ConDeck
Visionary
Silver Level
I keep reading people talking about betting to "protect" marginal or weak holdings, particular on the flop or scary turns, and thought I'd open up a bit of discussion around this subject.
Do we ever really bet to "protect" our hand? I see it given out as advice regularly... "Should have bet to protect our hand" etc, but personally however, I am never betting to protect a hand, simply to extract value from weaker hands that may call such as draws and under pairs over cards etc, at least until I have reason to believe I am behind.
I bet for two reasons and that is to extract value from worse hands and to fold out better hands. Surely these are really the only two reasons for betting? Protection doesn't really come into it right? I mean I understand that you are protecting your hand by not checking back in these spots to let your opponent take a free card and actualise/improve his equity in the pot, but that is not the reason for betting, the bet is for value.
Obviously I am referring only to flop and turn bets here. A good example of times I commonly hear this is when hero hold MP, TP, 2P on a 3 to a straight board or 2 to a flush, betting to "protect" against a flush draw or straight draw (2 way) +overs. What are you protecting? Villain with such equity are drawing at least on the flop anyway (I am talking heads up pots predominantly, differs slightly multi way) so your bet is purely for value while your ahead, with a reassessment on later streets.
Just thought it was an interesting discussion I have had a few times now with various people and thought it could spark a good discussion here, what are other peoples thoughts?
Do we ever really bet to "protect" our hand? I see it given out as advice regularly... "Should have bet to protect our hand" etc, but personally however, I am never betting to protect a hand, simply to extract value from weaker hands that may call such as draws and under pairs over cards etc, at least until I have reason to believe I am behind.
I bet for two reasons and that is to extract value from worse hands and to fold out better hands. Surely these are really the only two reasons for betting? Protection doesn't really come into it right? I mean I understand that you are protecting your hand by not checking back in these spots to let your opponent take a free card and actualise/improve his equity in the pot, but that is not the reason for betting, the bet is for value.
Obviously I am referring only to flop and turn bets here. A good example of times I commonly hear this is when hero hold MP, TP, 2P on a 3 to a straight board or 2 to a flush, betting to "protect" against a flush draw or straight draw (2 way) +overs. What are you protecting? Villain with such equity are drawing at least on the flop anyway (I am talking heads up pots predominantly, differs slightly multi way) so your bet is purely for value while your ahead, with a reassessment on later streets.
Just thought it was an interesting discussion I have had a few times now with various people and thought it could spark a good discussion here, what are other peoples thoughts?