Continuation Betting: A glimpse of recent theory in my brain.

[Jay Riall]

Checking down showdown hands is not really a new concept - I did this when I played 100NL. I don't really understand what your getting at with checking down or double barreling marginal hands. By double barreling are you turning them into a bluff or are you thinking worse hands call?

[Isura]

Problem is that most people don't understand what showdown value is. Like AK on T98 board doesn't have showdown value if this goes to the river. Same goes for like 77 on 953 type board. It might be good on the river, but more scare cards can come and you can face tough decisions. Its not really checking for showdown value, but checking to avoid being exploitable and sometimes inducing bluffs

[cts]

[ QUOTE ]
AK on T98 board doesn't have showdown value if this goes to the river. Same goes for like 77 on 953 type board.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AK on T98 board doesn't have showdown value if this goes to the river. Same goes for like 77 on 953 type board.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

2nd one is prob bad example. But if the AK goes to showdown without any action I don't expect to be ahead that often against aggressive players.

[Jay Riall]

Spots I frequently do this - I raise ATo preflop behind a loose limper, he is only caller. Flop 225. He checks I check behind. I often get to check this down and have the best hand, or I get to snap off a bluff from his K/Q/J high whatever, I'll sometimes call 2 barrels. The money we lose when he bets into us with 77 or w/e we would have lost anyway by insta c-betting this flop since he never folds better to one barrel and almost never calls worse. Obviously some people are going to start twigging onto this but its not to hard to adjust. Thoughts?

[Jay Riall]

[ QUOTE ]
But if the AK goes to showdown without any action I don't expect to be ahead that often against aggressive players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we will be good a fair bit of the time with no action (assuming turn and river are relative blanks). Especially true if we have position. That flop also has one of the worst textures to cbet (villian dependant obv).

[Isura]

I suck at writing stuff out. But when I check that T98 type of flop w/ AK it is not really with the hope of getting to showdown and having my hand hold up as A-high. That of course happens some of the time, and sometimes you give 3-6 outs a free shot at the pot but its thats only worth 1-2bb since we don't pay it off. Also, its a bad board texture to c-bet with air, and you are likely to get bluff c/r or have them c/c when they have a decent hand. It can become spewy if we try to combat that by double barreling more or floating c/r.. That play is fine but I just think our equity and bluff outs aren't there on this board texture to consider that a viable option. Basically checking avoids becoming easily exploitable with this type of hand on that board against aggressive opponents, as opposed to just showdown value. Also our A and K outs may be good, and we can keep the pot smaller and win a bit if one comes off and they don't put us on AK.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if the AK goes to showdown without any action I don't expect to be ahead that often against aggressive players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we will be good a fair bit of the time with no action (assuming turn and river are relative blanks). Especially true if we have position. That flop also has one of the worst textures to cbet (villian dependant obv).

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW I do like a check in that spot too. I just think its for different reasons (see above)

[john kane]

thanks again for the replies, looks like im not going out drinking tonight (booooo) so i might as well mull some more.

the general problem is that you ideally want a system whereby when you miss to represent a strong hand so your opponent folds, and when you hit that you could be bluffing, and so get paid.

however, both require betting say 3/4, and both in effect require the exact same betting system, and given your opponent, and yourself, could have anything, it is effectively flipping a coin as to whether or not he calls or folds. i.e. you have no justifiable reason to win.

thus it must always boil down to being opponent dependent, that you increase your % of betting with strong hands (so lower the % of weak hands) you want calls with vs players liable to call too much, and lower your % of betting with strong hands (thus bluffing more) vs tight players.

now whilst this may be possibly the most obvious concept ever, it is something which whilst we may do naturally when we know an opponent well, it is not easy when 8 tabling vs a number of unknowns. thus i guess the importance of postflop play really is in knowing your opponent.

i guess given there are millions of poker players out there, so there are millions of different optimal poker strategies each to be perfect against each opponent.

now this is probably an incredibly basic game theory concept, it is one which when playing 50,000+ hands a month really is easy to forget, and simply go on autopilot waiting for the good hands and hoping to get paid.

[Jay Riall]

Yup, I agree with you then Isura. When I check AK or 44 or whatever there it is the same reasons. I would be slightly more inclined to bet 45o or w/e because we have no showdown value but it is not a huge point I agree.