We bet for value if we're likely to have the best hand and get called by worse. We bet as a bluff if we have the worst hand and expect better hands to fold. We bet for protection when we have a marginal made hand that is susceptible to being downgraded on later streets.
My favorite response in this thread, so far
Yes, this is a good foundation for all logical bets. There are a few other advanced reasons one may bet as well, but these other reasons tend to be meta-game factors which wouldn't traditionally make sense for a specific hand in a vacuum.
Some examples of those betting reasons might be:
- altering your table image
- downbetting (betting for pot control) which is betting smaller with the hopes of getting called when you feel like a check by you would be raised bigger (e.g. you're opponent bets full pot every time you check and you don't want the pot that big, so you downbet one third pot yourself and they simply call; whereas if you checked they'd likely bet out full pot themselves - downbetting is obviously less successful against experienced opponents knowing what you are up to
)
- we might also bet because our opponent's range is capped and our perceived range is stronger. This might sort of be "
bluffing", but I consider it slightly different because this type of betting reason would also occur whenever we have a better hand too. Basically, our range is stronger than the opponent range and maybe even more effective when the opponent knows this fact too! (although it still might work to some success if the opponent isn't thinking in terms of ranges, but it is probably better against someone who "knows" they should fold to your bet)
