Continuationbet +EV?
 

33/15/2,1/26

Poker Room skin
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $3/$6
5 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $552.40
CO: $1.109.30
Button: $522.20
Hero: $594.00
BB: $2.088.55

Pre-flop: (5 players) Hero is SB with J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
UTG folds, <font color="#cc0000">CO raises to $20</font>, Button folds, <font color="#cc0000">Hero raises to $67</font>, BB calls, CO folds.

Flop: 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] ($154, 2 players)
<font color="#cc0000">Hero bets $110</font>...

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

dont like

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

Like!

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

like, you take this down a lot of the time imo

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
like, you take this down a lot of the time imo

[/ QUOTE ]
that doesnt necessarily mean it shows the most value. i check here.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

with no info on villain, my default is dont like.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

What should i do if flop goes check check and turn is a blank?
Do you c/c this turn?

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

bet smaller

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
bet smaller

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? To induce a bluff or get value from TT?

c/c flop, lead turn as a value bet if checked to.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

I like, you get him to call w/ any pair here if ur rr-range is good.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

Looks completely standard to me.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
dont like

[/ QUOTE ]

You c/c flop here?

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

I would c/c flop and c/f after that

Once it checks thru I would bet turn for 2/3 pot

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

It of course looks standard but should be pretty bad theoretically. Only reason for the bet is that it makes the hand easier to play against straightforward opponents. Still checking has to be superior imo.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It of course looks standard but should be pretty bad theoretically. Only reason for the bet is that it makes the hand easier to play against straightforward opponents. Still checking has to be superior imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

assuming opponent bets his entire range and checks hands you beat on the turn, absolutely. this would be a line to take against a garden variety TAG.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

in a vacuum checking is probably superior, if you are good at handling tough decisions out of position against aggressive opponents.

from a metagame POV its probably bad since if you 3bet this guy with 78s, this is a good flop to cbet i think.

im bad at playing OOP so i like to make the hand easier to play and just bet/fold

note: if i had 3bet this guy in position and he called, and tthe flop came like this, i'd check behind nearly always.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

in a vacuum checking might be better than betting but I think betting is the best for other reasons.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

I like it and bet size. If called your done with hand. Against a super passive, you might check and plan to call one bet on next three streets, but against a better player, this is easier and standard.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

i like it! you often take it down...

what do we do if the just calls?!

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i like it! you often take it down...

what do we do if the just calls?!

[/ QUOTE ]

c/f turn

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It of course looks standard but should be pretty bad theoretically. Only reason for the bet is that it makes the hand easier to play against straightforward opponents. Still checking has to be superior imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't fully understand why the "standard" play and the optimal play would vary significantly. The reason it is considered standard in the first place is because it is optimal for most situations.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

The "standard" play is to pretty much always continuation bet.The optimal play in this situation is the one that gets the most value out of worse hands while not putting much money in when behind. I don`t see how this can be accomplished by betting.
I am not saying betting is bad but I don`t think this is a spot that is so crystal clear that one word answers are sufficient.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

Reads on BB would be helpful. Against your "normal" villain, the only hand we are beating here is AK. I think c/c flop, w/ intent to c/f turn is your best bet. Not sure what betting the flop accomplishes.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i like it! you often take it down...

what do we do if the just calls?!

[/ QUOTE ]

We check turn, and probably folds to a bet?

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

oh wow - i should read these hands, i didn't realize BB cold-called

c/f flop seems best - c/c fold turn is okay i guess.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

edit

misread action as well crap

uh yeah c/f turn

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

Ah, thought it was vs CO, change my vote to checking. And this kind of cold call not closing the betting is often queens even though his range probably is somewhat wider than normal when BB and CO are almost 200bb deep.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, thought it was vs CO, change my vote to checking. And this kind of cold call not closing the betting is often queens even though his range probably is somewhat wider than normal when BB and CO are almost 200bb deep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very often, especially when it's not 22,33,44,55,66,77,88,99,TT,JJ,45s,56s,67s,78s,9Ts, 9To,TJs,TJo, or QJs.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
in a vacuum checking might be better than betting but I think betting is the best for other reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It of course looks standard but should be pretty bad theoretically. Only reason for the bet is that it makes the hand easier to play against straightforward opponents. Still checking has to be superior imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

so wrong. checking makes the hand "easier" and betting is theoretically correct. board is super dry, your hand is very strong here.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It of course looks standard but should be pretty bad theoretically. Only reason for the bet is that it makes the hand easier to play against straightforward opponents. Still checking has to be superior imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

so wrong. checking makes the hand "easier" and betting is theoretically correct. board is super dry, your hand is very strong here.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you think we get more value from worse hands by betting? I disagree.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

betfold here against a coldcaller, and i prefer a strong bet to a weak one. if he calls, pretty much give up without a j-ball

with more hands/reads on the guy, c/f becomes an option

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

My thought was...

If hero bets no worse hands call. =&gt; He bluffs.
Our hand is sometimes good, no reason to bluff with it.
We should bluff with all hands worse than JJ but JJ has still value and we don´t need so many bluffs for getting action with our good hands.

In our Range are so many trashhands like AJ/AK/22-TT/suited connctors so why should we need another bluff? Check/Fold is a good option and our metagame doesn´t get any damage because our range is well balanced. There is no way for villain to exploit our range ( because we can check 66/QQ, too). So i don´t see any arguments for "betting is better because metagame".

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

i check-call, i think by leading we are never gaining much profit at all, in that an opponent with a Q calls/raises, and any floater clearly suceeds as firing the turn doesn't look fun to me at all.

thus your either getting floated (then they bet turn as bluff), or even someone calling with say 99, who can then take you off your JJ when you check turn (when he is betting for, what he thinks, is protection).

so personally i see no real reason, or how to play the hand across the 3 streets, by leading.

i prefer check-call, check-fold

or check-call, check-check, weedy value bet-call (if no hearts comes)

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

Mh... if check then check/call?
I don´t like a call but i´m a nit.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
oh wow - i should read these hands, i didn't realize BB cold-called

c/f flop seems best - c/c fold turn is okay i guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, lol. I thought villian was CO.

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
oh wow - i should read these hands, i didn't realize BB cold-called

c/f flop seems best - c/c fold turn is okay i guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, lol. I thought villian was CO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

c/f usually

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
c/f usually

[/ QUOTE ]

you dont honestly believe this so why post it? well i know why but lol

Re: Continuationbet +EV?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
c/f usually

[/ QUOTE ]

you dont honestly believe this so why post it? well i know why but lol

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf?