Posted Thu May 25, 2006 8:43 pm GMT by Cricket_Fire
I was reading HoH 2, and right at the start he talks about continuation bets. He says it's good to make them when the flop totally misses you, but bad on a draw. Why is this?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu May 25, 2006 8:50 pm GMT by zinn0
Because villain misses the flop as often as you do. A lot of times continuation bets take the pot down right then.
Posted Thu May 25, 2006 9:13 pm GMT by aaronw
| Quote: | | A lot of times continuation bets take the pot down right then. |
Wouldn't that be a good outcome if you are on a draw? Isn't the ultimate goal to get the pot anyway?
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 7:28 am GMT by Poto
Isn't it because you don't want to be re-raised big?
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 7:36 am GMT by Tadzio
I'd suggest going ahead and making the continuation bet if you're out of position. If you're in position, you have more reasons to check/call behind your opponent. If you're out of position and you don't make continuation bets when you're drawing, thats a major tell.
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 8:14 am GMT by aaronw
| Quote: | | Isn't it because you don't want to be re-raised big? |
You should never not bet because you are afraid of being raised. Making decisions out of fear only leads to bad decision making.
If you are afraid of this, why would you ever bet if you didn't have a made hand?
I'm not sure if any of this makes sense. What you guys think?
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 12:16 pm GMT by shorn7
As I understand it, the reason to not tdo it when in position and on a draw is that you re-open the betting and give him a chance to knock you off your draw with a large raise. Also, by not betting in these situations, you are varying your play so that opponents who do flop a big hand against you don't automatically assume that you will bet every flop where you raised preflop.
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 12:37 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| aaronw wrote: | | You should never not bet because you are afraid of being raised. |
No, there are tons of instances where you don't want to get raised. Sklansky may address it more directly in his tournament book than Harrington does, but I've barely cracked my Harrington books so I don't know.
As an example, let's say you have position in a heads-up pot with AQs. Flop comes giving you a nut flush draw and two overs. Villain leads into you and you call. Turn doesn't help you and villain checks. Unless you believe you have an excellent chance to win the pot with a bet, you should take the free card. The reason is you don't want to risk getting check-raised a very large amount forcing you to fold your strong draw.
And I typed all this out before I realized shorn summed it up in a single sentence. I'm such an unobservant windbag.
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 2:55 pm GMT by aaronw
I am pretty certain that in Super System 2 Doyle Brunson addresses situations similar to this and says that you should never not bet because you are afraid of being raised. I know it is probably a different situation and all. I guess you could either check behind on the flop or bet. I think one of the biggest concerns is not falling into a pattern (right??)
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 3:01 pm GMT by tame_deuces
I'm guessing Harrington is discussing tourney tactics whereas Brunson is discussing ring game tactics.
In ring it doesn't matter if you play a style giving a higher variance as long as you still play profitably, whereas in tourneys this would probably damage your chance of survival.
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 6:23 pm GMT by supafrey
| aaronw wrote: | | I am pretty certain that in Super System 2 Doyle Brunson addresses situations similar to this and says that you should never not bet because you are afraid of being raised. I know it is probably a different situation and all. I guess you could either check behind on the flop or bet. I think one of the biggest concerns is not falling into a pattern (right??) |
Doyle Brunson plays some pretty mediocre poker.
There, I said it.
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 6:40 pm GMT by Johny
| supafrey wrote: | Doyle Brunson plays some pretty mediocre poker.
There, I said it. |
I guess you figured that out the last time you were down at the Bellagio. How much did you win off him in the 4k/8k game?
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 6:51 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Well, in this case Doyle has a good point. A check usually isn't a trap in a ring game.
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 10:35 pm GMT by supafrey
| Johny wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | Doyle Brunson plays some pretty mediocre poker.
There, I said it. |
I guess you figured that out the last time you were down at the Bellagio. How much did you win off him in the 4k/8k game? |
He's a steady loser in every big stakes cash game he's ever played in the last few years.
And his books are crap, too. The parts he wrote, atleast.
Posted Fri May 26, 2006 10:55 pm GMT by crack
I never bothered reading SS1. I wished I hadn't wasted my time on SS2 tbh. The book is a general guide to poker with tidbits of info.
You are best off buying a book dedicated to the certain game you wanna play. Also, his NLH section is not very good. A lot of it is not applying to our game seeing as he is a high stakes mixed game cash player.
Posted Sat May 27, 2006 2:15 am GMT by tame_deuces
I think the Brunson bits on NLHE is pretty damn good. Maybe it is not awe-inspiring but actually I don't think there are any awe-inspiring NLHE books out there.
Also the 'norm' for good NL play in relatively tight games is heading towards similar styles of super-aggressive high-variance play, where you take advantage of being insanely aggressive in 0-EV situations like big draws to give an image of being an action player/bad player and thus gain more from your big hands. The typical 'big card' FLHE plays which has been advocated for NL for years, aren't bad...but they aren't the best fit for a NL betting structure in all games either.
As for him losing in the big game I think I have heard that being said about every player that has ever been playing in that game.
Posted Sat May 27, 2006 3:14 am GMT by AHBrownell
Never or always are not good options in poker.
In some situations you sould make a continuation bet. I like to do this when I think my opponent likely missed the flop and I missed it too; a three different suited board, ten high for instance.
In some situations making a continuation bet is not a very good play. I try to avoid doing this if I think my opponent called with a hand that probably hit the flop; middle cards or same suit or big cards (if I'm holding a middle pair).
Continuation bets are important. But like any bluff, you should only use them when they will make you money; any time you have a good chance that an opponent has you beat its like throwing your money away...
This is the reason you should rarely bluff multiple players - theres a greater chance someone has something.
Don't know if that helped, but there you go...
Posted Sat May 27, 2006 7:45 am GMT by Johny
| supafrey wrote: | He's a steady loser in every big stakes cash game he's ever played in the last few years.
And his books are crap, too. The parts he wrote, atleast. |
That's not true at all. He still hasn't had a losing year in his whole career yet. He came close last year, where he was having a bad year. Imagine that, a bad year out of 50.
I'm really curious as to how you know his results in the big game, this is something he or anyone else doesn't discuss. Daniel Negreanu talks about his results, but never about anyone else's.
All his peers say he's still one of the best all-around poker players in the world. He'd absolutely destroy any of us, so not much point in saying he's a mediocre player.
Posted Sat May 27, 2006 8:37 am GMT by supafrey
| Johny wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | He's a steady loser in every big stakes cash game he's ever played in the last few years.
And his books are crap, too. The parts he wrote, atleast. |
That's not true at all. He still hasn't had a losing year in his whole career yet. He came close last year, where he was having a bad year. Imagine that, a bad year out of 50.
I'm really curious as to how you know his results in the big game, this is something he or anyone else doesn't discuss. Daniel Negreanu talks about his results, but never about anyone else's.
All his peers say he's still one of the best all-around poker players in the world. He'd absolutely destroy any of us, so not much point in saying he's a mediocre player. |
Your last paragraph is unsubstantiated speculation, at best. All of his "peers" are saying the polite thing about a man that's well past his due date in terms of playing - you don't make fun of a legend on tv. (Unless that's the role that ESPN wants you to play, ha-ha).
And saying he'd "destroy us" is laughable. What exactly could he destroy someone like me at? A "5 tabling 100nl online" competition? My winrate is still unnaturally high - I'd be shocked to see him adapt and "beat me" at my game. ... Yes, I'm pretty sure he could beat me in dealer's choice 1k/2k ring - congratulations?
And his books are still crap.
Posted Sat May 27, 2006 11:31 am GMT by crack
"I think the Brunson bits on NLHE is pretty damn good. Maybe it is not awe-inspiring but actually I don't think there are any awe-inspiring NLHE books out there."
I don't. We don't play in high stakes mixed cash games. He hasn't adapted his chapters for the players who are actually buying the book. People playing smaller stakes than him. From what I remember his NLH section is so overly aggressive that if we played like that we would turn from winning players to losing players.
There are better books out there. I mean, even the "Legend In His Own Mind" Sklansky adapts his books for the players who are going to be buying it. Just look at his hand examples and the levels he mentions.
The best book I have read on NLH cash is the Ciaffone one.
For him being a steadily losing cash game player the last few years and past it? I wouldn't know or neither care. 
Posted Sat May 27, 2006 1:33 pm GMT by JohnnyCache
| supafrey wrote: |
Your last paragraph is unsubstantiated speculation, at best. |
Ahm...sup...can you substantiate that he loses?
Posted Sat May 27, 2006 2:23 pm GMT by Johny
That's exactly what I was thinking when you said Brunson was mediocre, Supa. You think that you're at Brunson's level of play, I don't see how you think this. Until you've actually played against him, you can't say he's mediocre.
If he's mediocre, why haven't you been making millions yet? I mean if someone who plays in the highest stakes games in the world daily is mediocre, surely you can do the same.
Posted Sun May 28, 2006 3:54 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | If he's mediocre, why haven't you been making millions yet? I mean if someone who plays in the highest stakes games in the world daily is mediocre, surely you can do the same. |
He doesn't make millions. He did in the past, when the game was played at a much weaker level than it is currently. He now has hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw around yearly to play tourneys that I couldn't afford, fluking out an winning a 10th bracelet (winning an MTT these days is far from proving anything - you won one, didn't you?) =)
I've made money at my level and refuse to move up to somewhere I'm not comfortable - that's why my level is stagnant.
That and the fact that 100 bucks a day is still more money than 90% of Canadians make.
Posted Mon May 29, 2006 1:47 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Man, I don't even know why I'm touching this thread...
For the record, it's unlikely there is any way to prove or disprove the notion that Doyle Brunson has been a consistent loser in the cash games for the last several years, because we simply don't have access to that kind of data. But here's what we do know about his tournament play since 2004.
Legends of Poker ME: 1st Place
Festa al Lago III Poker Tournament: 2nd
2005 Third Annual Five-Star World Poker Classic: 3rd
WSOP 6-Handed NL: 1st
Five-Diamond Classic ME: 3rd
I think that's pretty impressive, personally. But I will also agree with Supa in the opinion that his NL section in SS2 is mostly unhelpful and unimpressive. It advocates a mentality of play that I simply cannot agree with (ie "the scientists don't believe in rushes, but rushes are real"... no Doyle, they're not. "You should really be pushing hard with good draws." I wouldn't say that most of the time. "You should never not bet because you're afraid someone will raise." That's simply not true, and Doyle knows it). Still better than Hellmuth....
Posted Mon May 29, 2006 3:00 pm GMT by 72o
The reason why you make continuation bets when you didnt hit the flop but not when you on a draw is because when you are on a draw you want to make your hand as cheaply as possible. Only in 1 of 9 cases you get a flush draw at the flop with a suited hand and only in 1 of 3 cases the draw is successfull. If you payed a bet for every draw your investment would be much higher than the pot you get if you make the flush (at least in tight games). And even worse: if your opponents fold on your continuation bets youll never make a flush.
But if you dont hit the flop you have only two options: fold or make a continuation bet. And making a small pot with an continuation bet is the better option of course.
And another thing: continuation bet means to bet after the flop when you raised preflop. But usually you dont raise a suited hand or a connector preflop (for the same reason you dont bet on it postflop as i pointed out above). Thats why its just impossible to make a continuation bet on a draw.
Posted Mon May 29, 2006 4:08 pm GMT by Johny
| 72o wrote: | | Thats why its just impossible to make a continuation bet on a draw. |
I don't get it.
Raising in late late position with a suited connector isn't terrible. I also don't agree with never making a continuation bet with a draw. In fact, I do it quite often.
Posted Mon May 29, 2006 4:26 pm GMT by iandrum
| 72o wrote: | And even worse: if your opponents fold on your continuation bets youll never make a flush.
|
Surely them folding is a desirable outcome. Are you saying that folding is bad, since then you won't be paid off when you hit a flush? But if they're going to fold to a small continuation bet, what makes you think they'll pay when you hit your flush?
Posted Mon May 29, 2006 5:03 pm GMT by snoogins47
| JohnnyCache wrote: | | supafrey wrote: |
Your last paragraph is unsubstantiated speculation, at best. |
Ahm...sup...can you substantiate that he loses? |
Did you even need to ask to know that the answer was 'no?'
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 8:41 am GMT by shorn7
Hmmm...last time I was in Vegas, I heard from multiple sources that Gus owed Doyle $4 million from the big game. Obvioulsy, I can't substantiate it firsthand, but it would not surprise me.
As for the legend himself, sure I agree that he is probably not what he used to be. But frankly, most of the concepts in SS 1 were revolutionary when it was first written and every single NLHE book since then has expanded or copied what he wrote. For me, I apply some of what Doyle writes with some of the Ciaffone book as I don't seem to be able to play a hyper aggressive style as well.
But to insinuate that Doyle is a bad player and that his books suck is simply absurd. What that statement does point out is the naivete and blind arrogance of the person who said it.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 11:58 am GMT by crack
I wouldn't say I was arrogant for saying his books are crap. I think I am truthful and voicing my opinion.
I have read SS2 and cannot justify spending the amount I did on it. 100 or so pages on each game is not enough, there are not many/if any decent hand examples.
Doyle doesn't write for the players who are going to be buying the book. It's that simple. You try going all in on a full handed NL25 table with a flush draw at party and see what happens. You double up and then turn super aggro and see what happens in a NL100 game.
His advice may be good, but not at the level we mostly play, sorry but that's just the way it is. He is a high stakes mixed games player and he writes like one.
I notice you refer to him as a legend and I think this is why you don't want to see people slate him. I am not saying he can't play and is/was a great player depending on what you believe, but he is just not a good author, simple.
Sklansky is not an amazing poker player, but he is a good author, if you can get your head around the maths.
Infact, I think the only part worth reading was actually the triple draw section, because I have never played it before.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 12:36 pm GMT by shorn7
I am not the one who refers to Doyle as a legend. EVERYONE does (except you of course). I agree that his books were written for larger cash games, one's that many of us don't frequent. That being said, most pro players out there consider SS to still be the defining work, especially when it comes to NLH.
So, are you saying that everybody out there is just BS'ing to the camera? Have you ever seen the other players with Doyle around? It is like what baseball players used to be like when Ted Williams was around before he passed away.
Bottom line, the guy is one of the best and influential players that the game has ever seen and he should be respected as such. Perhaps you should write your own book if you think you can do better.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 12:46 pm GMT by zinn0
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 2:40 pm GMT by crack
"Have you ever seen the other players with Doyle around?"
What's that supposed to mean?
And you are not grasping what I am saying at all. I think what's going on in your head is this....
"WOAH, LIKE WTF OMG. SOMEONE'S BRINGING DOWN THE DOYLEMEISTER?
I must do my duty to da man and make sure he is not criticised in anyway because he has been involved in poker for like 500 years and ESPN told me so"
See past the fact that I am saying something bad about him and actually read what I am saying.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 3:06 pm GMT by shorn7
OK, end of thread.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 3:12 pm GMT by Johny
Shorn, it's no use to argue. Obviously Brunson is a weak player and his books are crap. I mean the guy is just a lucky fish who made millions.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 3:17 pm GMT by crack
Did I win the debate then?
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 3:19 pm GMT by Johny
Yes you did.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 3:21 pm GMT by Hurricane Ham
Or obviously you guys are just blinded by how much you guys like him. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy too, and frankly I think he's a damn fine player just like you guys do. But really...cmon now. Getting a little ridiculous with the word-in-mouth-putting-things-stuff-business. It's as if you're taking an attack on Doyle as an attack on yourself. Relax.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 4:08 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Could it be possible that Doyle's one of the best players and that his book is kinda weak?
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 4:20 pm GMT by crack
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | Could it be possible that Doyle's one of the best players and that his book is kinda weak? |
Something I have been saying since I started posting in this thread, yeah.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 4:28 pm GMT by supafrey
| shorn7 wrote: | | That being said, most pro players out there consider SS to still be the defining work, especially when it comes to NLH. |
bullshit.
and those that don't consider this sentence bs should atleast realize that they're "defining" him by a very crappy work. who's insulting him now?
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 6:55 pm GMT by Cricket_Fire
Thanks to those who answered the original question 3paegs back 
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 6:57 pm GMT by zinn0
| Cricket_Fire wrote: | | Thanks to those who answered the original question 3paegs back |
You'll find that we get easily sidetracked around here.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 7:42 pm GMT by Cricket_Fire
| zinn0 wrote: | | Cricket_Fire wrote: | | Thanks to those who answered the original question 3paegs back |
You'll find that we get easily sidetracked around here. |
Tried to make my post as un-sarcastic as possible lol
Nothing wrong w/ a little debate, just wanted to make sure I thanked those who helped me
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 9:12 pm GMT by Johny
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | Could it be possible that Doyle's one of the best players and that his book is kinda weak? |
I have absolutely no problem with that, but to say that Doyle isn't one of the best players in the world is wrong.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 9:22 pm GMT by crack
| Johny wrote: | | xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | Could it be possible that Doyle's one of the best players and that his book is kinda weak? |
I have absolutely no problem with that |
| Johny wrote: | | Shorn, it's no use to argue. Obviously Brunson is a weak player and his books are crap. I mean the guy is just a lucky fish who made millions. |
You sure?
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 9:26 pm GMT by Johny
Crack, are you serious?
|
|
