Originally Posted by nish81

basically, is there ever a point where a flop is wet enough that it is correct to bet for protection from draws even though no worse hands are calling?

Originally Posted by kmind

Good thread. The answer is to rarely ever if ever bet for protection. Though remember, if he's drawing he'll probably call a bet (value bet)...

Originally Posted by langaan

couldnt a bet in this type of situation be considered both a protection and a value bet?

its considered value because we are ahead,
and also protection if we are betting enough to give vill incorrect odds to call...??

Originally Posted by kmind

Good thread. The answer is to rarely ever if ever bet for protection. Though remember, if he's drawing he'll probably call a bet (value bet)...

Originally Posted by langaan

draws are mostly worse hands.

Originally Posted by langaan

couldnt a bet in this type of situation be considered both a protection and a value bet?

its considered value because we are ahead,
and also protection if we are betting enough to give vill incorrect odds to call...??

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

So in situations like this, I believe betting is likely far superior to any of the other alternatives. Even though, from a technical standpoint, it isn't necessarily for value, and our hand is definitely B range. We do get some value from worse hands (draws, 86s, floats, etc).

But more importantly, we protect our hand from the numerous turn cards that could hurt us. If for instance he has QJs (Backdoor Flush draw), then he has ~28% equity against or 87. If we bet 3/4 PSB, then he only needs 30% equity to have a breakeven call. He nearly has that amount of equity just by having overcards. Therefore, given his positional advantage, and his opportunities to bluff on future streets, means a call in his spot here is likely +EV. However, not many people are making these calls. So if they are folding in spots where a call is (or could be) +EV, then we profit from their mistake in folding.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

I just wanted to add a few more things. As in most situations, being OOP makes this a much more marginal spot than in position. OOP with these marginal type hands, I believe we should be more likely to be aggressive, as villain folding his overcards (even though they are technically worse hands) is not a bad outcome for us. We are going to have a harder time inducing bluffs, as well as deducing villain's range. Whereas, in position, we can check back these marginal B range hands, to induce and pick off turn/river bluffs some of the time on good cards.

Another thing is our chance of improving. With the villain being in position, means he is likely to call us with a wide range. Because of this we want to have at least chance of improving when called, if we are behind. Hands like marginal pocket pairs, really have very little chance to improve. Usually we only have 2 outs, which equals only about 8% equity when behind. However, hands like 87 on the K83tt board now has 5 outs, which is about 20% equity. Since we expect villains to call our bets when we are OOP more often, it stands to reason that more equity against their calling range is needed.

For this I would be more inclined to c/f hands like 77 on K85tt board, than 87s. Even though when we bet both, and are called by a worse hand (draws) we have about the same equity. The fact that we have more equity when behind with 87s, seems to make it a more logical and profitable bet than 77.

Originally Posted by nish

Is there a formula for the ev of betting? :/ similar to the ev of calling is something like whether amount in pot is less than or greater than equity*amount-to-call.

Originally Posted by nish

But referring to your last paragraph, isn't this an example of folding out better hands? I.e. we're not betting enough to give him incorrect odds, so we're not betting for protection are we? But if he folds to this bet then we're folding out better hands - so we're turning a marginal hand with some showdown value into a bluff?

Originally Posted by nish

Isn't this more like folding out better hands? we're not betting for protection since we're not giving incorrect hands to draws, so arent we turning a marginal hand with showdown value into a semibluff sort of thing?

Originally Posted by nish

and also, i noticed you multiply the outs by 4 to get the probability for both streets instead of just for the turn - but isnt there a whole other round of betting at the turn so we should treat them independently? or are you saying that if we bet then we're committed in the hand until the end?

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

The Ev of a bet is EV = (%villainFolds)(EV[fold]) + (%villainCalls)(Ev[call])

The EV[fold] is equal to the current pot before your bet.

The EV[call] is EV[c] = (equity)(total pot) - (amount to call)

So say we bet $100 into a $200 pot. Villain calls 20% of the time, and folds the other 80% of the time. And when called we have 30% equity.

The EV of this bet is:

Ev[call] = (0.30)(400) - (100)

Ev[bet] = (%fold)(EV[fold]) + (%call)(Ev[call])
Ev[bet] = (0.80)(200) + (0.20)(20)
Ev[bet] = 160 + 4
Ev[bet] = $164

Originally Posted by nish But referring to your last paragraph, isn't this an example of folding out better hands? I.e. we're not betting enough to give him incorrect odds, so we're not betting for protection are we? But if he folds to this bet then we're folding out better hands - so we're turning a marginal hand with some showdown value into a bluff?

Originally Posted by iopq

I think when we're betting for protection that's actually our "C" range of hands. We check/call our "B" range. It would be something like KJ in our example. The reason it's our B range is because we're not psyched about getting raised. Or we might bet/fold our entire B range by merging it with our C range.

Originally Posted by nish

But, say you can only bluff with 50% of your missed hands otherwise it becomes too transparent. Isn't it better to bluff with hands that have no showdown value at all, and try to see a cheap showdown with this hand instead of turning it into a bluff?

Originally Posted by iopq

any hand we intend to fold to a raise I can't classify part of my "A" range

Originally Posted by iopq

if we really fold AA on J73r to a fish raising us, then it's part of our B range vs. the fish
but a hand like JJ we're going to b/3b

since we play AA and a set differently here, they should be in different ranges
in fact, AA plays exactly like TT on the flop, wouldn't that mean that AA is part of our B range?