The latter is definitely a blocking bet. Maintaining control of the hand is an interesting concept. I think it’s some combination of a Blocking bet and a Free Card bet (still not sure if those are distinct things).

I feel like all of the value that comes from betting in that spot is encompassed by other things on the list. Presumably the fact that no one else is betting means they are likely to fold, if not now (#2 and #3) then later (numbers 6, 7, and 8).

Nice, congratulations! Careful not to overplay your small pair 🙂

I like it! I wonder if this is the same thing as the pot sweetening I was talking about earlier?

Like setting up a freeroll? Intriguing. I do know the spots you’re talking about. I’ll have to think on this one as well. Thanks!

Yeah, pot sweetening is interesting. I’m thinking of spots, usually pre-flop as you say, when you are raising something small vs. a few limpers with like 76s in a loose passive deep-stacked live game. You don’t have the best hand, but you are hoping they will call, and not just because you expect to have profitable post-flop bluffing opportunities. I’ll have to think about that one.

Yeah, I suppose that would be a good idea. I’ll talk to the webmaster about that. Thanks!

They did but it’s a good suggestion and bears repeating.

The difference between Blocking and Information is that Blocking is generally to forestall or pre-empt an immediate action by your opponent. Information is to help you make better decisions later, which may or may not include influencing your opponent’s future actions.

I’m afraid I don’t see the overlap between Information/Protection at all. I agree that a bet could accomplish both, but I think they are distinct sources of value and neither encompasses the other.

Good points. The free card is a good suggestion. It’s similar to a blocking bet, but perhaps not the same.

🙂

guess that would fall under Information.

Also perhaps this falls under #9, but betting a certain amount so that your opponent won’t bet a larger amount? I’m thinking particularly on the river when heads up. Maybe “Pot Controlling bet”?

Regarding the blind increases, your example is good. I specifically had in my head playing a hand from under the gun, knowing on the next hand you will be the BB, with a rise in the blinds going into effect. In my mind, that is an extra incentive for aggression in the current (UTG) hand, but i am an admitted novice at this game.
Thanks as always, Russ.

Could be. I haven’t read any of his books. My poker is on hold for a while as my resources have been diverted to my new twins. 🙂

Yes induction can fall under #1, I failed to notice that at all. But the value we’re after is not the size of our own bet, as in a “normal” value betting scenario, but the size of the induced bluff raise.

As for semi-bluff, I meant a particular example where we don’t mind a call that much because it inflates the pot and our opponent might be pot-committed whereas we aren’t (when we miss we can still fold). So it can’t be #3. But we don’t plan to continue bluffing, so it isn’t #6 either. It is an effect that (if it has practical relevance at all) is specific to No-Limit and couldn’t occur in Fixed-Limit. Basically we can win small pot (if opponent folds -> #2), lose medium pot (if opponent calls and we miss), or win big pot (if opponent calls and we hit -> #1?), and the increase in pot size is exponential.

I can think of situations (they come up all the time in the smaller games) where I would make a pot-building raise preflop in PLO and especially PLO8 with a likely break-even hand, or sometimes even with a bit of the worst of it, but I can’t think of any where I would make a pure pot-building bet on the flop. (Admittedly, this may reflect lack of imagination on my part, rather than sound poker practice). After the flop comes down, I think maybe you probably shoudn’t be building pots unless you figure to have the best hand or the best draw, in which case it’s really a value bet, so I would not put pot-building on a list of reasons to bet.

Obviously, however, betting does make the pot bigger, and fairly high on the list of reasons NOT to bet in PL is “to keep the pot as small as possible.”

Also, even though it’s encompassed in several of the others. Betting because its “good for our range” is one people don’t always think about/fully understand.

I think several of these already overlap.

-Information/Protection
-Blocking/information

Another possibility is buying a free card, thought not talked about much in NL play, and might be covered by blocking.

Lastly, “information” does not only apply to future streets, but also the same street (i.e. when you raise with the intention of folding to a shove)

For us amateurs the train of thought goes as follows

Sh*t dont know what to do

Whats he got?

Times running out

Christ, time really is running out

May as well have a stab at it

*puts out raise, closes eyes hopes for best, stops breathing momentarily etc*

;-D

Interesting. Do you think that the “Lesser of Two Evils” that I described in a previous comment would capture what you’re getting at here? Like, this bet won’t fold enough hands to be profitable in a vacuum, but since my other option is to check-call, then it’s better to shove?

PS- thanks for reading and commenting!

I think this is part of 5.

It’s got a certain ring to it…

I distinguish between 6 and 2 because there are times when a single-barrel bluff will not be profitable, but the fact that this bet will help me to fire more profitable barrels later is enough to shift it into a profitable bet. Like, if I just said, “I’m betting to fold out better hands,” there wouldn’t be enough better hands folding. Setting up a play further down the road is a separate motivation, I think.

14- The bet itself would still be intended to accomplish something, though. I don’t think I’d bet just because I usually bet, if I didn’t think that bet would accomplish any of these other things.

15- I’ll have to think about this one. I think I’m almost always betting either for value or to set up a future bluff when I’m building the pot. But if I’m distinguishing 6 from 2, maybe this is a similar distinction for value betting.

16- I think this is part of 9. I’ve taken to describing this is a “turn blocking bet”.

Induction occurred to me, too, but I wasn’t sure if it warranted differentiation from #1. I guess it’s not impossible that I’d be trying to induce a raise from a better hand that will fold to a 3-bet or something, but then wouldn’t it just be 6, setting up a future bluff?

As for semi-bluffing, I think that would mostly be 2+3, possibly 6 as well. I don’t think the fact that you have equity when called changes the bet’s basic essence as a bluff.

Yeah I think in that case my bet would still be intended to get him to fold a better hand or give me action with a worse one. In retrospect maybe I should have called this list “Things a Bet Can Accomplish” rather than “Reasons for Betting”.

Oooh, not without potential. Didn’t Harrington refer to something else as The Hammer in one of his tournament books, though?

I meant for #5- Deception to cover this, but Balance is probably the better name for it.

Thanks, pie. Abusing the bubble would definitely count as 2 and 3. The blinds about to rise thing is interesting though. Maybe that fits as Lesser of Two Evils? Like you make a bet to avoid having to make a worse bet on a future hand, as in shoving 85s UTG for 4.5BB’s or something.

And I think this fits under deception, but i would note one may bet in a public forum (national televised poker) when you might play more passively otherwise. Similarly, what about taking advantage of a bubble in the money or the blinds are about to rise? I think your lists cover these, but there are definetely places to step up the aggression simply based on structure.

Thanks as always.

Less clear: X where Semi-Bluff = Bluff + X

X can be “Potential Value” (maybe falls under Value) but also “Playability”, e.g. you have the nut draw with no other showdown equity, then your hand will be easy to play since you will have either the nuts or nothing. (Maybe that also falls under Value, if “worse hands” include “less playable hands”. But not under Information as long as Information means information about your opponent’s hand.)

There are a lot of slightly different situations which are a combination of the above, but I’m not sure how many of those you want.

#14. Why not – If you almost always cbet, then it’s often a case of “why shouldn’t I bet”.

Maybe that’s not distinct from #5 though.

#15. PotLimit – Bet now so that the pot is bigger on a later street.

Again, this could be considered a combination of some of yours.

The only other one I thought of was: #16. bet in position, so that you won’t be bet into on the next street. But that’s also covered by #9 (and might be classed as a combination of #1, #2, #3 and #4 :).

Reason #11. Because you’re Andrew Brokos.

BTW lol I wrote wan’t twice. English not my first language sorry 🙂

P.S. – thanks for keeping up your great blog!