about mixing it up. Barry Greenstein when he
did color for Live on the Bike strongly argued how he thought 1/2 sized flop bets was a weak maneuver and how he
ran over these types of players.

Bruce

[illegit]

It's a weak maneuver against Barry greenstein. The whole logic behind the 1/2 pot bet is that even if it only wins 1/3 times you're breaking even. About 1/30000000 times you'll be betting into B. greenstein. And about 1/300 times you're betting into someone who is gonna check raise you with air. The remaining times when it works more than make-up for these anomolies.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can that be when they're getting 3/1 on their call? 1/2 pot prices in some draws, prices out others.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's 3/1 to see the turn (1 card) not the turn and river (2 card).

[/ QUOTE ]

Um don't forget implied odds, which can easily make a call correct.

-Scott

[Crispy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem with betting 60-75% is that a) you will lose more when your bluffs get called, and b) even when you have a good hand you are giving your opponent the correct odds to fold their draws therefore making it easier for them to avoid making mistakes with pot odds. 50% is good enough to give draws improper odds and tempt them into making mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]


Also did you ever consider that it's possible your bluffs will get called somewhat less because you are betting slightly more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, so your telling me you want your opponents with draws to fold, and you want your bluffs to be successfully executed. I gotcha, so bet more and scare people out. My problem with this is that I want my opponents to call when I am ahead to get more chips. There seems to be a very large fear ingrained into many of the replys i have read that the "fish" tend to call for 1/2 size bets. Well if this is the case, I want them to be calling me down with midpair when I actually do have a hand. Forget the small percentage where they complete for 2 pair, because realistically it doesnt happen that often. However, such cases are highly situational and I agree with you, it may be correct to bet more against fish if you wanted them to fold to your bluffs. However, If I am always pushing and making my opponent's decisions easier for them, then where am I gonna stand in the tournament.

[Blindcurve]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll find that the right scenarios for a continuation bet aren't there as often as many people think...nothing better than betting half the pot and have someone re-raise you when you have a big hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Obviously, you mix up your play. The (roughly)1/2 pot continue just gives you opportunities to set up the same pitch sequence later. It is always good when your bets don't necessarily telegraph your line, much less the strength of your hand.

Also, once they've seen you've "had it", it allows you to exercise pot size control when you don't.

A final point- I don't mind making probe size bets with say, TPGK on a flop with dry texture. I'm sure there's a reason not to do this, but I do think it's part of mixing up your play.

FOITNOF,

-D.

[SoBeDude]

To argue something as silly that betting 50% of the pot on the flop is better than 65-70% of the flop is really absurd. It's so situation dependant to begin with.

This is completely incorrect.

The bet is an attempt to pick up the pot on the flop when first to act. nothing more.

The point is if your opponent is going to call your 50% bet, hes in all liklihood going to call your 60-75% bet as well.

If you get called, YOU'RE DONE WITH THE HAND. You're check-folding at your first opportunity (unless some miracle happens). So given this is the intent and your planned future action, the 50% bet is BETTER because the probabilities of the desired result change little between the two bet sizes, yet you're risking less with the 50%.

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

However, If I am always pushing and making my opponent's decisions easier for them, then where am I gonna stand in the tournament.

This is the best line written in the forum this week.

-Scott

[curtains]

Okay SoBeDude, since my comment that it's impossible to make a blanket statement as to what is the proper size for a continuation bet is so "completely incorrect", please answer the following question:

Why do you think betting 50% is better than betting 40%. I can't imagine that extra 10% will affect your opponent's decision much, at least if one were to follow your previous logic. And then why not bet 30% instead of 40%. I mean cmon, obviously the amount of your bet has an effect on how your opponent will play.

[curtains]

Also please note, in case there is a miscommunication, that I wasn't saying that 65-75% is clearly better than 50%, I was saying that it's impossible to just say that 50% is correct without lots more information. I will bet 50% of the pot sometimes, and sometimes I will bet more. However to say that one bet size is clearly correct in continuation bet circumstances, is really ignorant. It's like strenously arguing over whether or not when the blinds are 50-100, one should open raise for 275 or 300, and act like the difference is of supreme importance.


Also when you have a made hand it's often best to bet more than 50% of the pot. For this reason, I often bet 60-75% of the pot regardless of whether I hit or missed and thus no one can know what I have by my bet size.

[RDWallace]

That's right Ice....man, I am dangerous.

[Fletch46]

I've been reading lots of books and don't take anything as gospel but they give you a starting point. If I'd read HOH a few months ago, it would have gone right over my head. However, these two books have already made a huge difference in my tournament play and results. They paid for themselves in one day.

[WSOPstar2B]

DITTO

[SoBeDude]

Also when you have a made hand it's often best to bet more than 50% of the pot. For this reason, I often bet 60-75% of the pot regardless of whether I hit or missed and thus no one can know what I have by my bet size.

Well if you can't lead the flop SOME TIME with a 50% bet when you have a hand, then you better just stick to making those 60-75% bets with air as well, and just burning those extra chips.

-Scott

[allenciox]

The size of your flop bet should be based on the texture of the flop, rather than whether you hit it or not. If you have a non-draw flop, a half-pot bet is good whether or not you hit it --- and these are the easiest to pick up. On a flop with lots of draws then a bet closer to pot size may be necessary to chase away draws --- if the flop is likely to have hit your opponent, particularly if they are frequent check-raisers and it missed you (or if you have a draw), I would check the flop rather than making a continuation bet.

Your bet sizes MUST be consistent between hitting the flop and missing the flop, or you are giving away too much information.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Also when you have a made hand it's often best to bet more than 50% of the pot. For this reason, I often bet 60-75% of the pot regardless of whether I hit or missed and thus no one can know what I have by my bet size.

Well if you can't lead the flop SOME TIME with a 50% bet when you have a hand, then you better just stick to making those 60-75% bets with air as well, and just burning those extra chips.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you insane? Once again answer my question, why not bet 40% instead of 50%. I'm sure you have some well thought out answer why betting 30-49% of the pot is wrong, but that betting 60-70% is clearly wrong also, and that somehow 50% is some magic number that fulfills all of your purposes in all situations.

[curtains]

Yes of course the flop texture matters and on some textures I will bet 50% of the pot or even less, and on some textures I will bet more. However to make a general statement that its almost always correct to bet precisely 50% of the pot is really ridiculous.

[SoBeDude]

Are you insane?

Yes, clearly I am.

For continuing any dialogue with you. I will rectify that now.

-Scott