Betting For Protection

Remember our Sources of Value in a Bet discussion? My latest poker strategy article, Betting For Protection, is now appearing in the January issue of 2+2 Magazine. Here’s a taste of what to expect:

Early in their no-limit hold ’em careers, many players are overly concerned with protecting their hands. Novice players with top pair commonly obsess over the possibility of a flush draw and often become so single-minded about “charging the draw” that they fail to get value from second-best hands and/or to protect the remainder of their stacks from sets and the like.

After making this mistake for a while, players eventually learn their lesson. Many overcorrect and adopt a new mantra: only bet if you can get a call from a worse hand or a fold from a better one. In other words, many players learn to bet only as either a value bet or as a bluff, leaving behind the concept of protection that cost them so many buy-ins when misapplied.

Yet this too is a mistake. Weak players often misapply the concept with expensive consequences, but that does not make the concept itself invalid.

Please let me know what you think!

10 thoughts on “Betting For Protection”

  1. I do not like your central consideration for betting for protection.
    “is whether the turn and river action is more likely to favor you or your opponent.”
    I am not sure what you mean by turn and river action.
    Do you mean turn and river card?.
    Or you mean exclusively betting patterns.

    Generally I do not believe in protection concept.I am ok without this concept.
    The concept of protection implies your perception of your vulnerability.
    So the betting is way to “hide” your status-quo.
    Let’s start with your example Nr1.
    I believe that example will be much better when we simplify and have two way pot.
    Three way pot on flop introduces more complexities(pro-cons) to analyze and clarify the concept.
    I try to analyze your example as HU match.
    My central consideration for protection is quiet different that yours.
    I DO consider whether my OPPONENT FLOP ,turn,river actions are more likely to favor me or him.
    HIS flop action is the most critical.
    I will be interested in four hierary key factors:
    1)his % fold to my continuation bet
    2)his CR bluff probability.
    3)CR value probability
    4)his call value probality.
    By the way you have many probalities so maybe this is optimal example to to make some Bayesian analysis

    In your example hands worse than yours are unlikely to call, and better hands are unlikely to fold.
    In Hu format it is very likely that worse hands than yours will call you.But I am still not happy.
    A hypothetical call or CR from my opponent with worse hand I still DO consider partial or complete failure to protect my hand.
    Unless K or A fell on turn my holding are still vulnerable .What should I do on turn?
    Should I bet on turn to protect?

    • What I’m talking about is essentially implied/reverse implied odds, broadly defined. For a simple example, suppose that yo are playing FLHE, you have AA in position on the turn, and you know your opponent has a bare flush draw. You also know that he will fold it to a bet. The pot is currently 2 BB’s. He checks. Do you bet?

      The answer hinges on how often he will bluff the river. If he will never bluff a whiffed draw, then you should bet. Checking serves only to let him freeroll the river.

      If he will always bluff a missed river, then you should check. Checking will result in him winning 2BB’s roughly 1/4 of the time. However, it will result in him bluffing 1BB 3/4 of the time. Thus, you come out ahead .25 BB overall.

      Of course the situation is far more complicated when you don’t his cards or betting tendencies with such certainty, but basically you have to ask yourself which of you is more likely to make a mistake on future streets and/or to benefit from free cards.

      • Your questions and analysis is interesting and correct.
        You address important gray zone between value betting and bluff betting.
        But my ego is big.I am just not satisfied with the common perception of poker strategies including betting for protections.
        My criticism is way to retrieve info from your rich database.The info which help me to find out the “better” answers or even formulate better concept.

  2. Andrew –
    I enjoyed this article. A related decision is whether to raise, call, or fold vs. a c-bet when you called pre-flop as opposed to being the pre-flop raiser. So for example when you call a late position raise from the blinds with 55 and it’s a 762 flop. You’re going to be ahead of the c-betting range of most players these days, as people are opening 40-50 percent of their hands on the button. Yet the turn and river will almost certainly be bad cards for you, you could be way behind already, and you have little chance of improving to a hand that you can bet strongly for value. A raise folds out most hands that you beat, but some that don’t might either rebluff you or call and put you in awkward spots on the turn and river. In other words, a raise is not for value. Nor is it a very effective bluff. You might get a 6 to fold, but many players check back a 6 on this flop anyway, and in any case that’s a pretty small part of any player’s range. Should you raise now to fold out a QJ that has plenty of showdown equity as well as bluff potential on later streets if you just call? If so, why do this with 55 as opposed to any other random two cards? You have no card removal value with this hand, and very little equity against the range of hands your opponent continues with.

    Anyway, my basic point is, your article considers the merits of betting for protection vs. checking back. But what if you are facing a bet, so that it’s raise, call, or fold? Is raising for protection never a good idea? If it is sometimes a good idea, are the situations where a protection-raise is appropriate different from those where a protection-bet is best?

    • That’s a very tough question. I think the best way to handle situations like the one you describe is just to have a balanced range for calling the flop so that you are not vulnerable to bluffs or value bets on any particular turn card. For example, I flat both 55 and AK in that scenario. That way, if my opponent chooses to bluff an A on the turn, I can fold the 55 and still have a calling range. Likewise there is some part of my range that actually benefits from letting him see another card when he has AJ (66 plays a similar role on this flop). Basically I try to construct a range so that no matter what the turn card is and what my opponent is holding, some part of my range is “happy”.

      As you point out, there are better hands to bluff-raise. The fact that 55 has showdown value makes it more appealing to me as a calling hand than a raising hand, as it does not have much if any showdown value against my opponent’s range for calling a raise and also may get 3-bet bluffed.

  3. 3.7 out of 5. Good and useful, but not your best stuff.

    Could use an edit and light rewrite. One fairly glaring booboo, and the writing in the second example is a bit muddy – I fear it won’t make much sense to people who don’t already understand the concept you’re trying to explain.

    Well, you did ask what we thought. 🙂

      • …only the big blind calls. Your read is that he is tight aggressive with an emphasis on tight. You believe his range for calling out of the small blind to be very narrow…

        It’s one of those “we know what you meant” things, so it only rates as a “booboo.”

        I could also add that tight-aggressive should be hyphenated and have a comma after it, but I refuse to engage in such nitpicking prescriptionism. 🙂

  4. “If your hand is vulnerable, your opponents are unlikely to bluff, or it would be difficult for someone to turn a second-best hand, then it is often worth betting simply to take down the pot and avoid giving a free card.”

    you’re opponent is unlikely to bluff- is this just based on your opponents tendencies? or is it based on the texture and action on previous streets? if so, could you give an example?

    • Both. Let’s say you call a bet from an UTG raiser with 99 in position on a KK8 rainbow flop. Turn goes check-check. A lot of players aren’t going to bluff the river, except for maybe an A, because your hand looks like a pair. If you know someone will bluff, then there is more merit to checking back a blank turn and then calling the river. Otherwise, I like a small bet for protection if he checks to you on a blank turn. Your hand can’t improve but his can, and you aren’t likely to make money on the river by either bluff-catching or value betting.

Comments are closed.