Not sure if you read Dan's book yet, but tell me what you think of these two parts?

The Continuation bet:

Basically, when you raise preflop, and regardless if you hit or miss, you follow-up with a bet. Example, 2 people limp to you, you have AKs on the button, you raise 4x the big blind. One of the limpers calls you. The flop is J82, 2 clubs, you have hearts. the limper checks to you. Ok, with you guys and for example's sake lets just say there was $9.50 in the pot, how much would you bet? In most cases everyone bets 8 or 9 right? Harrington suggests differently though. He suggests following up with a half-pot bet of aroud 5 dollars and here are his reasons why. First, if he will call for 5, he would call for 9. Next, when you only bet half to 2/3 of the pot, then you would only have to be successful once every 3 times instead of once every 2 times when you bet the pot.

Opinions???

He also talks about the "probe bet"

Which is, a bet of about 40-60% of the pot to "find out where you are".

Here's an example, say somebody raised preflop 4x the big blind, and you called on the button with pocket TT. The flop comes down J74, and the raisor checks to you. With the pot being around 8 dollars, you would put out a 4 dollar bet, to try and see if you have the best hand and is an information, if you get called or raised, then you quit the hand right there.

Dan is a rock and a very sucessfull one, but I still dont agree with a lot of what I read in his book. I really dont like the half pot bet, it looks weak, you may have the best hand but a good player is often times going to take the pot from you because your half pot bet scream weakness. The same with the second hand, i make a bet like I have TPTK, if I get called I shut down. Unless I think my opponant is drawing, and depending on my opponant. If he is the type that wont fold top pair, I might not even bet out here.

Aha! I knew these people were reading some book or other!

This is actually about the biggest tell I know of at the $20 tables at Gaming Club. And it's very profitable.

I see a TON of half-pot or 40% of the pot sized bets by a preflop raiser on a raggedy flop, and I almost always put the guy on AK. Especially if the flop has two of a suit: there's no way an overpair is letting flushes draw that cheaply.

If I'm feeling brave, I'll check-raise the dude with any two cards. If I'm feeling even vaguely brave, I will check-raise or check-call with an underpair that didn't hit a set. If I did hit my set, I know to just flat call and hope that he will pick up an A or a K so I can take the rest of his stack.

I made this obvious underbet only one time that I can remember, and was promptly check-raised. I folded my AK and the other guy showed AT (no T on the flop). So I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who knows about this tell.

i don't see why you would bet $9 into a $9.50 pot with a missed AK. if it was K82 would two hearts while you have clubs, would you still bet $9?

personally, i'd bet $6 there everyt ime. of course, i would also have raised to more than 4x with two limpers in front of me.

For your 2nd example, if he raises PF with say AQ, then hits his Q on the flop, why wouldn't he continue betting?

Assuming he's a good player, the last thing he wants to do is give away a free card that could beat him.

Kent,

If he is able to check-raise you with AT, then applaud him, make a note and break him the next time you actually DO make a hand with a preflop raise.

leafs... I was actually gonna make a new thread about the book, which I was reading on the plane to and from Vegas... I like a lot of his thinking, but don't think a lot of it pertains to our level of play (ie... the hands he raises with, he suggests raising 2xBB like 15% w/ limpers in front and holding AA... at my level, people who already put in a dollar and just gonna put in another (the whole "it's just a dollar" bit...). Also, he says you should fold suited connectors almost always, unless your late in a multiway pot. He suggests almost NEVER limping AA or KK in EP, even though that works for me like 90% of the time, and if there's a raiser in front PF, you should fold small pairs and suited connectors, even though, in my experience, that's the best way to break a big hand...

Just a few rantings...
MVP

MVP, didn't he suggest an 80/20 ratio with AA/KK in EP? something like, if your watch second hand is from 0-47, then raise, if 48-60 limp?

Mind you this is also for tournament play where one mistake, or one loose call preflop can bust you and the chips you lose are irreplacable.

I don't think you should call suited connectors when there is a raise, unless you get at least 2-3 callers in front of you at the least, same goes for small pairs, but you could probably let it slide with just 1 caller after the raisor.

I've also read Harrington's book and I also had a lot of trouble accepting some of the things that he says about the amount that you should bet. Here's the thing: Dan Harrington has made the top 4 in the two biggest tournaments in the history of the game and we haven't. It is silly just to write off what he is recommending without putting some thought into it. What suhleafs says about someone being willing to call $9 if they are willing to call $5 I've found to be extremely accurate. When you are playing against poor players the amount you bet doesn't matter as much because they are going to continue the hand if they want to almost irregardless of your bet (or fold and call you a bully for betting so big). The other big advantage of the way Harrington's "system" is that you keep the pot relatively small. If you go around throwing big pot-sized bets all the time the pot gets big very quickly and you don't have as much room to maneuver in marginal or tricky situations. You can make it incorrect for someone to call with their draw or mid pair without betting 100% the pot size. Also, while a good player may initially see your half-pot bet as weak and come over the top, a good player will ALSO notice that you are betting 1/2-2/3 the pot as probing bets AND continuation bets. It is the bad players who aren't going to respect your small bets, and you are going to take their money anyways. The better players will pick up on the fact that a half pot bet doesn't mean you are messing around after you show down some strong hands when doing it (the key is being consistent enough that you are making 1/2 - 2/3 pot bets when you flop TPTK as well as when you have 10-10 on a Q-8-5 flop or to mix your bet sizes enough that your opponents know that you could have either nothing or a strong hand when you make your bets). Again, the good players will pick up on your betting patterns and adapt while the idiots will continue to play the same way anyways.

There are definitely advantages and disadvantages to both schools of thought. I've found that I like harrington's style when I'm at a weak/tight table because I can turn up the aggression and take down a lot of small pots with little risk where in other sessions where I'm at a LAG table I have to tighten up and throw down some big bets.

Poker is a game of change--you can't play the same hands the same ways every time and different styles are more or less effective at different times. It pays to keep an open mind and be adaptable.

I agree for the most part. He talks about how you have to adapt and usually play opposite to what the table conditions are. This may be going a bit off topic, but one aspect of his book that I didn't like were his starting hand requirements. Frankly, I think they're way too loose and aggressive, even for Harrington's standards. He talks about raising with A8suited in middle position when folded to you. Especially in tournaments, I think you have to try and stay away from the marginal situations, because what if someone on the button comes over the top? Then you have to lay your hand down. For the most part, for me anyway, I like TJ Cloutier's and Tom McEvoy's starting hand requirements, it's fairly straightforward and I REALLY like what Harrington does for his betting patterns.

Harrington's strategies are for NL tournaments. This thread is in the wrong group IMHO. Cash games and tournaments are very different beasts that require different strategies. It's much more appropriate in a non-rebuy tournament to think about your survival, and you have to remember that other players are considering their survival, too. That makes his continuation/probe bet size strategies much more appropriate.

I love Harrington's book, it's great. I think his advice makes a lot of sense, it will work enough for it to be profitable. You have to know your opponent, and if he's tricky enough you can bet size of the pot on a miss. And you have to mix up your game, and not always bet out size of the pot when you hit. I sometimes bet out 1/2 to 2/3 with AK on a good Axx flop so it looks like I have a weak A, then bet out strong on the turn.

I don't think overbetting missed flops is a good idea, correct me if you think so. Harrington makes a good point about thinking what percentage of the time you will steal the pot. If you raise $5, get called, and always bet $10, you are risking $15 to win $5 on missed flops.

MindOverMatter's humble opinion seems like a pretty good point as well

Im currently reading his book as well (80% done). I think its another good source of info for NL players ring and tournament players. I was a bit surprised as to some of his recomendations concerning probe bets/continuation bets as they seemed to scream weakness, but as was stated earlier it IS aimed towards tournament play and minds post hits it on the head w/ his thoughts on that.

Overall it IS the best NL book that iv read and will adapt several of his strategies into my game, modified to fit the low limit ring games we know so well.

I'd just like to again stress that while his betting advice seems like the amount is weak, he bets the same whether or not he has a hand. If he has A-A he is going to make a 1/2 pot continuation bet. If he has A-Q that wiffted he is going to stab at the pot for 1/2 its size. This makes it harder to tell the strength of his hands by his betting patterns.