typical me, confusing myself. theory of protecting a hand

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]

I advocate betting as much as he will call, since that maximises the amount we put into the pot while I have an edge. And I understand the odds in protecting a hand, and that ideally we prefer a call to a fold, but any good villan won't call.

I simply think betting as much as we can get called with a pot edge is better than betting more than he will call and pushing him out of a pot he's losing, just *in case* he makes a basic error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm yeah, thats what I said..? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Mik1w]

ok.. consider this..

You are villan with a flush draw and you know you're a 40% underdog, and I bet 2BB, not enough to pretect my hand.

Villan can:
fold, EV neutral
call, here he pays 2BB to increase his pot equity from 0.4*6BB = 2.4BB to a pot equity of 0.4*10BB = 4BB, he has paid 2BB for a gain of 1.6BB, so his total net is -0.4BB.

He had odds to call, but this shows his call as unprofitable.

Now consider this for you:

You bet 2BB, villan calls. Your pot equity goes from 0.6*6BB = 3.6BB to 0.6*10BB = 6BB. You gain 2.4BB, from paying 2BB in your bet. So your net is +0.4BB.

[Mik1w]

And obviously this +EV will increase the more you bet. But then suddenly falls to zero once villan thinks he loses "pot odds".

[Mik1w]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I advocate betting as much as he will call, since that maximises the amount we put into the pot while I have an edge. And I understand the odds in protecting a hand, and that ideally we prefer a call to a fold, but any good villan won't call.

I simply think betting as much as we can get called with a pot edge is better than betting more than he will call and pushing him out of a pot he's losing, just *in case* he makes a basic error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm yeah, thats what I said..? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the difference is where you say "So you have to bet and you have to bet enough to give him improper odds but still get him to call.".. in my poker theory mind, no such bet size satisfies this against a villan who has read a book about pot odds.

[Jamougha]

Mik1w,

you are confusing yourself horribly. By calling the bet villain doesn't increase his equity from 3.6BB, he increases it from zero, as his other option is folding.

[vulturesrow]

You are getting way too wrapped around the axle about this mythical villain who folds to your bet. See Jams post for where the "EV of protection" is coming from. Also, implied odds from the Villains point of view has to be considered.

[Fallen Hero]

"I simply think betting as much as we can get called with a pot edge is better than betting more than he will call and pushing him out of a pot he's losing, just *in case* he makes a basic error."

Any bet you make that is +EV for him to call was a bad bet from you, it's better than a check but that doesn't mean it's good.

PS: your math was wrong in that last post.

[djoyce003]

Dude,

Technically it's a bad call from him to call getting 4-1 odds on a 4.5-1 shot. But if his draw hits, are you paying off a minbet? Probably, that made his call ok.

Villains with draws will ALWAYS peel a turn card even for a full PSB...make them pay for this....don't make it even easier for them to peel.

The point of betting or "protecting your hand" as you refer to it is to give your villain the opportunity to make a mistake. He won't always make one, and that's fine...but what you don't want to do is not provide the chance at all. You want to bet enough so that when he makes the mistake you don't make it ridiculously easy for him to recoup his money...as in allowing him to minbet the river and make the call +ev.

[4_2_it]

Protecting your hand ---- Based upon villain's likely range of hands, a bet large enough that if called by villain, he makes a FTOP mistake.

[Atlanta Andrew]

How is a fold from the villain "neutral EV"? We win a 6BB pot when villain folds.

-Andrew