A poll: Is continuation betting in this spot a bluff?

Read the two hand situations below, and answer the poll. Answer correctly and you may get a prize (but probably not). Assume 6-max 50$ No Limit.


Hand #1

Hero is dealt:
Hero has 50$, Villain has 50$

Preflop:

3 folds, Hero raises to 2$, 1 fold, Villain calls $1.50.


Flop:



Villain checks, Hero bets $3.00



So the real question is, "is continuation betting bluffing?" This is just a general example.

While I do <3 fried apples, I've gotta answer yes.

In this instance it's highly likely that we're bluffing with the best hand, but we've got ace high and no draw at this stage, so we're definitely bluffing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

By my definition, A contuation bet is a sort of Semi Bluff. U may have the best hand and the hand builds the pot. U may have the worst hand but run ur opponent out. Even if u have the worst hand and he calls... he may check later due to your show of strength giving u a free card on a later round. Think that's Harrington's take on it too.

I disagree, a continuation bet, is a semi push to a raised caller to see how strong they are. eg. on the button you raise the pot with QQ and get one caller, flop is 259 rainbow, is a cb betting the pot in this situation a semi bluff? I don't think so, you have the board beat and if said caller either pairs the board or has the board beat or has 2 cards higher than the board he calls again, he may have two pair or trips, you have to decide would he call the initial raise with either a 25 29 59 hand? or does he have 2 over cards and is hoping to catch, if the turn is neither K or A, push all in. ( He may check later due to your show of strength giving you a free card on a later round?) a check is looking for a free card and will prolly fold to a continuation bet !

Define bluff please. We are betting here because we get folds out of the majority of his range (assuming he's not a really aggressive player who plays back frequently and we cbet like 100%). This includes hands we beat, and it also includes hands that beat us. But in essence it is a bluff. It's to balance the times we do have a hand, so that betting after we raise the flop cannot allow our opponent to know we have a hand. It also allows us to more clearly define his range. It accomplishes the goal of folding out hands with significant equity and some even beating us, but it also allows us to narrow the range when called. I answered yes it is a bluff, because in general our goal here is to balance our range for when we do have a hand (the basic definition of a bluff) and we generally want a fold here, because our equity is pretty small against hands that do call us here.

Change this scenario slightly to you holding not QQ, but 65 suited, or 89, would the 65 cb be a bluff? would the 89 cb be a bluff?

TP, can't really be considered a bluff, but middle pair could be.

So the OP example of the AK, semibluff isn't really a bluff either. Most of the time, it is the best hand at that instant, and thus can hardly be called a bluff, semi or otherwise.

Let them eat cake! WTF!, ,no cake option?

I believe continuation betting is not bluffing in this situation you have top and the turn and/or river quite possibly give you the better hand. The worst scenario would be spades on turn amd river. villian might have pair in hand JJ down seeing overcard checks.

I had voted yes.
You have hit nothing and basically are betting with air(albeit possibly the best hand here), but at the same time it's not as much as a bluff than a sound poker strategy.
My question to this would be, if you have the best hand on the flop(TPTK) and you bet, would you still consider it a c-bet? seeing that you would normally bet in this spot whether you hit or not.

No, it's not a bluff because chances are you still have the best hand.

would you raise with 65 or 89 in the cut off? you may given stack size, how close to bubble ect, but early in a game I doubt it. There lays the problem, cb is right at the right time and wrong in others, the Q isn't specific enough. What's the cake and bastard thing all about? Obviously a private joke amongst long time members, still like to know though?

with no limpers, yes

How are u gonna put Villian on a 25,29 59? You raised and there is no way you can put him on those hands. He may have trips, two overcards or another pair. But, surely not two pair. Maybe, a pot raise with QQ and that flop is too much. Think I like a smaller bet in that situation. What do u think?

Exactly, you can't put him on hitting the flop so he's calling hoping to hit, take it down there instead of allowing a cheap call to hit his A rag or KQ JQ

sooted so would I, but to be honest, late or early in a tourny makes all the diff, a ring game is a different kettle o fish. You LAG you, , read the fine print.

I refuse to define bluff because that takes all the fun discussion out of this thread.

Lemme post the rest of this hand:

Hero is dealt:
Hero has 50$, Villain has 50$

Preflop:

3 folds, Hero raises to 2$, 1 fold, Villain calls $1.50.


Flop:



Villain checks, Hero bets $3.00, Villain calls.

Turn:



Villain checks, Hero checks


River:



Villain bets 2$, Hero calls.

Villain shows , Hero wins $14.25


Eh?

There ya go. The CB (semi bluff) helped build the pot and insured a check on the turn for you to get a free card. The river bet was weak and an easy call.

I woke up this morning obsessed with this question.

Then I had pancakes. So, I got my cake, and ate it too.!

Betting with AK in this spot is not bluffing in this spot. You have the nut no pair and if the villin has nothing you are ahead. If your ahead you should protect your hand and if your not ahead you wont know if you dont bet. So I think betting here is not really bluffing, because A) you are going to had the best hand a lot of time B) you are betting for imformation.

So Pedro.. You think that this CB is a sort of "Probe Bet"?

I would have to say yes, it is a bluff. Maye a "semi-bluff" because of the high cards, but a semi-bluff is still a bluff, no?

Anyone calling AK's c-bet a "semi-bluff" doesn't understand what that term typically refers to in poker parlance.

A semi-bluff is when you bet for fold equity with a strong draw.

Since "pair draws" don't typically get referred to as draws (here we would usually say we have "no pair, no draw"), betting here cannot really be called a semi-bluff.

Well, I did say a "sort" of semi-bluff. I'm pretty sure that in Harrington on Hold 'em I he refers to this exact situation as a "sort" of semi-bluff. So, I guess that Harrington and I are confused about that.

Why you on turn checks ??? Bet pot....

Continuation betting is often betting with the best hand. And if you are unknowingly betting with the worst hand, you're merely bullying weak opponents. That's not bluffing... that is strength.