I hate blocking bets
 

Man, I hate blocking bets. Typical scenario :

Hero with AJ raises 3x preflop, LP calls
flop is J-high with two spades
hero bets pot, LP calls
turn is a blank
hero bets pot, LP calls
river is a spade
hero ?

Blocking bet just seems like giving away money. It feels like check-call is almost always more +EV. If you assume he will bet the same amount that you would block, it costs you the same amount to check-call as it does to blocking bet, and you are gauranteed to get a showdown. Blocking bet exposes you to being bluffed off the hand.

Re: I hate blocking bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hero with AJ raises 3x preflop, LP calls
flop is J-high with two spades
hero bets pot, LP calls
turn is a blank
hero bets pot, LP calls
river is a spade
hero ?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a good scenario for a river block. Here I would check-c/f depending on his bet. If river had blanked I would also check hoping to induce a bet from a missed draw.

Blocking bets should be used when you do not believe your opponent was chasing some obvious draw the whole way. Dry boards where you have TPTK for example. Honestly, I don't use them all that often, and I doubt you should either.

Re: I hate blocking bets
 

[ QUOTE ]

Blocking bets should be used when you do not believe your opponent was chasing some obvious draw the whole way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. Blocking bets are used when you have the likely best hand unless villian was chasing a draw the whole way and hit it on the river. For example, Hero PFR's with 99 and gets a caller. Flop comes 9, spade, spade. Bet, call. Turn brick. Bet, call. River spade. Blocking bet here because your set of nines is likely good unless he hit his flush.

I think we showed on this board a few months ago that a blocking bet is superior to c/c'ing in most situations. Hero's shouldn't autoblockbet everytime and should use c/c agst certain villians, but you do give up a small amount of EV by c/c'ing.

Re: I hate blocking bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you assume he will bet the same amount that you would block, it costs you the same amount to check-call as it does to blocking bet, and you are gauranteed to get a showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

well...duh, sorry to point out the obvious but the idea of a blocking bet is that you bet what you are willing to call, if you think villain will bet less than that there's no point in making a blocking bet.

Re: I hate blocking bets
 

[ QUOTE ]

well...duh, sorry to point out the obvious but the idea of a blocking bet is that you bet what you are willing to call, if you think villain will bet less than that there's no point in making a blocking bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I said, I said if he would bet the same amount that you block, then at least with check-calling you're gauranteed to get a showdown. If you bet that same amount, he might call and you get a showdown, or he might raise and you either have a more expensive showdown or a fold when you might be ahead of a bluff. If he's likely to bluff for a much larger amount that your block, then blocking becomes a much cheaper way to find out if you're ahead.
I guess there are two cases where it's clear :

1. he likely has a weaker hand that will call a bet but not bet if you check - blocking bet is good here

2. he either has hit the draw or he has junk which will either fold to your bet or often bluff if you check - check/call is better here

But if he's tricky and will raise big with a weaker hand even when you blocking bet, that's nasty. The big problem is people who recognize a block and will raise it.

Any pointer to the previous discussion? I need to learn...

Re: I hate blocking bets
 

[ QUOTE ]

I guess there are two cases where it's clear :

1. he likely has a weaker hand that will call a bet but not bet if you check - blocking bet is good here


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a blocker bet, that's a regular value bet

[ QUOTE ]
2. he either has hit the draw or he has junk which will either fold to your bet or often bluff if you check - check/call is better here

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really get how you tighten someone's range to "hit their draw or air".

Generally you make blocking bets when some obvious draw hits because your opponent can't raise you unless he has the flush/straight and there's a good chance you have the best hand so you don't want to be bluffed out of the hand.

If you check call your opponent determines the ammount, if you make a blocker you decide the ammount, that's all there is to it.

[ QUOTE ]
But if he's tricky and will raise big with a weaker hand even when you blocking bet, that's nasty. The big problem is people who recognize a block and will raise it.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is ssnl, 90% of the players don't make blocker bets let alone recognize the 10% of players capable of doing them and then recognizing a blocker bet and raise it with air.

There's no need to second guess yourself here, if villain raises your blocker bet it's not because he knows what you're doing and countering it.

Re: I hate blocking bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Any pointer to the previous discussion? I need to learn...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if anyone could provide a link to this thread, that would be vey helpful.

Re: I hate blocking bets
 

If I'd be your opponent and the third spade came on the board:
If you check I will bet.
If you raise I will reraise.

So I think against your average TAG it is better to check.

Against a passive player I think you can safely check the river and fold to his raise if it is big. He's passive so he will only bet strong with the nuts. If he bets weak (indicating a low flush) you can reraise, but only if the bloke is capable of folding a strong hand. Guys who call pot size raises with a low flush draw AND fold to a reraise on the river when they made their hands are very rare.