When not to cont bet?

Playing 6 max down to heads up, I am wondering about some pretty basic concepts; A major one being the cont bet (apologies if this has been covered).. But if a pot is heads up and i raised preflop, if it is a blind battle, etc, I will ALWAYS cont bet. I don't mean like, 95%. I mean, if the player checks to me I am betting.

This is at the 15/30 - 30/60 level, but that feels unimportant. Anyway, the big blind basically has position on the button for the first betting round if the button always bets, so I am looking for spots to check behind, as part of a more balanced strategy.

Anyone got any situations where they might check behind? My immediate reaction was to not cont bet in situations where I wouldn't call a raise but that felt stupid; I would just check behind with my one overcard and then on the turn I would get bet out of the pot; I thought 'the cont bet is still +EV here'.

So then I tried places where I had a little something; 2 overcards, backdoor flush draw / straight draw, etc; But the same situation occured, except semi bluffing with these hands was usually more effective.

So are there any spots I could be checking behind? Any example hands? I can't think of why I would ever do it, but surely once the opponent knows you cont bet 100% of the time, they can exploit this strategy at higher limits.

[jba]

very occasionally I check when I forget that I was the preflop aggressor. sometimes I have crap and sometimes I'm trying to check/raise.

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
surely once the opponent knows you cont bet 100% of the time, they can exploit this strategy at higher limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me your strategy is more exploitable if you cont bet (100-x)% of the time where x is nonzero but not that big (since you are giving away shania). On the other hand, if x is big, you are missing value. Without being at all rigorous, I'd say cont betting 100% of the time is close to a game-theoretically perfect strategy.

[Filthy]

Ok that's basically what i assumed, but i remember in the past, in a post on blind stealing, flawless victory, a player who seems to know what he's talking about, said that its ok to take a free card sometimes (referring to blind stealing with mediocre hands).

I was interested in some situations where it IS actually ok to take a free card and an explanation of why that would be better than just cont betting.

But i'll just keep flailing away for now [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ddubois]

I can think of a few factors that will cause me to not contuation bet: A) multiple opponents, B) boards that are awful for my hand and almost certainly hit my opponets, C) I have a weak draw and want the free card. One factor is usually not enou to stop me from cont betting, but 2 or 3 combines will. Like when I raise A7s/66 in MP and the button and both blinds come along and the flop is QJ9, I think it's ok to just give up. Or if I raise the button with Jc9c, both blinds come and the flop is KdQh8c - I might check that behind sometimes.

[Filthy]

After it gets to more than 3 handed, the rules change and I play the hand much more normally. I would never check the J9 example however, I would bet / call then c/f ui. Anyone agree with checking behind with gut shots on drawish boards?

[wdcbooks]

I love and heavily exploit the suspicious flop check, and I suspect it folds out many more hands that beat me than betting would. It is highly situational and I don't use it in a blind battle, only when I raise from the button or CO with the BB calling.

The way it works is when I raise preflop and any non calling station player calls me in the BB, I will check behind a flop with a K or Q. Either would be a reasonable card for a button raiser to have and by checking behind I simulate a clumsy slowplay. I will always bet the turn if checked to, and I will usually raise if bet into.

There are a number of advantages over betting out. First, all but the densest players will not pursue their draws. The big bet on the turn into a tiny pot makes even a flush draw extremely expensive. I also find people are much more willing to give up bottom pair or ace high.

That being said I bet 80% of the time and check 20%. I would like to say I check with hands that hit the flop at times to mix up my play. The truth is that I don't think people notice enough to make it profitable. The whole point of this line is to improve your chances of taking a small pot. When an ace flops I bet 100% of the time, as that is what you are expected to have and checking behind is just goofy.

[ddubois]

I don't mean to imply that you definatly should check behind J9s there, I'm just saying that an example where it might be passable to not continuation bet. There are situations in poker where two different choices are equally good due to competing factors.

Often you avoid being CRed, sometimes you hit that miracle card and can multiple raises in on a big street, sometimes they check to you again because you "clearly have a monster" and fold their 98/55/A6, and sometimes you're able to bluff them out when an ace turns.