explain to me the mathematics of a blocking bet

[PantsOnFire]

I think the value of a blocking bet is not so much as an isolated play but as a combination of your play.

If we look at the size of the blocking bet, it is small and is similar to two bets, the probe bet and the post oak bluff.

If you can lay out these bets at different times plus throw in small value bets, you can disguise your blocking bet.

This obviously only works against observant opponents. So on the flop or the turn, a 1/3 pot bet by you could be a probe bet, a small value bet with a big hand, or a blocking bet to see another card cheaply. And on the river, a 1/3 pot bet could be a small value bet, a blocking bet or a post oak bluff.

If you can manage to mix up your play enough so that opponents aren't sure what you are up to, you blocking bets will be more successful. But then again, so will your other small bets.

Now is where the fun begins. Players will try to come back at you if they suspect a probe or blocking bet. If you have established that you can value bet small, now a re-raise will really get them thinking. On the other hand, if they are picking off your blocking or probe bets, the wait and make a small value bet and trap them for their raise.

I don't play enough with really good players so I rarely use the blocking bet. It usually goes right over their head. The only thing that works with these guys is to consistently value bet and cbet 2/3 pot and then throw out a 1/3 pot bet and see what happens.

This is the most complex game in the world so if I even go half of this right, I'd be surprised.

[john kane]

I never block bet. I either decide I'm likely ahead, and so decide to value bet/weak bet to induce raise/check raise river, or that I'm likely behind, and plan to check fold.

Blocking bets are so dumb as if they guy raises you don't know whether he has a very strong hand or is trying to bluff you given you weedy river bet.

[Mook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the blocking bet may well be -EV in that situation, but it may still be your best play

[/ QUOTE ]

This is impossible. EV(checkfold) = 0

[/ QUOTE ]
OK. If we're being mathematically precise: A blocking bet may well be -EV but still have the greatest overall expectation of any possible play (including check-folding).

I hope you're debating the semantics, not the mathematics, because the latter is indisputable. There are many times in NLHE, as noted above, when checking and value-betting each have a lower overall expectation than betting, say, 1/4 to 1/3 of the pot, even when few (if any) worse hands will call and few (if any) better hands will fold.

Mook

[DLizzle]

blocking bets suck in general. If you play against the same competent players all the time it might be useful to have in your game if you feel you can level your opponent. Otherwise its a useless bet that gets bluffed way to often, and gets called by better hands. The only things it is good for is when your opponent has a hand that is semi-strong but worse than your hand, and you think they will call the bet but check behind if you check to them. So basically the only use for a blocking bet with the type of hand that the term blocking bet applies to is for value. So its just a value bet.

Often they are also useful as a fake blocking bet when you believe your opponent has air or when you have a monster and think lead/calling will get more money in than check raising.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the blocking bet may well be -EV in that situation, but it may still be your best play

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many times in NLHE, as noted above, when checking and value-betting each have a lower overall expectation than betting, say, 1/4 to 1/3 of the pot, even when few (if any) worse hands will call and few (if any) better hands will fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see you show this with some examples and math. I believe there are very very few times this is the case.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
blocking bets suck in general.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you read my post I wouldn't mind any criticism.

I feel blocking bets are only effective if they aren't recognized as blocking bets. In other words, they need some history or background and observant opponents. If they could be a value bet or a bluff, they may have an affect on villain.

Villain might call value bets he wouldn't if he thinks you are bluffing. He might fold better hands if he thinks you are value betting. And for the hands where you want a showdown for cheap, he might just call with either a much better hand that he should have raised or a second best hand he should have folded.

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As is often the case, The Mathematics of Poker explains the concept far better than I could. Blocking bets are a powerful and IMO underappreciated tactic, especially on the river.
Mook

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't find blocking bet in the index or table of context of
The Mathematics of Poker . There is a chapter on
bet sizing. Can you cite the page from MOP on blocking
bets?
Believe blocking bets was created by a pseudo math guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

We call these bets "preemptive bets" and discuss the concept in the discussion of the no-limit AKQ game, p 164-177.

Preemptive betting reduces the opponent's equity by decreasing his ability to value bet and bluff; while the play has negative ex-showdown value with a mediocre hand, this value is less negative than the value of checking and facing a mixture of value bets and bluffs.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As is often the case, The Mathematics of Poker explains the concept far better than I could. Blocking bets are a powerful and IMO underappreciated tactic, especially on the river.
Mook

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't find blocking bet in the index or table of context of
The Mathematics of Poker . There is a chapter on
bet sizing. Can you cite the page from MOP on blocking
bets?
Believe blocking bets was created by a pseudo math guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

We call these bets "preemptive bets" and discuss the concept in the discussion of the no-limit AKQ game, p 164-177.

Preemptive betting reduces the opponent's equity by decreasing his ability to value bet and bluff; while the play has negative ex-showdown value with a mediocre hand, this value is less negative than the value of checking and facing a mixture of value bets and bluffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. However, when villain can spot a blocking bet and will raise with both better and worse made hands + bluffs, then the blocking bet is horribly -EV against that player. Far better to check to induce a bluff against that player.

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As is often the case, The Mathematics of Poker explains the concept far better than I could. Blocking bets are a powerful and IMO underappreciated tactic, especially on the river.
Mook

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't find blocking bet in the index or table of context of
The Mathematics of Poker . There is a chapter on
bet sizing. Can you cite the page from MOP on blocking
bets?
Believe blocking bets was created by a pseudo math guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

We call these bets "preemptive bets" and discuss the concept in the discussion of the no-limit AKQ game, p 164-177.

Preemptive betting reduces the opponent's equity by decreasing his ability to value bet and bluff; while the play has negative ex-showdown value with a mediocre hand, this value is less negative than the value of checking and facing a mixture of value bets and bluffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. However, when villain can spot a blocking bet and will raise with both better and worse made hands + bluffs, then the blocking bet is horribly -EV against that player. Far better to check to induce a bluff against that player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will avail him nothing if you properly mix value hands in with your mediocre hands - obviously it is easily exploitable if you preemptively bet with mediocre hands only. If the player raise-bluffs with hands worse than your mediocre hands, you gain value when you have a value hand and he has a bluff.

"the blocking bet is horribly -EV against that player..."

It's true that against your opponents' value raises and bluff-raises you lose the amount of the preemptive bet, but you lose a significant amount anyway when you check your mediocre hands, since you'll be indifferent to calling or folding, and the amount you lose by preemptive betting is smaller. In the no limit AKQ solution, IIRC, the ratio of value hands to mediocre hands is 5:2 or something. So you're making this smaller bet with a lot of value hands.

Now if you're arguing that the opponents you play against in practice play worse if you don't make preemptive bets, then fine, exploit them by not doing it. I'm just pointing out that in optimal NL strategies, preemptive betting of the type I describe is almost certainly present.

[PantsOnFire]

NL game, you have JcTc in BB. Fold to button who raises 3BB. SB folds, you call. Flop is Ac 5c 6h.

If you check here, button will surely bet and it might be pot size. We are interested in this hand however. Villain could very likely have a hand like A4 or 88.

So how would it look if you lead out with a 1/3 pot bet here? How likely is a raise?

So can you get to the turn cheaper by doing this in the long run?