Good use of the turn donk?

[Mister Z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is your definition of hand protection and why is it better than my definition?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, why are you pursuing this? You may as well say "I've decided to call my TV a soapdish. Why is your name any better than my name?' and then expect people to understand what you're talking about when you say you're spending $500 on a new soapdish.

There is a standard definition of "protection" in this forum and, quite frankly, everyplace else. If you choose to have the word 'protection' mean something different for you than it does for everyone else that's your preroggative I guess, but don't expect to be able to communicate with anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to post something similar to this. It doesn't matter what you call it. It's exactly like what you're saying.

The problem is that people keep saying stuff that doesn't make sense. Something like, "my opponent is making a +EV call at first." That's not true. We're going to check-raise whether he knows it or not and our check-raise makes the first call unprofitable. Everyone, other than you, keeps focusing on things like this and it's a little frustrating.

Anyway, I'm not arguing about the definition of protection anymore. Who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely incorrect because you are still not taking into account the pot size. If the opponent KNEW that I would checkraise and that each of his 3 opponents would go to the river for 2 big bets each (adding 8 BB's to the pot size) then he is correct in calling both bets. Therefore, by definition, I have NOT protected my hand. A lot of people are making a lotof sense here. Are you sure you're not confusing Sklansky's fundemental theory of poker and hand protection.