Above: The Mar. 21 issue of Card Player magazine has a new poker column by Bart Hanson.
Bart Hanson describes something called a delayed continuation bet. It is effective against tight players who have a low bluffing frequency. It works like this: Instead of betting on the flop, check and see what the villain does on the turn. If they check again, go ahead and bet, expecting to win the pot.
Here's an example Hanson gives:
"Let's say we isolate a tight limper in a $5-$10 game to $40 with ♣6 ♣5. The flop comes out ♦A ♣K ♠J. The limper checks to us. At first glance, it looks like a great spot to make a bet. That board should hit us a lot and we probably can get the limper to fold everything but an ace or maybe K-Q. However, we know if we check the flop, all of the hands that would have called our bet will bet the turn. The hands that would have folded to our flop CB will still check. We can see then that checking back the flop and waiting for our opponent's next move is the optimum play."
Bart is a blast from the past. Ever watch "Live at the Bike"? It was a high stakes cash game on a half hour delay. He was one of the announcers. Dave Tuckman who sometimes works for P*'s doing commentary was his normal sidekick. Another was Shirley Rosario. They all worked as shills (props) for the casino.
ReplyDeleteHanson seemed the most vanilla and it seemed he rather talk than play. Tuckman would hype his few movie/TV appearance. Shirley was more quiet and maybe the best to listen to when she spoke.
The occasional B-graders would play and the owner of the Lakers was a regular.
Fun times we used to argue the previous nights play in forums.
I'm sorry, but reading this post I had to laugh. I mean it could have been written in Polish for all I know. Villains, limpers, floppers, turners, optimizers...sheesh! :-)
ReplyDeleteAfter reading, I assumed you agreed with this. However, I think maybe you posted it for discussion. What do you think of the idea?
ReplyDeleteI agree that in theory it is the right move. Many authors, including Sklansky, would agree too.
However, in practice, it would be hard not to bet here.
Patrick
@KenP: Thanks for the info on Hanson. I wasn't familiar with him.
ReplyDelete@Lowell: Poker (and bridge, too) has its own lingo.
@Patrick: I think it's a good idea, but only works if the villain is passive. Too many good players today will pounce if you show weakness. Then you are guessing.