[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]

When you say its not as good as check-fold, that's simply not true. Because (1) by controlling the betting, you can make a bet the size that you would call based on what chance you think you have of having the best hand (you control the pot odds) (2) with a scary board, you still have some fold equity even with a small bet -- you still have the opportunity to make a better hand fold (assuming the board is scary enough)


[/ QUOTE ]

I hadn't considered the FE issue. My feeling is that this probably doesn't come into play very often at 100NL (which is what I play). At higher limits, where FE does become significant, there are probably more sophisticated opponents who may recognize a blocking bet for what it is and raise accordingly.

I guess it comes down to the following:

Blocking bet works when:
A -opponent would have made a large enough bluff to get you out
B -opponent has a weak hand and would have checked behind, but calls your bet
C -opponent calls with a hand that has you beat, and would have bet a larger amount had he been checked to (but which you would have still called)
D -opponent folds a better hand

Blocking bet no good when:
E -opponent would have bluffed an amount you would have called, but folds instead
F -opponent has a strong hand and reraises an amount that you will call, but would have bet a smaller amount if checked to
G -opponent has a better hand and would have checked behind
H -opponent recognizes blocking bet and reraises you off the hand.

In the 100NL 6max games on party, I think A and D happen very seldom. Large bluffs occur relatively seldom, and the players that use them tend to use them often, and can be stacked with regularity. On the other side, I think E and F happen all the time.

Thanks for the insight though, I think I might try to start using the blocking bet in very select situations.