Continuation Bets

About how often do people like to make continuation bets after missing the flop? I find if I do them every time, people catch on real quick. I've been working on a strategy for Hold 'Em NL that tries to randomise these bets. A similar approach may be applicable to other games:

Amount:

2/3 - against 2 players, or with 2 suited or 2 consecutive cards on the flop
1/2 - against 1 player, no suited or consecutive cards on the flop

Early/Mid Position:

Against one player: Unless an A or two of JQKT flops or I hold two red cards.
Against two players: Unless an A, T, or two of JQK flops or I hold exactly one red card.

Last position:

Against one player: Unless I hold two red cards
Against two players: Unless an A or two of JQKT flops or I hold two red cards.

The red cards are to randomise so I don't become predictable.

Any suggestions on this strategy? Of course, I'd mix it up if someone were particularly weak/prone to calling.

[Triumph36]

So what if people catch on real quick? They'll begin calling you down with Ace high when you have top set, min-check-raising with second pair - everything you love to see.

I continuation bet 95% of the time against 1 or 2 callers. The only time I don't is when I have an inside straight draw that I don't want to be check-raised off of. Occasionally I will check to a maniac when I have some kind of other draw. Or if the board is something like JT9 and I have 44. Otherwise - I'm betting. Those players who habitually call down or check-raise are almost always making poor plays - they will beat you in small pots, but you will crush them in big pots.

Remember, you're not being predictable by contiuation betting 90% of flops. You're betting that flop with top set, and you're betting it with 8 high. How can the opponent tell the difference?

I play short-handed - it's been a while since I played full ring in any serious capacity. But I think the same things would hold true, against 1 or 2 callers.

Also, I don't quite understand your system. You're telling me you're not betting even if you have the top pair in these cases?

Obviously you can't cont bet every flop, so I like your randomization strategy. However, if your opponents still think your cont betting almost every flop, the easiest way to make them pay for it is to make the same size cont bet you've been making when you really hit the flop instead of slowplaying a monster. This is the best way to disguise what you're doing in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
So what if people catch on real quick? They'll begin calling you down with Ace high when you have top set, min-check-raising with second pair - everything you love to see.

I continuation bet 95% of the time against 1 or 2 callers. The only time I don't is when I have an inside straight draw that I don't want to be check-raised off of. Occasionally I will check to a maniac when I have some kind of other draw. Or if the board is something like JT9 and I have 44. Otherwise - I'm betting. Those players who habitually call down or check-raise are almost always making poor plays - they will beat you in small pots, but you will crush them in big pots.

Remember, you're not being predictable by contiuation betting 90% of flops. You're betting that flop with top set, and you're betting it with 8 high. How can the opponent tell the difference?

I play short-handed - it's been a while since I played full ring in any serious capacity. But I think the same things would hold true, against 1 or 2 callers.

Also, I don't quite understand your system. You're telling me you're not betting even if you have the top pair in these cases?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree with this post. I'd only add that the best way to disguise cont. betting is not so much to vary how often you do it, but rather to vary the size of the cont. bet (as a percentage of the pot). Harrington comments on this well in his book. He says a bet about half the size of the pot is ideal, but it's wise to vary these bets from about 40 to 70% of the pot. If when you miss the flop you always bet half, but when you hit it you always bet the pot, that's an easy pattern for other players to pick up, regardless of how often you do it. It is more important to randomize your betting size than the frequency of the bets in my opinion.

[AaronBrown]

A question like this sounds to me like a driver who asks you "should I turn right or left at the next corner?" You can't answer without knowing (a) where he's going and (b) what his plan is for getting there. You can't isolate continuation bets without knowing your overall strategy. It depends on how often you and other players see the flop, and what kind of betting there was, and what the limit structure is, and how much you can win with a good hand, and a dozen other things.

Why are you making continuation bets in the first place? The simplest way to play Poker, and a money-making strategy against weak players, is to fold unless you hit the flop. You make a lot of money when you hit, and don't lose much when you don't. You need a reason to do something different and what that reason is determines when and how often you should make a continuation bet.

There are three common reasons to bet when you don't hit the flop. One is to bluff people into folding, another is to get people to call when you have a good hand. The third is more complex, by betting you may mislead people about the nature of your hand (made versus drawing) and possibly make it cheaper to see more cards.

Generally, you're trying to do different things with different hands against different other players in different situations. So a one-size-fits-all randomization strategy is unlikely to be a good choice. It's also hard to evaluate. Say you make a continuation bet to get everyone to fold, and you get called, and end up winning the pot. Unless you have the discipline to remember your original reason for making the bet, you may consider this a success and repeat it.

I suggest spending less effort on how often to make these bets and how to randomize them, and more time on figuring out the best and worst times to make them.

[Noo Yawk]

[ QUOTE ]

I suggest spending less effort on how often to make these bets and how to randomize them, and more time on figuring out the best and worst times to make them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

[ QUOTE ]
A question like this sounds to me like a driver who asks you "should I turn right or left at the next corner?" You can't answer without knowing (a) where he's going and (b) what his plan is for getting there. You can't isolate continuation bets without knowing your overall strategy. It depends on how often you and other players see the flop, and what kind of betting there was, and what the limit structure is, and how much you can win with a good hand, and a dozen other things.

Why are you making continuation bets in the first place? The simplest way to play Poker, and a money-making strategy against weak players, is to fold unless you hit the flop. You make a lot of money when you hit, and don't lose much when you don't. You need a reason to do something different and what that reason is determines when and how often you should make a continuation bet.

There are three common reasons to bet when you don't hit the flop. One is to bluff people into folding, another is to get people to call when you have a good hand. The third is more complex, by betting you may mislead people about the nature of your hand (made versus drawing) and possibly make it cheaper to see more cards.

Generally, you're trying to do different things with different hands against different other players in different situations. So a one-size-fits-all randomization strategy is unlikely to be a good choice. It's also hard to evaluate. Say you make a continuation bet to get everyone to fold, and you get called, and end up winning the pot. Unless you have the discipline to remember your original reason for making the bet, you may consider this a success and repeat it.

I suggest spending less effort on how often to make these bets and how to randomize them, and more time on figuring out the best and worst times to make them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aaron Brown, I have to respectfully disagree. I have accounted for most of the things you've mentioned. First, this is for no-limit play. I'd only potentially do a continuation bet when:

1) I was the original raiser.
2) I completely missed the flop.
3) I had only one or two callers.

Those are a pretty constrained set of circumstances. Further, the reason I have all those ace-face restrictions is that I'm taking into account whether or not the flop would have hit someone else.

Also, I would mix this up if I were against a habitual caller or a habitual folder. In these cases, I'd either never or always do a continuation bet.

I'd be happy to hear any more specific advice you might have, though.

[Noo Yawk]

"Also, I would mix this up if I were against a habitual caller or a habitual folder. In these cases, I'd either never or always do a continuation bet."

How about against a player who is on tilt? or a bad player who is currently winning? or a winning player who is getting smoked? or a mediocre player who just sat down? How would your randomizing work against a good player who is playing a certain way because he is in the pot with a bad player who's on stone cold tilt and you happen to be caught in the middle?

In order to vary play according to circumstances, I need a default play that I can adapt.

I appreciate your advice, but really, "It depends" isn't very helpful. Of course, it depends. The question is what is a good play under normal circumstances.

[Triumph36]

I always bet between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the pot, regardless of what I have. I will bet closer to full pot if the board is monotone and I'm trying to protect my hand, or if I'm heads-up against a super calling station, but otherwise, my bet sizes aren't changing. So that is 'randomizing' enough - my hand could still be anything. I suppose by randomizing one's bet sizes, you can give your opponents the impression that they think they've figured out your betting pattern when you haven't. I don't think my opponents are sophisticated enough to pick up on something like that.