When not to make a continuation bet

[maddo]

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

MP2 (t1585)
MP3 (t670)
Hero (t1710)
Button (t2240)
SB (t2355)
BB (t1745)
UTG (t1690)
UTG+1 (t1470)
MP1 (t2255)

Preflop: Hero is CO with J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to t150</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, BB calls t100.

Flop: (t325) 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets t150</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises to t1595</font>, Hero folds.

Final Pot: t2070

I nearly always bet when I've raised in LP and I'm checked to, whether I've hit the flop or not. Often I'll take the pot there and then. But after the BB check-raised here when I had a nice flush draw and back-door straight draw I wondered if sometimes I could check to try and win a bigger pot. This would only be in situations where I have a great draw and a check-raise makes me throw my hand away. Any recommendations?

BTW, BB showed his hand after I folded.

I would bet moer on the flop, for starters. Thats quite the draw-heavy board and a thinking opponent would think you would bet more to protect your hand. However, BB probably likes his hand and was raising regardless.

Checking behind on the flop isn't bad here, as it induces the villain to bet the turn. If he has just a lone K or one pair, you can push any broadway/ace and have a lot of fold equity to go along with your draw.

I bet the flop most of the time even when I have a draw, but this flop seems to be a good one to check behind simply because top pair or better will probably raise to protect against the draws.

[maddo]

That's funny. I just started reading HOH2 this morning and he addresses this exact situation in the first chapter.

[ QUOTE ]


I nearly always bet when I've raised in LP and I'm checked to, whether I've hit the flop or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

this could be why he bluffed you out with his check raise. I think you have to mix it up and not always have a standard play, otherwise its to easy to get a read on you and take advantage.

[applejuicekid]

What is wrong with calling and praying he has A6?

[maddo]

I agree. I'm going to try and mix it up a bit in these type of situations.

He didn't bluff me out. He showed me a pair of Aces. In hindsight, checking here could have been real profitable if I'd made a flush on the turn.

[zoobird]

I think checking behind here is perfectly ok, but I would usually do a semi-bluff/continutation bet as well. While I'd usually make the bet about 200 with 325 already in the pot, I don't think your bet was bad.

Actually, to me the interesting part of this hand is that I don't think its an autofold when he puts you all in. If I'm doing the math right, you'd be putting in 1410 to win 2030. Even if you assume that he's got you beat right now, that's probably good enough pot odds to call with your 2nd nut flush draw with two cards to come. I also think there's a chance that he put you on a steal pre-flop and continuation bet on the flop and that he's got nothing here, in which case the other 3 jacks and the other 3 sevens may even be outs for you. I'd call.

[kuro]

I'm make a larger continuation bet say 250-350 and then call the push because you're probably 45:55 vs the range of hands that get pushed into you.

[suckbot]

[ QUOTE ]
\If I'm doing the math right, you'd be putting in 1410 to win 2030. Even if you assume that he's got you beat right now, that's probably good enough pot odds to call with your 2nd nut flush draw with two cards to come. ... I'd call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if I agree with that logic. it's early in the tournament. Even if he is just trying to steal the pot without a real hand, you are going to have to hit something. Let's say he missed completely. He's bound to have your J beaten as a high card. Chances are he has at least the 9. In which case, you need to hit your J or hit that flush draw (assuming he doesn't have that beaten). So you've got at best 11 outs. Ok so maybe the odds work out for a call. But not by a real margin.

So let's say he has the K (not even the AA), now you're calling your stack on a flush draw at $50 blinds with $1500 left if you fold? Seems a little rash.

Take your medicine for trying a steal that didn't work out and move on.

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm doing the math right, you'd be putting in 1410 to win 2030. Even if you assume that he's got you beat right now, that's probably good enough pot odds to call with your 2nd nut flush draw with two cards to come.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite correct. Hero isn't even getting 2:1 on his money and there are no more implied odds since villain would now be all-in. There's already an overcard on board to both of hero's cards, so if he's behind he's drawing to 9 outs twice and is about 35% to win here. You have to consider the fact that the villain called hero's preflop raise for nearly 10% of his stack. Calls in this spot usually mean either overcards or a pocket pair. In a best case scenario where villain has nothing but is holding two overcards hero now has 15 outs twice but also needs to catch something, anything, in order to beat villains high cards. Without the odds to call and the possibility of busting by calling and losing I'm folding here and looking for a better spot.

And how is hero's J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif the 2nd nut flush? The Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif is still out there somewhere!

Excellent OP and thread.

You have learned a valuable lesson and shared it with us, namely that you can't ALWAYS fire out a continuation bet or you will be quickly losing more than the amount necessary to make them profitable if you are playing with anything other than mindless donks. This would be the perfect spot to check behind. To make a non-readable continuation bet here you have to pot-bet because of the draw heavy board. It has to appear you are pushing out draws or you might as well just put your cards face up and hand over your money.

[ QUOTE ]
You have learned a valuable lesson and shared it with us, namely that you can't ALWAYS fire out a continuation bet or you will be quickly losing more than the amount necessary to make them profitable if you are playing with anything other than mindless donks. This would be the perfect spot to check behind. To make a non-readable continuation bet here you have to pot-bet because of the draw heavy board. It has to appear you are pushing out draws or you might as well just put your cards face up and hand over your money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't entirely agree with this statement either. How often is the villain actually going to have a hand and check-raise all-in versus perhaps calling or even reraising a normal amount? If the villain had chosen a different line then the CB is definitely right here. You want to inflate the pot a little bit so you're taking down something significant when you win it. I would still fire out a continuation bet on this flop almost every time and I'm very rarely using full pot-sized continuation bets. Why risk a full pot sized bet when a 2/3 size bet accomplishes the same thing in most cases? If I fire out with a 2/3 pot bet and win 1/3 times I'm breaking even. If I win it 2/3 times I'm ahead. This simple concept means I should almost always be firing out with a continuation bet as the preflop raiser. There are definitely exceptions to this, but I don't think that this post indicates that hero shouldn't have bet out on that flop. He absolutely should have! It's just bad luck that he ran into a c/r all in from AA here. Do you really think that you're running into this hand often enough to stop firing out a bet in this spot? What about the possibility that villain is holdin TT-QQ and the K on board scares him into folding? Those are all plausible holdings for someone calling a raise preflop.

Unless you have a good read that your opponent has AK, KK or AA I feel that not betting here is wrong. You may just get him to lay down a better hand and win it anyway.

As long as you are also continuation betting when you flop big hands, it is quite profitable for you to do so against a guy who will make such a large check-raise all in. Even if you don't take it down without a fight often enough to make it +EV as a bluff, the times that you actually have a hand and take Villain's stack more than cover the difference.

I am not saying a continuation bet is wrong here, or -EV, I'm just saying that you can't do it every time with thinking players. Harrington agrees, see HOH2. This seems to be as good a spot as any to mix it up and not continue.

The point is that if you do it every time, and I pick up on it, I will just reraise you and you will almost NEVER win with a continuation bet, meaning they are -EV. Of course you can mix up a continuation bet (in appearance) when you actually have a hand and that may cover some of the difference, but I think the proper way to go is to mix it all up. Sometimes continue w/ nothing. Sometimes check w/ nothin. Sometimes continue w/ hand. Sometimes check w/ hand. Reads matter.

By the way, if you fire out anything less than a full pot bet on this board, I'm calling and leading out the turn with almost any two assuming I have a decent stack.

By "you," I mean the average PP player, not YOU. It would depend on the player, having a decent read, my stack, etc. And probably not "almost any two" but I am very often calling and leading out depending on the board.

[elmitchbo]

i disagree. i think by firing into 'thinking players' is exactly how you come up with a big score. i make 3 continuation bets and take down the pot. now i'm ahead, and if the next 2 times i get raised and i have to fold that's ok. at that point i've still picked up more chips than i've lost and i've set the up the move, so the third time someone rasies my continuation bet is when i flopped 3 aces and i get it all in as a huge favorite.

if you play pretty tight, and make the same type of play with your monster that you make with nothing you will be better off making the play 99.5% of the time. bet, bet , bet, and then bet again.

The counter argument to this is that opponents have a hard time distinguisihing what your bets mean if you are almost always betting. I'd love someone to think they've picked up on my CB patterns only to reraise me when I'm holding the nuts. That's the whole idea here and my favorite way to take someone's whole stack. That's why continuing to take the line of the aggressor when you have taken control of a hand is so important. Yes, reads definitely matter but I still feel that betting this flop is almost mandatory, especially considering the preflop action and villains check to me on the flop. The most important skill in regards to continuation bets, however, is knowing when your CB has been picked off by a better hand and yielding. This would be one of those cases where I would yield to the better hand after the all-in check raise. Had villain taken a different line here I might go broke on this hand - but he'd have to let me hang myself by taking the right line and the c/r all in is not it.

Here's what I would look for in this particular hand: Has the villain called a lot of preflop raises without being the aggressor? When he did, what hands has he called with? Has he reraised preflop with a strong hand that he's shown down and I know about? If he's holding a monster such as a big pair or big slick here is he the type of player that would have reraised or simply called? Would he lead the flop if he thought he had me beat with a hand like AK hoping to charge the draws or would he check-raise hoping to get a little more into the pot?

His flat call preflop would somewhat discredit the monsters in my head. It was a good slowplay on villains part and he probably should have tried to get some more money in the pot by either calling or raising a smaller amount than all-in on the flop hoping that 1) hero would make a mistake and call his raise and 2) the turn would be a safe card. With this line I think the villain could have taken hero's whole stack assuming another diamond didn't turn up. As it stands here, the c/r all in is either the nuts or nothing and I'm not getting close to the right odds to pay my whole stack to find out.

Well, if I am wrong, I am happy to be wrong along with Dan Harringon. LOL

Good points.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, if you fire out anything less than a full pot bet on this board, I'm calling and leading out the turn with almost any two assuming I have a decent stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the top posters here advocate using less than a pot sized continuation bet. Harrington does the same in HOH. Don't think that just because a bet is less than pot sized it doesn't indicate strength.

[MikeSmith]

[ QUOTE ]
i disagree. i think by firing into 'thinking players' is exactly how you come up with a big score. i make 3 continuation bets and take down the pot. now i'm ahead, and if the next 2 times i get raised and i have to fold that's ok. at that point i've still picked up more chips than i've lost and i've set the up the move, so the third time someone rasies my continuation bet is when i flopped 3 aces and i get it all in as a huge favorite.

if you play pretty tight, and make the same type of play with your monster that you make with nothing you will be better off making the play 99.5% of the time. bet, bet , bet, and then bet again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree continuation bets are good but you have to watch out for the smart ones that will let you do the betting and re pop you on the river, now you are left with kibbles n bits and on your way out the door. You should only bet if you think it will win you the pot, if you get called the man has you beat a majority of the time.

Conclusion: Continuation bets good but USE caution.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, if you fire out anything less than a full pot bet on this board, I'm calling and leading out the turn with almost any two assuming I have a decent stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the top posters here advocate using less than a pot sized continuation bet. Harrington does the same in HOH. Don't think that just because a bet is less than pot sized it doesn't indicate strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you should use less than a pot sized continuation bet most of the time. But if you use it against a draw heavy board against a good player, he will know that you do not have a hand because if you did you would be protecting against the draw.

this is a good way to bleed off chips. this is so easy for other players to pick up on. how many time that you raise preflop, will the board actually hit your hand?

in your example, you say you flopped 3 Aces and someone raises your CB. How often does this happen? #1, villain would had to have hit his hand or try and make you think he did(probably not an A since you have AA and since you bet preflop, he's going to be worried that the A hit you unless he hit 2 pair or lower set - maybe a draw).

Continuation bets are what they are and you won't always have first in vigourish after the flop. Are you going over the top when you miss the flop and someone leads out. Bet, bet, bet seems to indicate that. I assume when you miss the flop, you are folding SOMETIMES to a postflop bet from OOP villain.

Really believe if you are too predictable, that your opponents will be able to use this against you and your percentage of times that you take down the hand drops drastically because of your standard line.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course you should use less than a pot sized continuation bet most of the time. But if you use it against a draw heavy board against a good player, he will know that you do not have a hand because if you did you would be protecting against the draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't make a pot-sized bet here with a made hand. I want Villain playing his draw. I would certainly prefer he called a 3/4 pot bet with a flush draw than folded to a pot-sized bet.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you should use less than a pot sized continuation bet most of the time. But if you use it against a draw heavy board against a good player, he will know that you do not have a hand because if you did you would be protecting against the draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made a full pot 'continuation bet' (as opposed to several other kinds of bet that don't involve me raising PF) exactly zero times this year.

BTW, this is a clear bet, because either BB has a K or he missed this board, and you don't want to be forced off your hand on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course you should use less than a pot sized continuation bet most of the time. But if you use it against a draw heavy board against a good player, he will know that you do not have a hand because if you did you would be protecting against the draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made a full pot 'continuation bet' (as opposed to several other kinds of bet that don't involve me raising PF) exactly zero times this year.

BTW, this is a clear bet, because either BB has a K or he missed this board, and you don't want to be forced off your hand on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not advocating a pot sized continuation bet. I am advocating checking behind.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, if you fire out anything less than a full pot bet on this board, I'm calling and leading out the turn with almost any two assuming I have a decent stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the top posters here advocate using less than a pot sized continuation bet. Harrington does the same in HOH. Don't think that just because a bet is less than pot sized it doesn't indicate strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you should use less than a pot sized continuation bet most of the time. But if you use it against a draw heavy board against a good player, he will know that you do not have a hand because if you did you would be protecting against the draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but this shows a complete lack of 2nd level thinking. Make the bet that you think will be called or folded to based on what you think villain thinks of your play.

Take the following example. Pot is 300 and I fire a CB of 200 into it. Villain now has to call 200 into a 500 pot. He's getting 2.5:1 which is inadequate odds for almost any draw going to the turn - so we're still protecting against the draw and risking less of our stack to do it. It accomplishes the same exact thing. Making pot sized bets here is exactly why you are on the losing end with regard to contination bets. You're risking and losing too much so that you need to win more often to compensate.

If you wanted to consider the odds going all the way to the river that's a different story because now you're considering odds with two cards to come which is usually only done in an all-in confrontation. Villain shouldn't call this bet going to the turn with a draw based on these odds unless he knows he'll be seeing a river card - as would be the case in an all-in confrontation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, if you fire out anything less than a full pot bet on this board, I'm calling and leading out the turn with almost any two assuming I have a decent stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the top posters here advocate using less than a pot sized continuation bet. Harrington does the same in HOH. Don't think that just because a bet is less than pot sized it doesn't indicate strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you should use less than a pot sized continuation bet most of the time. But if you use it against a draw heavy board against a good player, he will know that you do not have a hand because if you did you would be protecting against the draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but this shows a complete lack of 2nd level thinking. Make the bet that you think will be called or folded to based on what you think villain thinks of your play.

Take the following example. Pot is 300 and I fire a CB of 200 into it. Villain now has to call 200 into a 500 pot. He's getting 2.5:1 which is inadequate odds for almost any draw going to the turn - so we're still protecting against the draw and risking less of our stack to do it. It accomplishes the same exact thing. Making pot sized bets here is exactly why you are on the losing end with regard to contination bets. You're risking and losing too much so that you need to win more often to compensate.

If you wanted to consider the odds going all the way to the river that's a different story because now you're considering odds with two cards to come which is usually only done in an all-in confrontation. Villain shouldn't call this bet going to the turn with a draw based on these odds unless he knows he'll be seeing a river card - as would be the case in an all-in confrontation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't advocate pot-sized continuation bets. Geez.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, if you fire out anything less than a full pot bet on this board, I'm calling and leading out the turn with almost any two assuming I have a decent stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't advocate pot-sized continuation bets. Geez.


[/ QUOTE ]

So I should fire a pot sized bet or you won't beleive me but you aren't firing bets that size?

Pick one. Geez /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, if you fire out anything less than a full pot bet on this board, I'm calling and leading out the turn with almost any two assuming I have a decent stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't advocate pot-sized continuation bets. Geez.


[/ QUOTE ]

So I should fire a pot sized bet or you won't beleive me but you aren't firing bets that size?

Pick one. Geez /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, yes that is exactly correct.

[ellipse_87]

One of the disadvantages of playing a hand post-flop from early position is that any attempt to get in a raise bears the cost of occasional missed bets and free cards. The late position player who regards continuation bets as "mandatory" neutralizes a substantial part of his positional advantage. One should not continuation bet all the time when checked to--that helps your opponent by foreclosing opportunities for him to make mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the disadvantages of playing a hand post-flop from early position is that any attempt to get in a raise bears the cost of occasional missed bets and free cards. The late position player who regards continuation bets as "mandatory" neutralizes a substantial part of his positional advantage. One should not continuation bet all the time when checked to--that helps your opponent by foreclosing opportunities for him to make mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are also correct. When you feel your opponent won't call your bet with a worse hand but he may bluff the next street if you show weakness that's fine, but this was a coordinated flop that helped hero's hand enough that a semi-bluff was definitely appropriate. Sure you're trying to induce villain into making a mistake, but why give him control of the hand when you have no clue where you stand here? I like your thinking much better when hero is the one holding a monster on a ragged, non-coordinated flop that's very likely to have missed the villain. Hero was the original aggressor and I think that he needs to make an attempt to keep that control here and let villain define his hand a bit to us. This isn't exactly a safe flop for hero here - he's behind plenty of hands that call preflop and needs to hit his draw if he is going to win this hand. If you check behind and allow villain to lead the turn, what if an offsuit 9 falls and now you have a flush draw + straight draw and villain leads the turn? You've picked up some more outs but do you have any clue how strong your hand (or draw) may be in relation to the villains? With this line you only lose a small amount on a hand where you stand to lose a considerable amount by continuing on and missing your draws. The other possibility, as I stated earlier, is that villain may have called preflop with any pair 22-QQ and be ahead of you here but capable of laying it down if he can put you on a hand with a king and he isn't holding a pair that hit a set on the flop. It's unlikely that he'll fold a better hand on later streets if you don't represent a hand that's ahead of his right now.

[allenciox]

I love all of you (and there are a lot of you) who are making bets close to 100% of the time when your raise is called preflop. I'll check it to you every single time on the flop (because the rare time they don't make a bet is when they have hit their hand big), and often then raise, sometimes with air. So adanthar and the rest of you, please don't change your behavior --- keep betting every time you miss the flop when you raise preflop, I love it.

[adanthar]

Where in my post did I say anything about 'always' or 'close to 100%' doing anything?

[ellipse_87]

OP's question was whether and how often to check the flop in position instead of making a continuation bet. If villain had seen hero cont. bet 100% after his preflop raises, then hero cost himself 150 chips in this hand by doing that. If on the other hand hero had checked a few draws and maybe a couple ragged flops previously, villain might have bet out here and hero saves those 150 chips.

So let's take this hand. Hero should bet most draws but check some. He's made cont. bets 100% previouly. So now, although certainly he may be giving up a chance to take the pot on the flop, why not check one? It may foil a checkraise, it may enable him to win chips against an overpair if the diamond comes, but most importantly it (1) subjects him to fewer checkraises from here on out, and (2) enables him to get chips on the turn sometimes with TP when opponent would have folded the flop, because hero's checks don't just mean made hands now, they mean missed flops too.

Cybr mentions this, check the flop only when you're able to extract value on the turn and the board's ragged, but this won't work if the table never sees hero check a missed flop after raising pf.

You also have to do this sometimes to set up some turn action that will give you a free showdown when you need it. Check-bet-raise-call on the flop cedes control of the hand to the out-of-position villain. Check-check, then bet-raise-call, lets you check the river behind, so now you're paying one street instead of three to see SD--this is invaluable sometimes but is never available to you if you auto-CB the flop, or check the flop in a predictable pattern.

[Proofrock]

Perhaps I'm missing something in all of this discussion, but I think OP's point was that here he currently has a weak hand (one that he can't call a raise with), but he has a draw to a very strong hand. If he has either a strong hand or a weak hand, then CB isn't a problem because he has the easy decision if he gets played back at, but here he doesn't really want to fold, though he has to if Villain check-raises.

Whether to fire a CB here seems dependent upon Villain (does he play back frequently? is he aggressive, tricky, does he check-fold if he missed ...) and on Hero's image.

The possible outcomes, as I see them, are:
-check and take a free card.
-bet and take it down.
-bet and fold to a big raise.
-bet and shut down if called (unless you hit your draw).

Personally, I like checking in the given situation because we have a strong draw but a weak hand, we'll definitely get pushed off of our hand by a pair of kings or better on this board, and anybody without a pair of kings or better is unlikely to improve on the turn. So if it gets checked to us again, we have the option of betting the turn, and with a greater likelihood that our bet will take the pot. If Villain leads the turn, we can let pot odds/implied odds make our decision for us. Besides, checking the flop adds some deception to your play -- not only do you demonstrate that you won't CB 100% of the time, but if you've been active and people suspect you of CBing without a hand, a thinking Villain may also expect you to CB when connect with the flop (flush draw here).

The argument that checking invites Villain to take the hand away on the turn I find a little lacking. The same player who bluffs the turn with a weak hand is just as / more capable of check-raising the flop.

[adanthar]

Without going into too many details and without saying that these are the only possible lines, here are some good flops to check J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif behind on with these stacks vs. a typical PF calling range:

A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif
A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif T /images/graemlins/club.gif
Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif J /images/graemlins/club.gif T /images/graemlins/spade.gif
K /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif T /images/graemlins/club.gif

Some flops that can go either way:

Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif
A /images/graemlins/spade.gif J /images/graemlins/club.gif 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif
A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Flops that I, personally, would always bet:

J /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 6 /images/graemlins/spade.gif
7 /images/graemlins/club.gif 6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif
A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

Half of this is straight out of SSH and I recommend anybody who doesn't get when to CB to read it.

[Proofrock]

Would you explain why you would check J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif behind on an A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 10/images/graemlins/club.gif board?

This is one board where I would be perfectly happy getting all-in on the flop (with 15 outs making me a favorite against Villain's range).

[adanthar]

Because your FE on that board vs. him is somewhere between 0% and -5%.

You said that you have started reading HOH2. He addresses how situations like this come up often and how important they are in developing your table image...this situation like others, harrington stresses a variation of plays to keep your opponents guessing. You played this hand fine, but perhaps the next time, change up your approach. Good luck.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Because your FE on that board vs. him is somewhere between 0% and -5%.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, you don't want to be on the calling end of a checkraise with 50% equity.

Being checkraised allin is bad. Being checkraised less than allin is also bad because the rest will go in on a blank turn.

[MLG]

This flush draw + gutshot is the only one I disagree with you on. You have 40% equity in the hand based on your hand strength, you dont many folds to justify following through on the flop.

Also to some degree what kind of flops you follow through on depends on how aggresive you are. I'm more aggresive than most so I get cred more than most, so I'm more likely to check a good draw because its more likely ill be forced to fold than a lot of plaers.

[Proofrock]

[ QUOTE ]
Because your FE on that board vs. him is somewhere between 0% and -5%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, but you're a favorite against most of his likely holdings, right? You don't need FE to be +EV getting all-in on that flop. Are you suggesting it's more +EV to check behind? I haven't done checked the numbers, but given the stack sizes I'm dubious of this ...

[adanthar]

It's a double gutshot so you have 50%-ish, but I think you (I, you might not) get far more EV out of calling/raising his turn bet depending on what falls [my check behind/raise turn lines get, like, a *lot* more folds than yours do...] If I think it's a guy that will overbet 99 on the turn if I check behind as opposed to 'some donkey I've never seen', I'll bet it.

Anyway, I know MLG knows this, but to the rest of you -instead of looking at the individual flops I've listed, look at the pattern.