Question re: Dinner with Dan and Bill

[burningyen]

cero z,

Are your continuation bets usually pot-sized as well?

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
don´t apologize. everyone needs to make their first steps one day.

[/ QUOTE ]

and it is a good question that appeared to other people as well (to me for example).

[Leroy Soesman]

I like your take on this Cero. Recently i've been noticing that I haven't been making the money I should be on the flushdraw when I play it in a straightforward manner. Simply because the flushcard is a big scare card. And i've been thinking of how to counter this problem, especially since i don't always want to raise my flushdraw early in the deal.(I disregard the increased chance of running a bluff when a flush card hits,here; but i hear you).

I do want to add something to your last remark:

[ QUOTE ]
When you face this flop situation in NL, you have a difficult hand ahead of you. If you bet too little, your opponent will either have an easy time collecting enough by the river when he hits to justify his flop call, or he will be able to make you fold the best hand too often, depending on how you play it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely sure, but I understand that the problems you mention are the consequence of betting too little, and make a case for betting the pot.

There is certainly something to be said for making a big bet in order to induce mistakes in your opponents. However it does not necessarily provide protection against the dangers you set out in your post.

Because betting the pot on the flop in certain cases makes it easier for your opponent to represent a hand bigger than top pair (perhaps causing you to lay down the best hand). Also you are setting yourself up to play a big pot with a rather marginal holding (perhaps causing you to pay off the flush). Things you cannot counter unless you have a rather agressive image, and rather good abilities already (and thus this situation is less likely to be a problem for you). Certainly you don't want your pot bet to create a situation where you are beat if you get action.

Please note that although giving your opponent 3 : 1 you might not induce a mistake on his part, it might well prevent you from making a mistake that will be much costlier than letting him have his implied odds. (NOTE: this holds more for a raised pot in which you are shorthanded than for multiway pots).

You have touched upon what I say when you mentioned that the smaller bet works in extremely tight situations. I don't think that it has to be extremely tight. At the lower limits ($100 NL - $200NL), at a reasonably tight table, a big flop bet in a raised pot typically only gets action when top pair is beat. Especially because a lot of 2+2 players have a very tight image (this goes even more for the nut peddlers) they should take heed in reading the advice in this thread.

I do understand that this is not the case in bigger limit games, but as I mentioned before, the people in those games are less likely to have problems with this kind of situation. These people will probably also feel more comfortable playing marginal situations in a big pot.

[Leroy Soesman]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you always fold top pair against a bettor when a third suited card came? If not, then by betting the full pot, you may be forcing a flush-draw to INCORRECTLY fold given the IMPLIED odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. Very. Of course you have to do more than just NOT fold to a suited card, but also pay off enough to justify a flop call. But a sufficiently skilled player is probably able to pull that off.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Granny:

We charged the dinner to Two Plus Two. That means David and Ray paid for most of it.

Best wishes,
mason