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

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ 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 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), [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[ 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, [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

[ 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