I found at the $1/$2 $200 level and below a "probing/continuation" bet has no effect except against the tight passive that are going to fold when they miss and call and not raise when they hit. Rarely do I find a good use for it, unless in position and making a free card bet, hoping to get to the river for cheap to free, as most players at that level or lower won't run a stop and go. The other issue to making it work at lower levels is that the games are riddled with loose passive calling stations which negates the value of "bluffing" if you are going to have to pound across all five board cards, having a hand is the more powerful tool.

Where I have seen more success with this type of betting is 2/4 $400 game. My theory as the reason why is that a half pot to third of the pot bet actually has some substance. I monkey around and mix up my flop betting a lot at that level, as I'm also prone to raising any pair, suited overs and connectors that I open playing six max, and I tend to vary my raise a lot more from 3x to the pot plus 5x the big blind. I find at a more tight passive table playing this way is extremely profitable and often reduces my opponents to playing pair poker, while I'm playing all kinds of goofy stuff with position and taking down an $6-18 an hour in blinds by opening with raises. Against a more aggressive table that has more skilled post flop players I cut out the monkey aggression.

There is room for these tactics in cash games, at least I see them for shorthanded play. Especially when you are just as likely to make this bet with a set as nothing. It puts you in the drivers seat for cheap, and keeps your raised pots from being stolen and makes it semi-expensive to bluff you out if they have to come in for a 1/4 buy in to make a real statement. I like being in a position where I can constantly pound at the pot, and have my opponents needing to make a hand to beat me, continuation and probing bets forces them to make a hand to play.

Edit: I employed the continuation bet tonight with decent success at a .25/.50 cash game with great success. Maybe it is just that I view them as an opportunity to outplay my opponents that I don't use it as much down there. I was also frequently raising with moderate hands when opening and betting every flop. I may have to take a look at it a little more often as it puts the same pressure on the opponent at least at that level that it does up top a few. In or out of position I can decide whether to keep hammering at the turn, or check it down. I'm starting to believe there is more room for dan's tactics, as a flopped monster looks like just another continuation bet, so you can get away cheap when you miss and someone goes ape, and really put the screws to them with the goods.

I think the key is that it does keep the pots small, yet puts similar pressure on the guy that called. If he has nothing he still can't call a half pot bet

I'm reading Harrington's book too. I really like it to. He presents some good ideas. But with every poker book, you can't follow it dogmatically. I think the rule for Harrington is to vary your betting patterns. Otherwise, you give away too much information.

Also, Harrington states often that the advice given is mainly for tournaments and suggest being more aggressive when playing online ring games. In general, I think Harrington would agree to bet more than half the pot on the flop when you miss with AK - assuming an online ring game.

I'll give you a perfect example on how it worked.

I had KK in the MP, it folds to me, I raise to $2 (4x the BB), the BB calls, the flop is 863, he checks, normally I would bet $4 and take it down, but this time I bet $2 again. He min-raises me to $4, then I put him all in for a total of $11, he thinks he thinks, calls, turn is a 5, river... the dreaded Ace and he turns over ATo.

But it does show you that it does work, when you make a hand as well as missing a hand.

I see this play a lot. Here again position is everything. If you raise from the Big Blind with A,K you have a one in three chance of flopping top pair. If you do not, you have a bad semi bluffing hand since you only have six outs if they have a pair.

If you made a button raise and it was checked to you, you might bet the Ace King as the best hand. In no limit, if you do not hit Ace King, you might want a free card. Hitting it on fourth street can get you in a world of trouble.

I vary my post flop bets from the soft lead...not so much more than the raise to a pot size bet. Harrington is right that if you are trying to pick up a pot right after the flop, if forty would do it, thirty will do it. I found in the no limit games in Vegas with cheap blinds that the soft lead on a monster or waiting as long as possible to make a play with a flopped full would work If you vary your post flop bets, you can try to keep them in or push them out without it being so obvious.

You can make some soft leads on nut straight or flush draws with weak opponents who won't raise you out. Against weak opponents you can use these probing bets to figure out their hand to the degree that you can make a big fifth street play on a hand like two pair that would normally scare you. You should be able to make big bluffs more after probe bets but that is a little risky.

i have some but not a lot of experience at NL, so take this with a grain of salt:
my problem is with the 1/2 pot bet - u don't know where u r at when ur opponent calls/raises...

havent read harrington's book yet. but i think if u bet the pot and get called/raised u have a better idea what u r up against [either big hand or big draw, or yes the bluff].

put another way betting 1/2 the pot -- u r giving too many hands the right pot odds (3:1, or more if someone else calls) to draw out and beat u.

1/2 the pot seems to me the right amount to bet if u r being deceptive with a made hand and want to look weak -- OR u r actually weak and this is a blocking bet [see iceman's article on that subj.]

dont know if any of my ramblings make sense, but there it is.

How is 3-1 giving the right pot odds, when the true odds are 4-1 for a guy to make his flush or straight on the turn?

i meant on the flop not turn...

oh, now i c what u mean suhleafs... u mean the odds for him to fill up on the turn - u r correct. but if there is one caller in btw then the drawing hand is getting the right odds... i think.

basically my point is that u have less of an idea of ur opponents strength if he calls [or raises] a smaller rather than a larger bet.

Let's see the maths with it.

I raise to $2, 2 guys call. Pot is 6 bucks, I bet 3, one guy calls, pot is now 12, then yes he's getting the right odds on his call at exactly 4-1.

So if the pot is 3-4 handed then you would have to bet more in the range of 3/4 of the pot.

EG: same scenario as above, but the pot size is 8 instead. you bet 6 into an 8 dollar pot, one person calls, then it's a 20 dollar pot and 6 to call, giving slightly worse than 4-1 to call.

so then it would be more appropriate to bet more when there are more players in the pot.

Suhleafs you are looking at it wrong. If the you raise to 2 dollars and say both blinds call your raise there will be 6 dollars in the pot(less rake). Assume they both check to you and you bet $3 (half the pot) and the sb folds. Say the bb has flush draw. He has to call $3 into a 9 dollar pot. Pot is laying him 3-1 and odds of him hitting on next card are 9 out of 47 times, or a little over 4-1, therefore making his call mathmatically incorrect. Yes if the sb calls then he is correct in calling, but then you can reevaluate the situation on the turn.

I bought his book and adapted some of the ideas to my game which is ring HE. I was having a horrible April. I recouped all of my April losses and went into the black in 5 days after reading the book.

It helped me identify my leak and then after reviewing PT hands I was able to change my game from a losing one into a winning one

I also used some of his theories in 3 MTT tourneys and finished 45th, 28th and 17th. These were large MTTs.

Use and adapt what you can from his book. NLHE is too situational to blindly adopt any single strategy.

The most important thing was that the book made me examine my game and to MAKE GOOD DECISIONS.

It was the best $30 I have ever spent on poker.

cat923

That's my point, even if you bet half-pot, the odds are incorrect.