typical me, confusing myself. theory of protecting a hand

Mik1w · #1 05-24-2006, 01:29 PM

So I was in an exam this morning, and my mind was torn between kinetic theory and poker theory.. annoying, but waht are you gonna do.

So I was thinking, what are the fundemental reasons for betting? The reason I ended up with was to increase a pot when you have an edge. So then how does protecting a hand tie in with this?

Say you have AK and the board is 67K, two-suited and none of yours. Villan has QJ of the suit. Pokerstove puts you at 61% to win- of course this ties in with the 9 outs asssociated with the flush draw, 9*4 =36% plus some runner runner shrapnel to make it upto 41% for villan.

But here's the debate... The pot is 6BB, as you are BB and vilan SB. You have the edge, and should bet to protect your hand! But is that nessecary?

You have an edge, FULL STOP. So any bet you make will be +EV, as either you'll get a fold EV neutral, a call which increases your EV (youre paying less than your pot equity you gain, as you have the edge), or a raise which is even better.

But then, some will say you have to bet the pot or nearabouts to protect your hand. Here's the thing! Any smart villan ISN'T paying. You'll get a fold, and have EV neutral.

So, how is protecting a hand possibly correct?

---

Dislaimer, not saying this is right, just this very annoying confusion interrupted my exam and I now HAVE to get it settled in my head. Thanks for any help, I need some argument to destroy the one currently in my head, so what's wrong! lol

Mik

(btw, I just have to mention, Ive made a buy in in 130 hands at $25nl without a single showdown, bauahaha bluffing rules)

Mik1w · #2 05-24-2006, 01:30 PM

btw I said villan's hand because then I can view this in terms of the fundemental theorum

markum9 · #3 05-24-2006, 01:41 PM

I think where you're going wrong is that you're only concerning yourself with the current bet, not the money already in the pot.

If you bet the pot and he folds, you win 6BB.

If you bet 1BB and he calls, you now have ~60% chance of winning a 8BB pot. .6*8BB=4.8BB, so you've lost 1.2BB by minbetting.

If you bet the pot and a non-smart villain calls, you now have a ~60% chance of winning a 18BB pot. .6*18=10.8BB, so you've gained 4.8BB by making the villain make an -EV decision.

Al_Money · #4 05-24-2006, 01:36 PM

"But then, some will say you have to bet the pot or nearabouts to protect your hand. Here's the thing! Any smart villan ISN'T paying. You'll get a fold, and have EV neutral."

And you play NL$25? You should realize that all profit in poker comes from your opponents mistakes. When they call with incorrect odds, you profit in the long run. You say any smart villain isn't paying, well I'm sure you can find plenty of people willing to pay you off no matter what odds you are offering.

vulturesrow · #5 05-24-2006, 01:40 PM

The fundamental reasons for betting are for value, hand protection, or deception (bluffing/semibluffing). In your hand example, what exactly are you advocating? If you dont bet, you gave villain infinite odds to beat you. Pretty good EV for him, no? So you have to bet and you have to bet enough to give him improper odds but still get him to call. Thats the key point. Protecting your hand isnt "bet so much that I blow villain out of the pot, yeah!". You are trying to induce a call with odds in your favor. Their are several reasons people may say bet close to pot. The most relevant are that a) you can rarely put villain on a tight enough range of hands to know that he has just the flush draw or just the straight draw and b) the closer you make the odds for him the less he has to make up with implied odds.

Jamougha · #6 05-24-2006, 01:42 PM

If he doesn't fold, you win the pot 60% of the time. If he does you win 100%. That's where the EV of protecting a hand comes fom. The amount we bet to protect our hand is meant to be enough that it more than makes up for the 40% of the time we loose if he stays in.

Mik1w · #7 05-24-2006, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The fundamental reasons for betting are for value, hand protection, or deception (bluffing/semibluffing). In your hand example, what exactly are you advocating? If you dont bet, you gave villain infinite odds to beat you. Pretty good EV for him, no? So you have to bet and you have to bet enough to give him improper odds but still get him to call. Thats the key point. Protecting your hand isnt "bet so much that I blow villain out of the pot, yeah!". You are trying to induce a call with odds in your favor. Their are several reasons people may say bet close to pot. The most relevant are that a) you can rarely put villain on a tight enough range of hands to know that he has just the flush draw or just the straight draw and b) the closer you make the odds for him the less he has to make up with implied odds.

[/ 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.

vulturesrow · #8 05-24-2006, 02:09 PM

[ 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 · #9 05-24-2006, 02:17 PM

[ 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 · #10 05-24-2006, 02:21 PM

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.