Continuation Betting: Marginal Hands

A lot of articles don’t talk about things like cbetting a pair of nines on a K94r board. Believe me, ive searched. Maybe its because we aren’t ‘cbetting’ here…so maybe its better to search for value betting marginal hands, but I find it weird that what might be a common mistake in c-betting or deciding to c-bet isn’t discussed in these articles on 2p2 or FTR.

With any luck, the playing middle pocket pairs COTW on 2p2 will enlighten me a bit…as it should, at the very least, talk about postflop play at the pfr-er and we’ll flop marginal hands a lot.

But lets see what I can figure out with the help of ppl on ftr and some research first.

I guess I'll start this one off with a definition given from someone at 2p2

Quote Originally Posted by freakdaddy
(Continuation bets) are a continuation of pre-flop aggression, designed to win the pot if the pre-flop raiser missed the flop, or continue to build a pot when ahead.
So right there, even in a basic definition, thoughts on marginal hands that neither miss nor are necessarily ahead are ignored. Naturally, being the lagtard that I am, I choose this to mean that marginal hands are crap and ill just always turn them into bluffs. This wasnt bad though, Im showing a decent profit from it,...but ive been told by several people who play for my rent checks that I should instead be checking these marginal hands. So...why is there confusion?

Quote Originally Posted by fnord
It's counter-intuitive, but the counter for loose/passive play is to bet/fold a lot. Build a lot of pots and build a strong feel for when the critical bet goes into the pot from the perspective of your opponent.

You can't bluff a calling station, but you sure as hell can bluff someone who plays loose on the small streets, a lot tighter on the big streets and won't play back at you light unless he has a hand or is running out of chips.
I've noticed this too, when someone has a range wider than your mom's vagina...they just arent going to hit too many flops. Even the flops they do hit, they arent going to have too strong of a hand and might fold anyway. So, i take advantage by taking the instant money they leave behind when they miss. Sure they fold out every possible worse hand that might be drawing to 6 outs or something, but look at that pot!

Well, this is clearly wrong right? With alot of help from Yaawn I think im finally getting why.

We're playing blackjack instead. Dealer gives us an Ace and a King...SWEET. But the dealer might also have blackjack she says...and offers even money instead of the 1.5:1. Cbetting marginal hands seems to be like this example, where I choose to always take the even money offer instead of the 1.5:1. Im scared that villain might bet me off my marginal hand with some kind of weird bluff with a hand i would have beat, but thats poker. You're very rarely ever 100% to win, so avoiding a situation because villain might win instead of you seems as silly as always taking that even money black jack bet. There are some situations where you'd take that bet for sure, like its been 100 cards since anyones seen an ace/facecard or something...but always taking it is for sure a mistake...just like there are boards where you can continuation bet your marginal hand for value...but more on that in a bit.

Quote Originally Posted by ISF
Try to play in such a way that easily defines your value bets and your bluffs
This quote seems to be the simplest one that says what every other does. Renton talks about cbetting, and many others on FTR and 2p2 but its basically this quote.

1) Bet for value, with hands you should bet for value with
2) Bet as a bluff, with hands that are bluffs
3) If you are neither value betting or bluffing, maybe you shouldnt bet.

Thinking about this, its funny that i would always take that easy road of just betting with the marginal hands. What follows is thoughts Yaawn gave me in irc yesturday that im paraphrasing in regards to betting A9o on a K92r.

You can't win 100% if your calling down. But, you can't win 100% when your betting either. Doing a bet/f, c/f c/f line is gonna lose money too. Its not an instant win just because villain c/f's a large part of his range. So taking this line just because we know we arent going to win every time we call down is dumb.

Also, If we're betting a marginal hand as a bluff, we open the door to being c/r-ed. That kind of spot sucks with any hand, but more so with a marginal hand since we just have to fold what could be the best hand. We also build the pot with a hand that cant take action...allowing villain the opportunity to bluff later if he calls.

Its like, theres almost no reason to be betting these hands and many many reasons not to.

Leak fixed?

1) I feel like im still befuddled on this issue, so Im just gonna go ahead and give it a shot. Im not gonna never bet marginal hands...since on wet boards ill get calls from draws and such and on certain boards underpairs might call so its certainly going to depend on the situation...but in general im gonna stop being such a bluff monkey with these types of hands and instead am going to start looking for places where I can bet them for value and check otherwise. Lets see what happens!

Again, any comments on this issue or articles you feel pertain to it very well are welcome.