Shoving TPNK for protection vs weak player

BotswanaNickBotswanaNick Red Chipper Posts: 696 ✭✭✭
1/2 game, table is a mix of weak loose players and predictable TAGS. Late at night, table has become especially limp-cally, where most players are too tired to play aggressively and everyone is just trying to see a flop and hit a big hand (even more than usual lol). V1 is worst player at table, very loose, commonly passive but also will raise sometimes with marginal hands or bluffs.

Hero (BB) sitting with $220, which is effective stack.
Preflop:
MP1 raise to $15, MP3 calls, CO calls, V1 (BU) calls, Hero (BB) calls with :9s:6s

Very thin call being so shallow, should have folded. I justified it knowing I'm closing the action, and that with many bad players seeing the flop I could squeeze out a slight profit post overall, but that is probably wrong at this depth even against terrible players.

Flop ($76): :9d:7c:3s

Check x4, V1 bets $20, Hero raises to $75, fold x 3, V1 tanks and calls.

Turn ($226) :9d:7c:3s:2h

Hero Shoves $130, V1 folds.

I know on its face this line looks really bad. Here is my rationale: PFRer checks which is usually to give up, other two players check after him which is usually weakness. V1's very small bet is almost always a hand worse than mine, he most likely has a middling pair or a gutshot type hand (I know his game pretty well). There is some tiny chance he has 98 or similar but I expect him to bet top pair much harder than this (as well as OESD). He is also the type of player that hates folding to any non-all in bet, so my raise here was a clear value raise. I raised to 75 so I could fold in the unlikely event another player woke up with a hand, and to set up a turn shove. That is where my real question comes though.

Once I get to the turn, I no longer expect him to call with too many worse hands. In fact, I think it is more likely he might fold a slightly better 9 if he has any (doubtful). But I really don't want him free-rolling to the river. So I basically just shoved for protection, which we have been taught is usually a bad sole motivation for betting. Thoughts?

Comments

  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    based on your reads - I like the betting line.
    you look very, very strong here and should only get called by 2-pair or more.
    the turn is a perfect card for your hand... if you had TT or A9 - it doesn't complete and str8s or give V any better 2-pair (unless he called with 32)

    I don't think you're really shoving here for protection
    It feels more like bluffing... maybe even bluffing with the best hand?

    attacking the field bettor in a raised pot is often a profitable play - with almost any 2.
    the fact that you had a 9 - takes a lot of possible combos out of his range - but he still could be bet/calling with T9, J9, Q9 or even T8.

    nh.
  • Golden14Golden14 Red Chipper Posts: 56 ✭✭
    Think your play is fine but thought process is flawed.

    You are essentially turning your hand into a bluff against a somewhat capped range (doubt he is betting $20 into $75 with a set).

    I would prefer to shove a spade turn, but you have identified a profitable spot against an opponent that may or may not be on lock down with a capped range. Just know why are you doing it.
  • BotswanaNickBotswanaNick Red Chipper Posts: 696 ✭✭✭
    You guys both say this is more of a bluff than a bet for protection. I did acknowledge that it might very rarely work as a bluff (because him having a better hand than me is extremely rare to begin with). But I only expect that to be maybe 5% of the time; the other 95% of the time I am folding out hands that have some equity but most likely will not call.

    So if I could tell you he never has a hand better than us (so our bet is never a bluff), would you guys just check/call in that case? I would expect him to check back almost always after our flop raise.
  • ChibberChibber Red Chipper Posts: 380 ✭✭✭
    Calling 96s out of the BB at your stack depth is a leak, but I think you know that. But I understand why you make the call, because I will leak money like this too.

    I like the raise after recognizing the weakfish button bet, but from a sizing perspective, I think you can accomplish the same result with $60 - $65 on the flop. Then shove $140 - $145 on turn.
  • BotswanaNickBotswanaNick Red Chipper Posts: 696 ✭✭✭
    Chibber wrote: »
    I like the raise after recognizing the weakfish button bet, but from a sizing perspective, I think you can accomplish the same result with $60 - $65 on the flop. Then shove $140 - $145 on turn.

    But our raise is for value. Especially if we expect him to call many flop raises and fold many turn shoves, don't we want to make flop raise the largest size possible we still expect a call from? I was thinking if anything I should have raised a bit larger, but wanted to keep the turn shove from being trivial (for those times I am bluffing) and give myself a way out if another player unexpectedly shoved.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2016
    So if I could tell you he never has a hand better than us (so our bet is never a bluff), would you guys just check/call in that case? I would expect him to check back almost always after our flop raise.

    you say you're betting for value - but you're blasting every player out of the hand!
    sure - nearly ½ the deck turns our hand from top pair no kicker into garbage... so I understand the desire to get most overcards out.
    but raising 20 up to 75 screams strength.
    it's something a lot of players would do with a set.

    (edit: BTW - you're looking at 75 into a pot of 96-ish... and actually, 55 to call to win 114-ish?... but V and the table see the 75 as more of an absolute value bet... you're raising the 20-bet nearly FOUR TIMES!... you pushing in nearly ½ your stack!... you know?)

    say you had a set... would you play it that way?
    what about 2-pair?
    why not raise to 50?
    and bet 75-80 on the turn?

    If I were 100% sure I had the best hand... I'd try to milk V for more money.
    That's what good players do with value hands.
    Now that's very exploitative - so good players would see that and make a mental note of it... but I would play good players differently than a bad player... more GTO-ish.

    when V calls the raise and a nothing hits the turn... pot is now more than 225...
    I might bet 60-75... or around half my stack - giving V what he might seem to be "good odds" but if he's got 5 to 8 outs... would not really be so. And I'm probably shoving any river.

    It sort of allows your V to play "perfectly" because he's probably not calling the river unless he hits - but it's an exploitative strategy that most of the time gets more "value" for your hand.

    just some food for thought.
  • ChibberChibber Red Chipper Posts: 380 ✭✭✭
    Chibber wrote: »
    I like the raise after recognizing the weakfish button bet, but from a sizing perspective, I think you can accomplish the same result with $60 - $65 on the flop. Then shove $140 - $145 on turn.

    But our raise is for value. Especially if we expect him to call many flop raises and fold many turn shoves, don't we want to make flop raise the largest size possible we still expect a call from? I was thinking if anything I should have raised a bit larger, but wanted to keep the turn shove from being trivial (for those times I am bluffing) and give myself a way out if another player unexpectedly shoved.

    You said:

    I raised to 75 so I could fold in the unlikely event another player woke up with a hand, and to set up a turn shove. That is where my real question comes though.

    Once I get to the turn, I no longer expect him to call with too many worse hands. In fact, I think it is more likely he might fold a slightly better 9 if he has any (doubtful). But I really don't want him free-rolling to the river. So I basically just shoved for protection, which we have been taught is usually a bad sole motivation for betting.

    I am not saying your sizing was incorrect. Your post indicates that you're betting for value, but want to get away from the hand if you're raised on the flop. So if $65 will accomplish the same thing as $75, is $65 the better bet size? Maybe, I don't know.

    When you get to the turn you're concerned, so trying to get a slightly better 9 to fold is your goal even though the board hasn't changed. Is $135 or $145 better for that job? Again, I don't know. This is why you / we post hands...


  • MonadMonad Red Chipper Posts: 1,004 ✭✭✭✭
    Preflop you said it. I've seen worse lines post flop but I'm just check jamming flop here over a weak bet. Happy folding out everyone's equity, occasionally getting hero'd and winning, or losing. Basically I don't mind treating my hand like a semibluff (obviously w some sdv) here in low spr spot vs a lot of random equity multiway.
  • BotswanaNickBotswanaNick Red Chipper Posts: 696 ✭✭✭
    @chibber yes I see your point, this is the balancing act. For me, the primary purpose of the raise was to extract value from V1. Sizing to allow myself to fold to a very unlikely action from other villains was by far a secondary consideration but still on my mind. For the turn bet, getting a slight better hand to fold a secondary consideration, and protecting my equity by forcing other hands to fold (or call with worse) is my primary consideration (aka a protection bet). The other responder said the bet was ok but I didn't understand the reason for the bet (he argued it was a bluff not a protection bet). My response is that no, I did understand the reason for my bet, and that reason was for protection. However, that is the crux of my question, am I wrong to bet for protection here?

    Also of note here: I expect V1 to fold almost his entire range to my turn shove, which begs the question "why aren't we taking this line with tons of bluffs?" A worthy question indeed.
  • BotswanaNickBotswanaNick Red Chipper Posts: 696 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2016
    kagey wrote:
    you say you're betting for value - but you're blasting every player out of the hand!

    As you acknowledged, this is a very small raise. I would take this line with sets (or if anything raise larger). And I didn't blast every player out of the hand, in fact V1 called with what was likely a very weak holding, as I expected. The other players will likely fold regardless.

    On the turn, we don't even have 2/3 pot left in our stack. I'm not going to get cute to try to bet some on turn and then 1/9 pot on river. Also, I would like to have bluffs in range as well where I need some fold equity.

  • BotswanaNickBotswanaNick Red Chipper Posts: 696 ✭✭✭
    @monad yeah I considered shoving flop but it felt like overkill and also like I might lose some value. But I think we've established overall that you have a lot more heart in your game then i do:) Given that, the shove might fit better with your overall strategy and smaller raise could work better for me.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    On the turn, we don't even have 2/3 pot left in our stack. I'm not going to get cute to try to bet some on turn and then 1/9 pot on river. Also, I would like to have bluffs in range as well where I need some fold equity.

    yeah - agree
    stack sizes suck (why don't you play with a bigger stack?)

    but if you think in terms of "relative" bet size... in a 1/2 game - bets 75+ are often considered as "big" bets regardless of the pot size (of course this depends on opponents)... so was trying to think of a more "creative" way to extract more "value"... but as played - it's pretty good
  • Renato_LRenato_L Red Chipper Posts: 190
    your bigger question is-is it ok to bet for protection? personally i do it all the time. so, imo, the answer is yes. why it's verboten or taboo personally escapes me.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Preflop clear fold for me and even if it goes 8 ways I cannot justify calling preflop with such a low spr. Feels like 15% of the time you will hit the flop with tpbk or pick up a fd and at that point being multiway won't really know where your at.

    Postflop I am ok with your play based on the fact your going with your read. I am fine with any raise size $50 to all in. I do prefer a raise here because if you flat 1 or 2 others almost guarenteed to flat as well.

    I understand the logic of you saying he will fold better 9s but call with draws. This was the logic i went back and forth with you on with my AJs hand in a 3 bet pot. I believe same argument applies where villain might fold AK because of tight range of 2 pair + i have but call with worse (sd+fd) type hands.

    I think post flop really comes down to live read. Btn induced a bluff and didn't realize it if he did have a better 9. I think if he gets $40 here you might just fold flop.

    For what its worth i will often bet like $30 here on the flop with my sets and top 2 pair type hands. Turn would be like $136 with ($185) left and can just bet half pot snd and shove river. I don't think every small bet is weak. Really depends on villains. Most people say should bet big with sets or strong hands but multiway 3 spr pot don't have to bet big at all to get the money in.

    Overall great job going with your read.
  • Golden14Golden14 Red Chipper Posts: 56 ✭✭
    I think pre-flop is fine because he is closing the action and implied odds are there due to multiway action.
  • BotswanaNickBotswanaNick Red Chipper Posts: 696 ✭✭✭
    Renato_L wrote: »
    your bigger question is-is it ok to bet for protection? personally i do it all the time. so, imo, the answer is yes. why it's verboten or taboo personally escapes me.

    Yup you got it. Or even more specifically, it is-is this a valid time to bet mostly for protection?
  • BotswanaNickBotswanaNick Red Chipper Posts: 696 ✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    I understand the logic of you saying he will fold better 9s but call with draws.

    This isn't what I said. I said I expected all draws and pairs to all the flop raise, and I expected all draws and one pair hands to fold the turn. That combined with the fact that I don't think he even has many/any 9s in range to begin with.
  • Golden14Golden14 Red Chipper Posts: 56 ✭✭
    I don't think it is really possible to bet for protection. You are really just betting for value (either the thin or the thick variety).

    In this case, I think OP is more betting as a bluff (because it is hard to ever see getting called by worse).

    It is all just semantics anyway. I have some sort of clear reason why you are betting to avoid auto-piloting.
  • BotswanaNickBotswanaNick Red Chipper Posts: 696 ✭✭✭
    Golden14 wrote: »
    I don't think it is really possible to bet for protection. You are really just betting for value (either the thin or the thick variety).

    You've said this a couple times, but the fact is you can bet for protection. It is just usually frowned upon, especially if it is the sole reason for betting. Betting for protection means your intention is not to get better hands to fold (bluff), or worse hands to call (value), but to get worse hands that still have equity to fold (folding out equity is protection).

    http://www.thinkingpoker.net/articles/betting-for-protection/


  • Golden14Golden14 Red Chipper Posts: 56 ✭✭
    Again, it just semantics. But if you are 51/49 equity favorite over someone and you bet, you are betting for value. Protection is a side effect of that bet. It is just a razor thin value-bet.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,308 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Golden14 wrote: »
    Protection is a side effect of that bet. It is just a razor thin value-bet.

    This thought will get you somewhere.

    1. In the larger picture, there are value bets and bluffs. A protection bet is a subspecies of a value bet, made against a range which includes hands that are in fact extremely unlikely to call despite winning equity and which would greatly benefit from no bet at all or an extraordinarily good price. So on a spectrum of bets, if a protection bet happens to bleed into some other purpose, it naturally may still have, and very likely has, some value component, even though this particular one has a bluff component as well.

    2. When you make a call or a play or a maneuver that doesn't correspond to stack sizes, such as flatting this piece of cheese pre multiway and OOP, you end up having to correct for it somewhere else in the end, almost inevitably, because in a real sense, you've distorted your own range and forced one holding to take the place of some other hand. So when you rip this one in here there is definitely some internal logic, as your hand should be something that either has more value or more potential. But here is where it even more nicely relates to the matter at hand: Because you have neither, you end up needing more and more protection than you would otherwise naturally want. For instance, if you showed up with 88 or TT or A9s, which would fit the stacks a little or a lot better, no one would be lost as to the power of your play or why the bet was made, each one for somewhat different purposes, or hesitate to find a different line.
  • BotswanaNickBotswanaNick Red Chipper Posts: 696 ✭✭✭
    I wanted to bump this post just to highlight a mini Eureka moment I had from reading @persuadeo 's post. Without directly stating, he implied that calling with these marginal hands out of the blinds (or playing hands we shouldn't be from any position) doesn't just hurt us in this particular hand, it hurts our entire range. I iwill definitely be reminding myself of this any time I'm tempted to make a bad call or open: if I call this bet, I am making my legitimate calls less profitable. Words to live by I think.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file