General Discussion Poker Forums

I've never properly understood the concept of betting for protection. Could someone please concisely explain what it is, or point me to an article/vid that does?

Thanks

it simply means a bet that is unlikely to be called by worse often enough to be considered a value bet, yet it's a bet that is worth making because if you check you will allow your opponent to realize all of his equity in the pot when he might otherwise fold (or make a -EV decision by calling).

An example might be cbetting a 223r with A3. You probably aren't getting called by worse a lot (certainly some worse hands) but there's value in not letting your opponent catch a free 6+ outs against you.

WoT

Basically, a protection bet is always a valuebet also.

You have AK on KT7
You have a strong made hand but not invulnerable.
You bet for protection/value against villains range of flushdraws and gutshots and worse pairs that might draw out on you.

Villain might call with 89 or AT or QJ and a bunch of other hands that have equity against you and you want to deny villain a free look at the next card and not letting him draw to hit his hand for free.

Hope that helped
Peace

The three main reasons to bet are:

For value: To gain money on your bet when called.
For protection: To protect your equity in the current pot.
As a 'bluff': To fold out hands with better equity.

A lot of the time you are value betting you are also betting for protection (except on the river, where the concept of protection no longer exists because you are either 100% or 0% and you will only be value betting or bluffing), while a protection bet doesn't necessarily have to be for value.

Sometimes your bet loses money when called but is more +EV than checking, because that gives your opponent an extra card for free when he is behind. Sometimes your protection bet can double as a bluff as well, or have an element of all 3.

I remember beluga saying that a bet is either for value or as a bluff but never both.

There's an article somewhere.

The three main reasons to bet are:

For value: To gain money on your bet when called.
For protection: To protect your equity in the current pot.
As a 'bluff': To fold out hands with better equity.

A lot of the time you are value betting you are also betting for protection (except on the river, where the concept of protection no longer exists because you are either 100% or 0% and you will only be value betting or bluffing), while a protection bet doesn't necessarily have to be for value.

Sometimes your bet loses money when called but is more +EV than checking, because that gives your opponent an extra card for free when he is behind. Sometimes your protection bet can double as a bluff as well, or have an element of all 3.

value and protection are so similar i don't think it makes sense to categorize them separately, fwiw. there aren't many spots i can think of where i'd bet for strictly protection or value; theres usually some combo of both unless we have the immortal nuts.

This is also talked about a fair amount in the recent podcast with Phil Galfond.

Basically, a protection bet is always a valuebet also.

You have AK on KT7
You have a strong made hand but not invulnerable.
You bet for protection/value against villains range of flushdraws and gutshots and worse pairs that might draw out on you.

Villain might call with 89 or AT or QJ and a bunch of other hands that have equity against you and you want to deny villain a free look at the next card and not letting him draw to hit his hand for free.

Hope that helped
Peace

this isn't a good example of what is commonly meant by betting for protection imo.

Okay so I think I get this. But I want to make sure I'm right here, so I concocted an example to make sure.

We have AT.
Our sicko spidey senses tell us that villain has 98.

the pot is $50 on the flop of JT2. Villian checks to us.

Suppose we also have a read that villain NEVER calls with less than top pair (but always calls with TP any kicker). We would still bet here for protection so that we earn $50 instead of $33. It's not a value bet as we never get called by worse, and its not a bluff because we never fold out anything better. But the bet still has purpose as shown above.

So it seems the above example illustrates a situation where the bet is exclusively for protection. Some people were saying its very rare a bet is exclusively for protection, which makes sense since we never have the perfect read. If in the above example we had AJ instead and put our opponent's calling range on middle pair, no kicker and better but they still fold all their draws then the bet is both for value against the pair hands, and to fold out the draws with equity against us.

Is everything I've said correct?

This is also talked about a fair amount in the recent podcast with Phil Galfond.

Where can I see this?

http://www.deucescracked.com/podcasts

Unfortunately I don't remember which part it is in.

this isn't a good example of what is commonly meant by betting for protection imo.

Correct me, please!
That's why I'm here...

it simply means a bet that is unlikely to be called by worse often enough to be considered a value bet, yet it's a bet that is worth making because if you check you will allow your opponent to realize all of his equity in the pot when he might otherwise fold (or make a -EV decision by calling).

An example might be cbetting a 223r with A3. You probably aren't getting called by worse a lot (certainly some worse hands) but there's value in not letting your opponent catch a free 6+ outs against you.

WoT

^

also so villain wont realize BLUFFING equity

value and protection are so similar i don't think it makes sense to categorize them separately, fwiw. there aren't many spots i can think of where i'd bet for strictly protection or value; theres usually some combo of both unless we have the immortal nuts.

Obviously in a lot of situations we will be using the term value to mean protection and value (in a short-handed implicitly stated kind of way) but I think it's important theory-wise for a beginner to fully understand the reasons why we are betting, and the two sometimes have different implications.

A lot of the time I see people saying they will not bet certain spots because they are never getting called by worse or bluffing out better, but they fail to see that there is still EV in protection because of the specific player type.

You're right though, most of the time they do come hand in hand, but I still think it's important to realise there is a difference.

I think the most important thing is to realize that "protection" in and of itself is rarely the primary reason we are betting. I just did a lesson today where the student flatted an EP raise with KTs, called a bet on Kxx, and wanted to raise the turn "to protect his hand" which is clearly very spewy in that spot, so I just want to make sure people aren't justifying bad plays based on "protection".

I think the most important thing is to realize that "protection" in and of itself is rarely the primary reason we are betting. I just did a lesson today where the student flatted an EP raise with KTs, called a bet on Kxx, and wanted to raise the turn "to protect his hand" which is clearly very spewy in that spot, so I just want to make sure people aren't justifying bad plays based on "protection".

I guess what I should say is people should realise that betting for protection is a concept so that they can learn when not to do it, heh. From a theoretical standpoint you need to know about it and how it plays a part in our betting, though I guess from a practical standpoint it isn't really important because value and protection go hand in hand a lot and it probably ends up confusing beginners almost as much as 'betting for information'.