NL16 SH Zoom AJo, CO vs BB, 4bet Bluffing

What do you think abt. cbetting the flop? It would be hard for him to continue without K♣

I think he is calling pretty much exactly when he has us beat. Some AQ might fold (but is he 3-betting those). The range of hands he really has to fear (made flushes and AA) is narrow, about 1-2 + 3 AA (even less if he has Ax himself) combos if he was playing vs me. Then, do you really want him to fold worse hands?

We may beat hands like JJ:club: but those still have equity and we need protection.

Betting for "protection" versus an extremely narrow range is one of the silliest concepts around in the poker community. Almost as silly as "betting for information". You bet for value or as a bluff. Neither applies here. Protection may apply when you have a small overpair, like 99, on a small board. It is still mainly for value that you bet.

If he has a club, there are exactly 8 clubs left in the deck. Take the risk of letting that club hit 15-20% of the time while the pot is still small. Besides, you need to "protect" on turn as well, and you aren't going to be happy when it goes check-check OTR and he shows up with AK - only when he shows up with K♣:K♥:.

So, basically you suggest to play our hand as bluff catcher? Are we calling turn and river different from :club:? Is he going to turn weaker hand to a bluff?

well, our hand IS a bluff catcher. i think it's an easy call against the 3b

We did, after all, 4-bet bluff ourselves and were caught and the board is horrible. So, yes, it is a bluff catcher at most. Don't go broke on this hand. But a flop c-bet does have some value in the form of stopping him from bluffing. It might be worth it, and it might not. He might also check-raise us to the moon if he does in fact have the K♣: and we bet.

Playing around with ranges in Equilab gives an equity somewhere between 35% and 50%, and this is not vs his calling range if we bet. It is vs his total range. Vs his calling/raising range it could be as bad as 25%.

I would not call both turn and river with AJ. Maybe one small bet along the line.

I don't expect too much aggressive plays from relatively passive villain. Agree with the call preflop though.

Wouldn't he have to donk Ax on the flop unless x is K♣: ? "For protection" is not a useless concept, and he's probably heard of it too. His range is something like TT-KK, AQ,AK after preflop, right? We beat everything except AK and AQ, and those would most likely have to bet for protection on this flop (if you like it better: "for value"). If, on the other hand, he's holding a weaker hand there's a lot of single diamonds in his range, which we will certainly lose to if it appears on any of the two next cards. I'm also protection betting here. Protection betting against likely draws is value betting, you just have to be willing to let go of the hand once the draw hits.

Call pre and play IP sounds good but is our hand playing well postflop?

Originally posted by generals007
Wouldn't he have to donk Ax on the flop unless x is K♣: ? "For protection" is not a useless concept, and he's probably heard of it too. His range is something like TT-KK, AQ,AK after preflop, right? We beat everything except AK and AQ, and those would most likely have to bet for protection on this flop (if you like it better: "for value"). If, on the other hand, he's holding a weaker hand there's a lot of single diamonds in his range, which we will certainly lose to if it appears on any of the two next cards. I'm also protection betting here. Protection betting against likely draws is value betting, you just have to be willing to let go of the hand once the draw hits.

The logic fails. Just as "protection" is (should be!) a secondary or tertiary consideration in your own betting, you should not assume that the villain is going to bet AQ as a huge dog if called/raised for "protection" versus the minuscule part of your range that has the J♣: in it. Don't assume villains are bad thinkers and base your decision on it. They sometimes are, but most often not (such players go broke). Donking is also an out-of-sequence play, and some people just never do it heads up. The Equilab analysis from the SB's perspective is pretty much identical to that of the CO. Why should the SB donk to "protect" his 40% equity by bluffing with AQ versus unlikely hands?

I enjoy debating with you, but I am allergic to the "protection" reasoning used as the main reason to take an action. It pretty much never is in NL Holde'm, and you sometimes just have to give up what is probably the best hand at the moment, especially OOP vs good players.

A much better reason for either of the players to bet here is to bluff to prevent from being bluffed out. This is still secondary though.

Why not betting for "value"? He might call with KK:club: