Article
credits: Ben Nash, aka 6foot3
There is a balance to betting that
must be reached in order to receive maximum
value for your hands. This balance is the
struggle between Value and Protection Betting.
On the Value side, you want to extract the
maximum amount of money from your opponent.
And on the Protection side, you want to
prevent losing the amount of money you have
invested in a pot.
I have seen on many occasions inexperienced
players over and under bet their hands accordingly.
Following are two examples I personally
played that illustrate improperly applied
Value
and Protection Betting.
The first hand example is from the 2005
WSOP.
I was in middle position and looked down
at JJ. I raised three times the big blind
and was called only by the big blind yielding
a pot of 6.5 big bets. The call of the big
blind could have simply been defensive,
but an otherwise chatty opponent was suddenly
quiet. I assumed a range of hands he could
hold to be big paint, big slick or a middle
pair.
The flop delivered K93 rainbow. My opponent
bet the minimum bringing the pot to 7.5
big bets. At this point I was convinced
he had a king and his Value bet would force
me to call.
The turn card was another K. My opponent
quickly checked raising the ire of suspicion.
So I promptly checked behind him as I was
willing to show this hand down for nothing.
The river delivered an 8. My opponent declared
assertively that he was “all-in”.
Now, I originally placed my opponent on
a king. With two kings on the board, the
likelihood of him holding a K was small.
However, I was not willing to risk my entire
tournament on a pair of Js when my gut instinct
told me he had a K. I decided to try getting
him to expose his cards by declaring that
I was folding the winner and showing him
my Jacks as they were mucked. He triumphantly
flipped his hand over showing pocket kings
for quad-kings.
How does this apply to value betting?
Proper use of value betting in light of
what your opponent may be holding would
have given this opponent more chips with
his monster hand. Obviously I was willing
to call the one bet on the flop. At minimum
I would have called one bet on the turn
and one on the river. He left at least two
bets on the table by improper betting.
Where does the balance come into play? I
believe my opponent had an opportunity to
make more than the two bets he left on the
table. The flop minimum bet was crazy. No
cards should be folded when the pot is offering
7.5 to 1 odds. With my opponent flopping
a set of Ks and an uncoordinated board,
a flop bet of two or three bets would have
been about the maximum an opponent could
call with an underpair.
The turn check is not a bad play in trying
to induce a bluff. But in order for this
attempt at weakness to work, he would have
had to represent strength on the flop. His
flop bet did not do this. Now in the scenario
where I called a flop bet of two or three
big bets, at minimum I should be willing
to risk two or three more bets as the pot
would again be offering remarkable odds
to stick around. Finally, the all-in bet
on the river gave no consideration to my
hand or chip stacks. What hand would possibly
call the all-in? A full-house or set of
kings only. This was a missed opportunity
to extract more chips from an opponent.
His hand was so strong that a small bet
is the best he could have hoped to recover.
In the alternate flop/turn scenario presented,
a river bet of three to five bets would
have likely been paid off.
The second hand reflects on Protection Betting.
This hand was played in Las Vegas in a cash
game.
Four limpers to seat 7 who makes a minimum
raise.
I was in seat 9 with 68 spades and cold
called the two bets. The small blind, big
blind and previous limpers all called as
well yielding a pot of 16 big bets.
The flop delivered 3c5h7c.
All checked to seat 7 who minimum bet again
and all players involved called bringing
the pot to 24 big bets. The turn card was
the Q of diamonds.
Again, all checked to seat 7 who bet two
big bets. I called, along with the big blind
bringing the pot to 30 big bets.
The river was the 9 of diamonds. Big blind
checked and seat 7 went all-in. I called
and the big blind folded. Seat 7 turned
over red Aces and lost a huge pot to my
rivered straight.
How does this apply to Protection
Betting?
With hands that are vulnerable (such as
one pair in the above example), it is absolutely
important to protect the money that is invested
in the pot BEFORE it is too late to do so.
Where is the balance? This guy had aces,
and this is obviously a monster hand pre-flop,
but the hand progressively gets worse on
the flop, turn and river unless helped by
the board. Aces are only one pair.
The minimum raise pre-flop was a huge
mistake given all of the limpers. Aces
in an 8-way pot are destined to be cracked.
There was no Protection Bet pre-flop providing
security for the aces. Mistake.
Instead of the minimum raise, a pre-flop
raise of about 4 to 6 big bets would have
thinned the field significantly putting
the aces in far better position from the
flop on. Now assuming the filed was thinned
and it was three-way action after 4 to 6
bet pre-flop raise, a respectable continuation
bet on the flop is required. You cannot
lay proper odds for the flush or straight
draws to continue with the hand without
making a negative EV play. *a negative EV
play is one that will lose money over the
long haul.
In order to protect against the
flush, your bet would need to lay
insufficient odds for the opponent to continue.
This means it has to be big enough to force
them to fold or make an improper call based
on the odds. Some opponents will call regardless
of the bet, but you must make an attempt
at betting that forces people out of the
hand. A solid ¾ to pot size bet would
lay odds such that an opponent is making
a mistake in calling.
The point is that seat 7 in the above scenario
failed to bet in a manner that would
push anyone out of the hand until it was
too late. With a coordinated board such
as the one in this example, aces are useless
and serious consideration should be given
to sending them to the muck.
You may be able to think of many examples
yourself where you made too large of a bet
on the river with the nuts that didn’t
get a call; or you may remember not betting
enough with a hand that was vulnerable.
There is a definite balance between
Value Betting and Protection Betting
that is often overlooked. Oftentimes players
will find that they have all throttle but
no gears to shift.
The art in Value Betting keeps customers
paying off your premium hands by turning
down the throttle to a point palatable to
your opponents. Oftentimes players find
themselves complaining about the suck-out
artists who cracked their (fill in the big
pair here).
The art in Protection Betting keeps these
thieves from stealing the smaller pots from
under you. For all players, the threshold
required for both Value and Protection changes.
While subtle in difference, strong focus
on this balance can yield huge dividends
to your bankroll.
~6foot3
P.S. KAP thanks Ben Nash
for the article! Comment on this article
and others in the strategy
section of the Kick Ass Poker forum.
Ben
represents at the 2005 WSOP
|
