Re: Good use of the turn donk?
 

Proctecting your hand involves cutting down your opponents odds so that calling becomes an unprofitable situation for them. A checkraise on this turn would have made the pot even larger and given your opponents even better odds to chase X-outters to the river. So checkraising 3 opponents who have already called one bet is not protecting anything, it's just for value.

Re: Good use of the turn donk?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My thinking on the turn was that I wanted MP2 to raise again in order to protect my hand against the latter two player's possible 5-6 out hands. Bad idea I guess. Should I have just focused on getting more money in the pot here?

[/ QUOTE ]
So you think people who will call the flop getting 6.2-1 are going to fold the turn getting 5.8-1? I really think you need to be either 3-betting the flop or check/raising the turn.

Re: Good use of the turn donk?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the flop three bet, but I'm not too excited about betting this river. on the flop there were two straight draws with either 89 or 45 and on the turn there was a flush draw. Every single one of those came in. Can we really put all of our opponnents on a middle pair or a worse king that they put in two bets on the flop with? I'm fine with putting one bet in on this river but I'd like to check and see if any fish wants to make it 2.


[/ QUOTE ]
There wasn't any flush draw on the flop (when everybody had to put in 2). 98 came in on the turn and certainly would have raised then. The river is only helping someone with 54 or someone who caught a BD flush - and since the Kc is on board, there aren't many 2 club hands that are calling two on the flop.

IMO, it's a huge leak not to bet rivers like this. A large portion of the time this'll get checked through and you'll miss out on 2 or 3 BBs. A small portion of the time, you'll get raised and lose 1 BB.

Re: Good use of the turn donk?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Proctecting your hand involves cutting down your opponents odds so that calling becomes an unprofitable situation for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling would be an unprofitable situation for them. Why does the order of the bets they put in matter?

Let's say that bets are two chips, but to call they had to put in one chip, then immediately put in another chip. If they had odds to call for one chip, but not two, would a bettor have protected his hand? Would calling the first chip have been right? What's the difference?

Re: Good use of the turn donk?
 

[ QUOTE ]

So you think people who will call the flop getting 6.2-1 are going to fold the turn getting 5.8-1? I really think you need to be either 3-betting the flop or check/raising the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and I agree, but I don't think these two players were calculating pot odds. I was thinking more that they were sort of peeling the flop with bottom pair or gutshots, and would likely fold facing 2 BB's.

Re: Good use of the turn donk?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the flop three bet, but I'm not too excited about betting this river. on the flop there were two straight draws with either 89 or 45 and on the turn there was a flush draw. Every single one of those came in. Can we really put all of our opponnents on a middle pair or a worse king that they put in two bets on the flop with? I'm fine with putting one bet in on this river but I'd like to check and see if any fish wants to make it 2.


[/ QUOTE ]
There wasn't any flush draw on the flop (when everybody had to put in 2). 98 came in on the turn and certainly would have raised then. The river is only helping someone with 54 or someone who caught a BD flush - and since the Kc is on board, there aren't many 2 club hands that are calling two on the flop.

IMO, it's a huge leak not to bet rivers like this. A large portion of the time this'll get checked through and you'll miss out on 2 or 3 BBs. A small portion of the time, you'll get raised and lose 1 BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're right, especially considering the preflop action and the reads given.

woops.

-WT

Re: Good use of the turn donk?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Calling would be an unprofitable situation for them. Why does the order of the bets they put in matter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Using the common vernacular of this forum:
Protecting: facing opponents with improper pot odds on their immediate decision
Trapping: enticing opponents to make an overall mistake by calling two single bets, each that are correct at the time of the bet.

Even if you don't agree with these definitions, you'll have to go by them if you want people to understand you here.

And FWIW, there is a pretty big difference between trapping and protection. A good player will fold when he knows you've protected your hand, but you'll often be able to keep that same player in the hand by trapping him, since he can't always anticipate your raise. As a result, trapping generates more EV but with bigger swings.

Re: Good use of the turn donk?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proctecting your hand involves cutting down your opponents odds so that calling becomes an unprofitable situation for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling would be an unprofitable situation for them. Why does the order of the bets they put in matter?

Let's say that bets are two chips, but to call they had to put in one chip, then immediately put in another chip. If they had odds to call for one chip, but not two, would a bettor have protected his hand? Would calling the first chip have been right? What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is pot odds. On the turn, had the player to my left raised, the last two players would be getting around 6.5:1 odds to call - which would theoretically protect my hand by forcing them to choose between making an unprofitable call (if they are holding a 4-6 out hand such as a gutshot or bottom pair) and folding.

Had I checkraised, these players would be getting around 11:1 odds to call the first bet, and at least 15:1 odds to call the single bet back to them, which is a profitable call for any 4 out hand, and therefore does not "protect" my hand.

Re: Good use of the turn donk?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using the common vernacular of this forum:
Protecting: facing opponents with improper pot odds on their immediate decision
Trapping: enticing opponents to make an overall mistake by calling two single bets, each that are correct at the time of the bet.

Even if you don't agree with these definitions, you'll have to go by them if you want people to understand you here.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that makes sense and I sort of knew that was the issue. (I've been lurking longer than I've been posting.) I guess my problem is that the common definition loses a lot of usefullness. Why do we want a term that ignores half of the round?

It's very similar to asking "Do I have the odds to call?" while purposefully ignoring implied odds. I just don't see the point in doing that.

Meh, it doesn't really matter, I guess. A rose by any other name...

[ QUOTE ]
And FWIW, there is a pretty big difference between trapping and protection. A good player will fold when he knows you've protected your hand, but you'll often be able to keep that same player in the hand by trapping him, since he can't always anticipate your raise. As a result, trapping generates more EV but with bigger swings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see much of a difference here if you take my definition of protection. Well, actually, I see trapping as a subset of protecting. Basically, you've given your opponents the option to call unprofitably or fold (i.e., you've protected your hand under my definition), but pushed them toward 'call unprofitably' rather than 'fold.'

Re: Good use of the turn donk?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proctecting your hand involves cutting down your opponents odds so that calling becomes an unprofitable situation for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling would be an unprofitable situation for them. Why does the order of the bets they put in matter?

Let's say that bets are two chips, but to call they had to put in one chip, then immediately put in another chip. If they had odds to call for one chip, but not two, would a bettor have protected his hand? Would calling the first chip have been right? What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is pot odds. On the turn, had the player to my left raised, the last two players would be getting around 6.5:1 odds to call - which would theoretically protect my hand by forcing them to choose between making an unprofitable call (if they are holding a 4-6 out hand such as a gutshot or bottom pair) and folding.

Had I checkraised, these players would be getting around 11:1 odds to call the first bet, and at least 15:1 odds to call the single bet back to them, which is a profitable call for any 4 out hand, and therefore does not "protect" my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying each individual bet doesn't protect your hand. I agree. I'm saying the two bets together can protect your hand.