Near the bubble, hitting monsters
 

Okay, similar situation happened to me twice last night. One is a 33 1-table, the other is a 33 2-table SNG. Four and five people left, moderate blinds (as compared to stacks), all roughly equal stacks. In the CO, I pick up TT and JJ. Both times I raise 3BB, as everyone has >10BB left. Both times the button calls, one time one of the blinds also calls.

I hit a set of Jacks on a J rag rag flop, and I hit quad tens in the other case. I almost always make continuation bets when I raise preflop, so anyone paying attention should/would notice if I check these flops.
Both times I tried to lead out with a 1/4 of pot bets, hoping that someone reads that for weakness. Is this wrong? But no, both times everyone folds.
I really feel that checking just looks too suspicious. Should I be giving as many free cards as it takes to get someone to bet? On the quads, the blind had been reraising all in a lot when someone showed weakness.
Looking for a better way to play these hands.

Re: Near the bubble, hitting monsters
 

why do you cont bet every flop no matter what? checking is fine. they are folding the flop if they dont have a piece, and you have a gigantic piece, so its hard for them to have much of a piece. check behind, then maybe min bet or somethign on the turn. they are idiots, they dont pay attention. get max value from it however you can, thats the whole point of poker. holla

Re: Near the bubble, hitting monsters
 

I've experimented with betting after hitting monster flops after raising preflop at the $22s and $33s, and I had pretty much the same results as you.

On average, your opponents simply aren't paying enough attention to "sniff out a weak continuation bet" and play back at you. I'm fine checking, hoping they bet a weak made hand (or nothing) and going from there.

-SonnyJay

Re: Near the bubble, hitting monsters
 

Check...you are giving way way too much credit to your opponents....especially at the 33s.

Re: Near the bubble, hitting monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
I almost always make continuation bets when I raise preflop, so anyone paying attention should/would notice if I check these flops.
Both times I tried to lead out with a 1/4 of pot bets, hoping that someone reads that for weakness. Is this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Changing the size of your bet from your usual play is the worst move, in my opinion. It's a huge red flag to anyone paying attention.

It's fine to do exactly what you would usually do, hope somebody has a pair and they pay you off. Otherwise, you win the pot, and on to the next hand.

This is one of the reasons for frequent, consistent continuation bets-- it's very hard to read what you have-- could be a bluff, hit the flop OK, or hit the flop hard.

Another option is to check/check, hope somebody catches something on the turn or river, and win some more money that way. But it sounds like, with your style, you might not get paid off.

End of lecture. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Near the bubble, hitting monsters
 

Yeah, I've found unless they're devious they'll usually wimp out if they've missed a flop it no matter the bet size. Best bet is to give them a chance to bluff.

<font color="teal">~TG</font> [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Near the bubble, hitting monsters
 

Nobody at the 33s remembers that you make a continuation bet every time...hell...10% of them even know what a continuation bet even is.

Re: Near the bubble, hitting monsters
 

True Dat! I am constantly over-estimating my opponents on the 30s.

Re: Near the bubble, hitting monsters
 

Unless you are playing the same opponents day-in/day-out, I wouldn't worry about them noticing. Especially since play usually changes at the bubble. If you have quad tens, give them a chance on the flop and turn to bet. Otherwise, just bet the river.

Re: Near the bubble, hitting monsters
 

One of these was a two-table. Have you ever played those? People pay far more attention than the STTs, in my experience.

Also, you don't have to know what a continuation bet is to realize at some level that your opponent has done something different.

But, whatever. I have no argument against checking. My original point stands: betting an unusual amount is the worst choice, if there's any chance anyone is paying attention.