What are reasons for bets in general?

Harrington listed three possible reasons for making a bet:

• Make better hands fold.
• Make weaker hands call.
• Make draws call at unfavorable odds.

All three reasons can be summarized as follows: We bet in order to increase our equity. This is worthwhile if the increase in equity is greater than the price we pay for it. However it may not always be the best option.

There is another possible reason for making a bet, or in fact any action we take. We may bet in order to deceive our opponent, to confuse their idea about either our actual hand, or about our general strategy. In the latter case we may sacrifice immediate equity for metagame purposes. However you cannot deceive somebody who does not really pay attention to your actions. Hence against the typical opponents at the micro-stakes, deception plays a minor role.

What are continuation bets?


A continuation bet is a bet made by the preflop aggressor when nobody has bet before him on the flop. Here, the preflop aggressor is the last player to have put in a raise before the flop.


Making a continuation bet makes good sense for a number of reasons:

• The preflop aggressor has shown strength by raising, whereas all opponents have shown weakness by calling. Thus the aggressor is perceived to have the stronger range. C-bet as value bet
• Most flops miss everybody. It is hard to call a flop bet without a hand. Hence, the first bet on the flop often takes down a pot. C-bet as bluff
• If you bet the flop when you hit and check when you miss your opponents can exploit you simply by folding when you bet, but betting when you check. Hence against observant opponents you need to bet sometimes when you miss, or check sometimes when you hit, or both, in order to avoid giving away too much information about your hand. C-bet for deception

Here we will concentrate on the decision whether to make a continuation bet or not. We leave out the issue of bet sizing, however feel free to pick it up in discussion.

Factors to consider

• Our hand.
• Number of opponents.
• Our position.
• Our image.
• Opponents' tendencies.
• Flop texture and ranges.

Our hand

When people talk about continuation bets they often think about bluffs when we missed the flop. However, every once in a while we get lucky and actually hit a hand. In these cases we should mostly valuebet unless we hit the flop so hard that we have a virtual lock (think full house, quads, maybe top set on a dry board, things like that). If we flop a monster we should give our opponent some rope to hang themselves. If we just hit a good hand there is usually little value (and a decent amount of risk) in slowplaying, in particular against the weak opposition we strive to face. As the villains get better we may have to start checking some of our good hands for balance.

In what follows we will mostly consider c-bet bluffs.

Number of opponents

If you face many opponents the chances that somebody has hit the flop increase quickly. Suppose that every opponent misses the flop 70% of the time. (For the mathematically inclined we assume that these events are independent.) If you have two opponents both miss it 49% of the time; with three opponents the probability shrinks to 34%. So the more opponents you face, the smaller is the chance that your c-bet takes it down.

This leads to the recommendation to play rather straightforward in a multiway pot. You can c-bet liberally heads-up, but tone it down a bit three-way. If there are more than two villains you need very good reasons in order to c-bet as a bluff.

Our position

As always in Poker, position is knowledge, knowledge is power, and power is money. If you were the preflop aggressor, you are in position, and everybody checks to you, you get some information about the strength of their hands. (Although some players check to the raiser as a matter of course.) So you can pound away.

If however you are out of position you have no indication as to how your opponents like the flop. So you will have to proceed a bit more carefully.

It should be noted here that some players try to exploit frequent c-bettors by cold-calling in position, then calling the c-bet and betting on the turn when checked to. This move is known as floating, and there will be another Concept of the Week devoted to this topic. However you may want to start to think about how you would counter this strategy.

Our image

How our opponents perceive us has a great impact on the success rate of our bluffs. If we have been nitting it up for 30 hands and we raised in early position, our continuation bet has a good chance of success. If we have played the wild man, mixing it up aggressively, and raising from the cut-off, chances are that observant villains may start calling us down a bit lighter (or, God forbid, raising).

Note the word "observant". Luckily, many weak opponents are not observant at all. In fact that's what makes them weak. In particular it is more difficult to notice if somebody plays very tight (unless you're using a HUD); on the other hand most people will notice loose aggressive play just because it's annoying. Finally, noticing an image and correctly adjusting to it are two different things. Hence the uNL mantra: "They're not playing back".

Thus, in ideal situations our own image plays a minor role, but it should still be considered.


Opponents' tendencies

Any information we have on an opponent helps us in our decision whether to cbet. If somebody plays fit-or-fold after the flop (meaning he will fold to a cbet unless he hits at least a good pair or a good draw) we can profitably bet half the pot 100% of the time, although this may not be the optimal strategy. On the other hand against a notorious calling station we can forget about c-bet bluffing altogether and just take him to Valuetown.

Note that preflop stats may be deceiving. If somebody plays very loose preflop he is less likely to hit the flop well, and thus possibly more likely to fold to our bet. On the other hand a tight player starts with good holdings and thus may be more difficult to get off his hand. So, postflop stats such as "fold to cbet %" or "flop check raise %" are more reliable than a general tight/loose classification.

One note on postflop stats: Many will argue that they are reliable only after a large sample of hands since the various situations occur so rarely. However I think that it is wrong to ignore stats from small samples. Even if they may be misleading they are all the information you have right now, so they give you some indication about your opponent. If you see an opponent calling cbets in position twice he is more likely to call a third one as well. Ignoring this amounts to saying: I don't like a sample of size 2, I'd rather use a sample of size 0. To me, this doesn't make sense. As always you wouldn't bet the farm just based on stats. But use all the information available to you.

One last thing about small samples: If I have only few datapoints on an opponents fold-to-cbet stats, I'm actually more inclined to make c-bets into him. One reason is that they do work well against generic opponents. The more important reason is to actually get more data on that opponent. So I put him into a situation where he needs to tell me something about his tendencies. In a sense, I c-bet for information (if the other factors are somewhat favourable, of course). Naturally I'd prefer the other players to do the dirty work for me, but we can't always rely on that.


Flop texture and ranges

Finally, to connect to last weeks topic, we need to consider the board and how it connects to the various ranges. If the flop hits our opponent's range smack in the face but clearly misses us, it doesn't make sense to bet. On the other hand if the flop hits our range but possibly gives our opponent a better hand that he is able to fold, we need to bet.

For more information on the various flop textures have a look at Bostik's article.

One final note

It is generally known that it is a bad idea to bluff idiots. The reason is the following: You will generally lose money on your bluffs; this money is some tax you need to pay in order to get paid off with your good hands. If you were never to bluff good players would just fold to your bets. Bad players will call you in any case, so the tax you pay is simply wasted.

The reason that continuation bets appear to form an exception is that they are relatively inexpensive, and against the right opponents (read, weak-tight fish) they are profitable in themselves.

Cliff notes

When you're heads up, in position, on a dry flop containing one broadway card, make a continuation bet.

When you're multiway, out of position, on a dripping wet flop, don't.

For everything in between make a decision based on the cards, your opponents tendencies, and your image.

Points for further discussion: Bet sizing; c-betting as a semibluff.

1st

Good read roo!

Good stuff Cangurino.

One thing I do with regard to c-bet sizing heads-up vs. multiway. Once I've decided to c-bet, heads-up I'll typically make it 66-75% of the pot regardless of whether I've hit or not. With three or more players in the pot, and thus a greater likelihood one has hit the flop in some way, if I've not hit I'll drop my c-bet size down to 50%. This way I've invested less finding out someone else has a hand they think is good enough to call with.

Glad to know if people don't think this is a good tactic.

awesome post

4rd. Finally something good to read at work!

I think your bet-sizing in HU situations is fine. You might want to allow for the odd pot sized bet and half pot sized bet depending on your opponent, but something between 60% and 75% is generally okay. However, in a multi-way pot, betting half pot will usually accomplish very little. It rarely makes better hands fold and it rarely gives draws bad odds because once the first guy has called you with whatever (and we all know how uNL donks like to call with whatever), the rest gets odds-o-rama. Personally, I either bet strong in multi way pots or I don't bet at all, totally depending on villains, board and my holding. Plus, I think you'll get bluffed a lot with your bet sizing by solid TAGs. I'm last to act in a 3 way pot and original raiser bet half with donk in between folding? I will raise you. This bet looks weak and exploitable.

I often read something like "(C-)bet for info" - personally, I think it's a weak concept. As Harrington and the OP (good post btw) pointed out, we do not bet for info. We bet to take the pot right now or give draws bad odds. Betting with the thought "well, let's find out if he wants to go on and let's make it small so I have not invested much if he calls" is a leak IMO and exploitable by solid players.

Just my 2c. Feel free to disagree

Thanks for the input Chervey.

I was expecting somebody to say something along these lines, which is a big part of the reason I chipped in - I just felt like the tactic was a bit lame, but couldn't quite work out why

Good quote: "Personally, I either bet strong in multi way pots or I don't bet at all".

Another solid CoW.

I don't like betting 3/4 of the pot as a standard heads up. Using Cangurino's numbers, assuming the pot is 10BB and that the play ends on the flop:

49% of the time both of you have nothing: You win the pot.

21% of the time he has something and you give up: Cost is cbet.

21% of the time you have something and he has nothing: You win the pot.

9% of the time, you both have something and who knows: Even.

I admit this is simplistic. However, by making an about 1/2 PSB will accomplish the same job as the 3/4 PSB when he has nothing and will save you 2-3 BB when you don't. Since this occurs more than twice as often as when he has a hand that can play with you, saving the 5-7BB more than compensates you for the time where you lost the 2-3BB value with a good hand. You still have time to get stacks in if you want with your monsters.

There's no such thing as "always" in poker, but I think the better strategy as a default is 1/2 PSB + 1BB. It only has to work less than 40% of the time to be break even and in the micros, it is far more successful than that.

In a multiway, I want a better read on my opponents and position before considering cbet with air.

I think it's overly simplistic, to be honest. Yes, in 21% of the cases he's got something. But that something is as likely - or even more likely - to be mid pair or bottom pair with a draw or top pair with a weak kicker than TPKR or a set or two pair. And villain will be a lot more inclined to call a half pot sized bet with a medium or weak holding than he will a 3/4 pot sized bet. Say I called your raise with 67s. Flop comes 792. You bet half the pot. I'm a lot more inclined to call this (or in fact raise it up since I don't put you on a 9 or better 7) than if you'd bet 2/3 of the pot in, say, 80% of the cases.

And then there's the exploitability. Say you get KK, raise it up, one caller, wet board. Do you really bet 1/2 here? Because if I see you bet more on wet boards with a strong hand, I will take any later 1/2 bet against you as a sign of weakness and any larger bet as a sign of "got something, wants to protect".

To make a long story short: I think it's good to have a standard C-bet but I don't think it's good for it to be 1/2 pot. Not at the micros. But again, disagree away

Solution: Make your betsize dependent on the flop texture, not on your hand.

Vilain is 17/6/1.7 (Limp unopened EP : 4% / fold to CB 60%) over 7.5k hands.

$0.10/$0.25 No Limit Hold'em - 8 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

Hero (MP2): $55.27
CO: $22.73
BTN: $24.05
SB: $18.35
BB: $5.00
UTG: $40.99
UTG+1: $7.12
MP1: $4.40

Pre Flop: ($0.35) Hero is MP2 with A Q
UTG calls $0.25, 2 folds, Hero raises to $1.30, 4 folds, UTG calls $1.05

Flop: ($2.95) 9 7 9 (2 players)
UTG checks

Since his range is only PPs, should I CB ?

As much as I hate to say it I really dislike seeing these threads on here and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. But I do see the point of them and the purpose but still hate it.

What's the problem with people discussing poker concepts on a more general scale instead of just posting a single hand?

To low fold to cbet, I check behind b/c we only have overs.

He doesn't want the fish to learn. Although he plays 100NL+ so I don't think many of those players are reading the micro CotW threads, silly CJ

Nice Post!

Well done, Cangu. You hid a gem in the original post which, in my opinion, deserves to be singled out.

We don't bet or raise for information, because that's just burning money. We bet or raise for a given purpose, and any information gained is a nice bonus. We shouldn't chase bonuses at a cost greater than their worth, but we shouldn't discard them offhand either.

Hear, hear. I would add the words "if you want to vary...." though.

We have position against 1 villian. Fire away.

Well done, sir!

I'd like to add continuation betting as a semi-bluff.

If we're not betting with the best hand, what effect do outs have on the % of times our cbet has to work (= take down the pot)? Now the answer isn't easy to figure out, because the hand might continue all the way to showdown including all sorts of actions on the way.
As a first approximation, we can use a simplistic model though, which makes some assumptions and pretty much just focuses on the immediate profit of the cbet, disregarding any further betting (cbet "in a vacuum" so to speak).

Now to said model:

Assumptions:
1) We're cbetting as a pure bluff, i.e. the cbet never gets called by a worse hand.
2) If we hit one of the outs we count as outs, it always gives us the best hand.
2) If we cbet and get called, we win what's in the pot on the turn if we improve and lose if we don't (say the hand gets checked down to showdown and the best hand on the turn always holds up).

This means, we don't consider any further turn/river betting here, i.e. we either win what's in the pot on the turn the times we improve or lose when we don't. Specifically this means that we don't have implied/reverse implied odds when we get called and improve nor FE when we get called and miss (for example no double barreling as a bluff, no floating by worse hands by the opponent(s), no value betting).

Variables:
f ... fold equity needed for the cbet
w ... chance of improvement (= win% if called)
p ... pot size on the flop, set to 1 here
b ... bet size (pot on flop = 1, so b=0.75 means we cbet 75% pot)


EV equation for the cbet:

EV(cbet) = f*p + (1-f)*[w(p+b) - (1-w)b]

The first term (f*p) is our EV if our cbet takes it down on the flop, the second one (1-f)*... describes what happens when we get called. The [...] term means that w% of the time we win the flop pot plus the call of our cbet and (1-w)% of the time we lose our cbet.

With p=1 set the equation to 0 and solve for f to get the breakeven point for fold equity.

=> f = (w-b+2bw) / (w-b+2bw-1)

If we calculate that for different cbet sizes and number of outs, we get how often our cbet has to take it down in this simplistic model:



(no guarantee the formula and/or numbers are correct )

This.

If the board is ultra dry, I tend to bet 1/2PSB or 1/2PSB+1BB.

If the board is ultra-wet, I tend to bet ~PSB.

Bet sizes are the same whether I hit or miss. When I miss, I say to myself "Assuming I had TPTK or an overpair, how much would I bet here to protect my hand?". Same question if you flop the nuts really....

Signing up to a poker education website and complaining that the content is educational makes about as much sense as:
* triple barrelling a known calling station just to prove that he will call you down for his whole stack with bottom pair
* not C-betting a nitty setminer in the BB when you raised from the CO with 65s and the flop comes down KQ2 rainbow
* slowplaying bottom 2-pair in a multiway pot
* not value betting the river with the nuts

On the other hand, I do LOVE the avatar...

What are your specfic sizes? 75% on a dry board and less for wet? reverse?

Formula is correct and numbers in the table make sense. Very interesting follow up to OP!

But, depending on your outs, I think you should cBet as a semi-bluff more often when you are OoP.

Because when you are IP and you have a draw with about 6 ~ 9 outs it really sucks getting check/raised. With less outs than that it's an easy fold and more than that we can often push confidently. So I prefer take a free card when I have between 6 ~ 9 outs.

It stills sucks getting raised with 6-9 outs OoP, but I find to fold button more easily and by cBetting it is more expensive for him to get initiative and to steal.

What do you think about that?

Would you still do that if it was +EV to cBet ?
For example, if you got an open ended straight draw you got 8 outs and he needs to fold 24% of the time to a 3/4 PSB (from your table).

Would you still cBet and take the risk of a chek/raise if he has 40% fold to cBet ?

without derailing the thread (and a good OP at that!)...there is a huge difference between a forum discussing a hand or some general theories and what CoW is...which is effectively writing a book that would sell for $65 each week made free to any and everybody.

It is actually worse than that.

A book is limited in the amount of content. You also don't get to ask the author any questions and for further explanation/examples. On top of it, other authors can come in and comment about it.

The only consolation is that most people are unwilling to put in the work necessary to take advantage of it. The % of people who actually have read the FAQs through remains well below 20% of those who actually have visited this forum, IMO.

Moving on to kflip's chart. The thing to keep in mind is that cbets can fail quite often and still be profitable. Sure, we all want the villain to fold every time. The beauty of the strategy is that we have pure leverage in the situation. The villain has to call or raise not knowing whether we have a monster or nothing. We know how much we are going to invest in the hand. They have no clue.