Dan Harrington continuation bet question. - Page 3

PCFordham · #21 07-28-2005, 10:38 AM

it's not a semi-bluff, it's a continuation bet...

JC_Saves · #22 07-28-2005, 10:42 AM

GO back and read HOH 1 because you don't have a clue what a continuation bet is. You really should be sure that you understand the basics before you move on to more advanced situations.

TomCollins · #23 07-28-2005, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course in real life they have different equities, based on their cards, skill, and position, but in the absence of such knowledge we can consider them all to have the same equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic, classic. I hope post #3 is as insightful.

#24 07-28-2005, 12:46 PM

Thanks for the helpful comment.

Sunek, in the original post, asked why we were losing $90 when we were supposed to be breaking even. He received a bunch of replies accusing him of not knowing what a continuation bet is.

I tried to explain why we were losing $90. What I left out, and shouldn't have, is that losing $90 could be considered breaking even, if you're absolutely sure you're going to lose the pot if you don't make the continuation bet, in which case you lose $90 either way. In real life this seems overly pessimistic.

Hope to share more of your insights.

SeaEagle · #25 07-28-2005, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This holds true no matter how many players there are. Suppose ten people have each put $30 in the pot preflop. If you try to steal the pot with a $150 bet and succeed one time out of three you've won the other players' $270 in that pot but you're out the other two $150 bets plus two $30 preflop bets for a total of $360 and a loss of $90 as in your example. In order to break even by stealing one pot out of three you would have to consider that to win the other players' $270 share of the pot you were putting up your $30 share plus the amount you were betting, in this case $105 to make your investment $135. Now if you won one out of three you would gain the same $270 but only lose two $105 bets and two $30 preflop bets to break even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Myname, if I use your premise of the pot not being dead and me "owning" $30 of it, then I'm also compelled to assume I'll still own my pro rata portion of it after I'm called. Using this logic, I should always raise because if everyone calls, I'll now "own" my original share + the amount of my bet, and if anyone folds I'll gain their share. So betting must never cost me chips and sometimes gain them.

Shandrax · #26 07-28-2005, 01:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it's not a semi-bluff, it's a continuation bet...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it isn't a value bet for sure, you have missed the flop after all. What you are doing is trying to build on your image as pre-flop-raiser and get the others to fold by showing agression. I would say this qualifies very well to be called a semi-bluff.

pzhon · #27 07-28-2005, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's not a semi-bluff, it's a continuation bet...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it isn't a value bet for sure, you have missed the flop after all.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean your hand still isn't the best hand. A continuation bet can be a semibluff, but it can also be a value bet or a protection bet, possibly all at the same time. If you make a continuation bet with AK, someone with an underpair may fold (semibluff), someone with AQ unimproved may call (value), and someone with a gutshot may fold (protection).