Congrats...

I like weak leads when I'm pretty sure I can get a raise. How to play it from there is a tough one sometimes. Some opponents especially when they check raise my weak lead when I have position, it looks like a position bet on a straight draw or A9 or some small pair that might be good now. It maybe best to just let them hammer again at the turn before raising, and others to even wait for the river because the value bet is their stack. It is tough to say the best course of action, but on a 9 high board a ton of scare cards can come off for JJ, so maybe all in now is the king.

Others stacking them now is the only option. If you call here it will give them time to think they are beat, instead of being in the heat of the moment, or scare cards can come off that kill the action. The intimidating board can work to your advantage as you may be pushing with a draw, which if you have been doing against shorter stacks looks reasonable to a bigger stack player now. It is my one real argument for taking a bunch of higher variance situations for 10-20% of my stack. Gamble it up with short stacks, hammer the bigger money.

So maybe it is partly board and position dependant as to your move... out of position two suited all in now, rainbow all in at the turn? in position against an aggressive check raiser, all in at the turn on a rainbow flop?

I had 44 in MP, limped after a minimum raise to my right, button called. Flop came 44K. I bet 1/3 the pot, trying to show weakness. Both folded.

What should I have done?

Just one of those things?

CJ

Ais, I havent read Harringtns book, but my idea of a probe bet is different from this and Im not sure which us is misinterpreting Harrington. I thought you said that he was talking about a smallish probe bet with something like TP good kicker.

This hand is more like a weak lead hoping to get raised. I like it in that sense, but Im not sure about the weak lead (probe bet) with QJ on a Jxx flop. If I bet pot in that case and get raised, Im gone....but if I make a smallish probe bet, I could get raised by 2nd pair.

First, as to what it is. Harrington says it is "where you were not the leader." I'm interpreting this as not the raiser. Hence, it only has to do with raised pots, where I'm not around with QJ anyway.

For me personally, I'm really only making weak bets like that in raised pots and then only sometimes. I think it would be a very bad move with QJ (or AQ for that matter) on a QXX flop if we're talking about a paired X.

I really think this is a move to make very rarely and, at least without "other circumstances," only on monsters.

For the moment, I'm making it only with sets (at least that's all I can think of--or I guess something like a 772 flop where you have 76s) in raised pots, and then only against loose raisers. If there's a strong chance they have an overpair, I think it's better to bet full pot into them, since it forces them to raise and you can stack them more easily with the bigger bet.

Once you've established that pattern, I think it can be used with weak hands (weak continuation bet on AK, for example). But for initial use, a bet like that just cries out for a raise, which is presumably what you're going to get if anyone has any semblance of a hand.

Harrington actually uses it as well with something like 88, as I recall, on a board of J52--basically testing for unimproved AK. Well, if it's me, I'm PROBABLY going to just go ahead and make a continuation raise on that board with my unimproved AK (no reason why I shouldn't have JJ-AA there). But it would slow me down a lot if I'd seen my opponent making that bet on sets.

In any case, as I am understanding him, it does only apply to raised pots. And one does have to bear in mind that the book is a tournament book. The early play I think does also apply to cash games for the most part, but there are still some differences.