merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

i've been thinking about the blocking bet lately, wondering if it's actually useful at all. i don't like it and i'm having trouble thinking of scenarios where it'd really be called for, maybe some of you can come up with a few. the problem i have with it is that it usually folds a worse hand and doesn't give your opponent a chance to bluff, and then on the occasions he doesn't fold but comes over the top you're put to a tough decision. here are a couple hand examples:


hand 1, live 5-5: after two limpers i raise red AK to 40 from the sb, both call. flop A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and a blank, i bet 125, one caller. turn is a low [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], i bet 225, he calls. river is a red blank, i check, he moves in for 800, i call and win. later i learned he had Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Jx, so he flopped a gutshot and turned the nfd. if i had bet the river he obviously folds, why not give him the chance to bluff? being results-oriented aside, does anyone think a river-bet is better there?


hand 2, party1k: i'm the second limper with K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], bb raises to 50, i call. flop A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], he bets 75 i call. turn J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], he bets 200, i call. river 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], he bets 400, i push for 1200 total, he calls and loses with a set of aces. if you're bb, why bet that river? pot was 650-ish, if he checks i might try to buy it without the flush and he gets a near-pot bet from me; if i do have the flush he probably gets to showdown for a near-pot bet instead of for 1200. but by betting, i fold with a worse hand, and if i move in on him, he's made the pot so big now, getting 1500:800, that he almost has to call. or fold top set for that price and feel sick about it.


anyway, those are just two recent hands where a blocking bet could've been used but where i thought a check would be better. note that i'm thinking of blocking bets as different from value bets; with value bets you think you'll get called by a worse hand. although in reality many blocking bets may have a dual role as value bets in the hero's mind.

i also wanted to bring up something diablo mentioned awhile ago, that observant opponents will sense weakness in blocking bets and routinely push over the top. that's gonna make life miserable for you unless you're also leading the river for half-to-2/3rd-pot bets with the nuts, but generally we like to bomb it with the nuts, no? anyhow, i'm beginning to believe that, when you're oop with a strong holding but the action during the hand and texture of the board give you pause, it's ok to go ahead and check the river. comments?

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

nice post

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

i think it really depends on the opponent. against passive, calling station-esque opponents, a blocking bet should be used more, in more situations. these are the kind of opponents that like to get to showdowns, and like to get there cheap. when i have a hand, i dont want to see it get checked behind by a passive player on the river, when i could definitely squeeze in another bet.

when a passive player raises on the river, you can be sure you're beat, and just toss your hand away. a lot of these passive players might also just call with a stronger hand at the end, but will also call with much weaker hands, looking to see if you really have something or not.

against more aggressive opponents, blocking bets should be used less - they are easily identified by thinking players, and can be raised with a larger range of hands, inflating a big pot when you have some sort of showdown value. especially if your opponent is likely to bluff the river with a missed sort of draw, or some weird mid-pair, i think check-call is better in those situations. you have a hand that you think is good, but you don't want to be pushed off of it.

i just think opponent aggression factor comes into play a lot with the decision to use a blocking bet.

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think it really depends on the opponent. against passive, calling station-esque opponents, a blocking bet should be used more, in more situations. these are the kind of opponents that like to get to showdowns, and like to get there cheap. when i have a hand, i dont want to see it get checked behind by a passive player on the river, when i could definitely squeeze in another bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying is not a blocking bet, it's a value bet.

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

Your turn bet in hand 1 is pretty bad.

I don't think using 2 flush board examples is giving this topic fair play.

I like blockers most when I have a middlish 2 pair hand on an uncoordinated board - that kind of stuff.

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like blockers most when I have a middlish 2 pair hand on an uncoordinated board - that kind of stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or weak TP hands...that you hit on the turn....I like the turn minraise free river play for those hands...

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying is not a blocking bet, it's a value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what a blocking bet is to me. If I'm pretty sure that I'm going to lose a showdown, check/folding is way better than throwing away 1/2-pot. I use block bets when there's a fair chance that my hand is good, but it's not super-strong.

If you guys are talking about the dumb 1/5-pot block bets; well, I never do that. My block bets look like value bets because they are. I rarely go lower than 1/2-pot.

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

they arent dumb

you just said you dont know how to block bet and never do it

congrats on your ignorance and lack of feel for your opposition

some people will not raise there without the stone cold nuts!

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

These are all very good points. However, in hand number 2, I think the blocking bet was perfect on the part of the guy that used it, he just didn't fold when he was supposed to. Unless he knows you as ultra-aggressive, there's no reason not to fold. He could easily have been betting some combination draw the entire time so when he bets 2/3 pot on the river (generally a very substantial river bet), at this point it shouldn't matter what his odds of calling are, 2 to 1 or whatever. The point is, the odds are only that good because his bet was so large, and the larger his river bet, the greater the chance you will ONLY MOVE IN WITH A FLUSH. Given that, he should have found a fold. If he doesn't make that bet, let's say check calls, well you see why this is crazy right - he loses a ridiculous amount of value from anything that isn't a flush, lower set, two pair, whatever.

The point is not to be thinking about what the odds are on your call once the blocking bet has been made (certainly there are times when folding would be ludicrous, like when we have less than a pot size bet left so betting half pot then folding getting 5 to 1 is insane, but in these situations we cannot use the blocking bet). The point is that the larger your bet, the better your odds will be of calling on the river, but the greater the chance the opponent has the goods. A blocking bet is successful when increasing your bet, while increasing your "odds of calling", makes you exponentially more sure that the opponent has the goods.

If the guy in hand one had bet 1/3 pot in that situation, like 200 into that pot and then got raised all in, he would have had to call 1200 into a 1200... but now it seems very likely that opponent could have been bluffing given the ridiculously weak bet the guy had made. (This hand is actually a bad example because the ONLY draw ont he flop was a flush draw. Thus, you either had a showdownable hand or a flush draw, so any raise from you (or even any bet if you checked) should definitely have been a flush, unless you were getting cute by calling with middle pair, but that's unlikely. I think people fail to recognize single draw situations where villain either has a showdownable hand or a completed draw. If the set of aces had been TPGK in this situation, to me, it's a check/fold. (Or maybe a smaller blocking bet/fold) That's obviously weak only because a set of aces is so valuable here. But the key is villain has no reason to bet if the entire time he was calling to showdown his hand. If he was calling on a draw however, well I got news for you, he got there! Anyway, this is another issue completely =).

I love blocking bets, generally when yeah I have top pair weakish kicker in some situation. But I felt like I was getting bluff raised off them a lot by aggro opponents. Here's something you can do occasionally if you playy against the same peolpe to give your blocking bets more credit in the future:

Sometimes when I have a monster, like a full house, I will make a "blocking bet." I'll do this if I felt my opponent was drawing and missed or reallllly unsure and I didn't know which. I'll bet like 1/4 pot to give his crap hand a very good chance to call but more importantly to let him take the bait and raise you. I think that if this is your read, drawing or pretty marginal hand, betting something that looks like a blocking bet is the best way to get value and also lends credit to your blocking bets in the future (Especially when they bluff raise you and you set them all in and they fold for their last 200 into a pot of 3000 and feel like a clown!)

Ok I've said a lot here, I hope some of it made sense and was helpful, but yeah very good and interesting post.

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

FslexcDuck, I like your reasoning a lot, there definately are a lot of situations in which you don't know exactly where you stand, and where a bet can define the hand of your opponent substantially. I also like the use of this bet as a play to extract more money from the right oppponents.

What I especially enjoy about your post is the point that you make about 'talking yourself into a call, despite of your read'. Once your blockbet gets raised, I agree other factors should not prevail over your initial read/plan (don't talk yourself into a call). I think this is a major leak in the game of many people, not just regarding the block bet. I know it is one in mine.

However in line with the original poster there is something to be said for the fact that the blocking bet basically turns your hand to a bluff.

And combined with the problem posted by antother poster -namely that a good player will take advantage of this fact- it does hold some merit that the blocking bet should be used more selectively than other plays like it.

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

Personally, I think a lot of people misuse the term blocking bet. The blocking bet should be a value bet, just a value bet when you're facing a wide range of hands, some of which have you beat but many of which don't. It's not a bet you put out there just because you don't want to call. There are obviously a ton of circumstances in which check/calling against an agressive player is by far the best line. In these situations.

Against a very LAG player, I don't see the problem with 2/3 or 1/2 potting a river on a very scary board with the nuts. If they have a very strong hand, they will raise anyway, if they don't then oh well, you lose out on like 1/3 of the pot maybe (but you do gain those few times he's willing to call less). If they have nothing, they might be tempted to raise.

Against a looser, more passive player, the blocking bet is an excellent tool. Think about it this way. You have top two on a flush board. You beat a good amount of his holdings (TP, lesser two pairs), but lose to a flush/set. However, he's too passive to raise you with a worse hand, too passive to bluff a lesser hand but will definitely call you down with a ton of hands you beat. If you check/call this type of player, you end up putting money in only when you're losing. Sure you end up not seeing a showdown if he does raise you, but he may as well turn over his cards, cuz he's got you beat. Bet 2/3 pot, and you'll end up winning this when ahead and losing it when behind, so all that really matters is that you're ahead of his range.

It's really all about judging what hands a villain is going to check behind with (that you beat, maybe some that beat you as well), and what hands villain will bet (only the ones that beat you? maybe bluff? value bet some lesser hands?). If you're ahead of betting range but not his calling range, check. If you're ahead of his calling range but not his betting range, bet.

Obviously that's absurdly simplistic, and the tough part is using your image, your read, board texture and so forth to actually figure out these ranges. And that's what I suck at [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think a lot of people misuse the term blocking bet. The blocking bet should be a value bet, just a value bet when you're facing a wide range of hands, some of which have you beat but many of which don't. It's not a bet you put out there just because you don't want to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not entirely accurate. If I believe my hand is good 30% of the time, and if I believe that my opponent will push with an overbet very frequently if I check the river to him, then a blocking bet of 20% of the pot is +EV if you know that the Villain will call rather than raise.

This is an extreme example that doesn't come up very often, but it certainly is not a value bet.

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

What do you think is the idle stack size where having to use blocking bets on the river becomes very important?

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

You hit the needle on the head. The defining characteristic of a blocking bet is that your opponent, if checked to, will bet a larger amount than you like (esp. when you are behind), so you throw out a blocking bet to control the size of the river action and stop his bluffs. You would be tempted to call if you checked and he bet, but the bet size might be too much. Plus your blocking bet extracts value from hands that might check behind, just like with a normal value bet would.

Several posts in this thread have talked about situations where a passive opponent will bet when he is ahead and check behind when he is losing and will only raise with the nutz, so we throw out a bet that will get called by worse hands. This is not a blocking bet. This is a value bet. Notice that against most passive opponents, if we check and he makes a big bet, we aren't very tempted to call.

But this is all just terminology wankery anyway.

Re: merits and faults of the blocking bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think a lot of people misuse the term blocking bet. The blocking bet should be a value bet, just a value bet when you're facing a wide range of hands, some of which have you beat but many of which don't. It's not a bet you put out there just because you don't want to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not entirely accurate. If I believe my hand is good 30% of the time, and if I believe that my opponent will push with an overbet very frequently if I check the river to him, then a blocking bet of 20% of the pot is +EV if you know that the Villain will call rather than raise.

This is an extreme example that doesn't come up very often, but it certainly is not a value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just totally absurd. If I was planning on pushing for an overbet on the river, a 20% potsize bet certainly isn't going to stop me, especially when I only see you make these bets on ugly boards. You just end up losing that bet, and not seeing a showdown anyway.