[mgsimpleton]

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.