Blocking Bets at the River

[The.Filth]

I'm confused about this blocking bet. I never use a river blocking bet. If you're pretty sure you have him, why not bet 2/3s of the pot at the river. And if you don't think you have the better hand, why not check fold it?

Isn't a blocking bet pretty transparent? What would you do if you get pushed all in?

I play 600 and 1000NL on PP and I really don't like this idea of the blocking bet. Against a lag I might make a small bet hoping for a raise at the river, but I doubt I would make that bet expecting to fold to a raise.

I watch UB's 25 50 and I never see the best players make blocking bets.

Whats your stance on this issue?

[xorbie]

I think the idea is that they would have to be making a solid read on you. I usually bet the same amount on the river with the nuts as with a hand I want a cheap showdown with.

[AZK]

People in that game also have no fear (it could also be stupidity) and almost every bet I see on the turn/river is pot-sized (read: not optimal).

Blocking bets maximize your earn when you are ahead but have to fold to a big bet and minimize when you are behind by not getting you committed on the river.

[Lawrence Ng]

Blocking bets work best if you had bet the turn, got raised on the turn, and just called. Then whatever river card comes out - a scare card usually say 3 flush/4 card straight, you'd throw a blocker bet on the river to hopefully slow the other player.

I've seen a lot of players who turn 2 pair to my set do this kind of thing. Then they throw like some 1/3 pot size bet on the river which begs to get raised. The problem when they do such a thing is that they get pot committed or trapped when I re-raise the river. It's tough throwing away 2 pair when the pot is offering them 2.5:1 odds or so to call and they'd have to be damn sure their 2 pair is no good.

I like using blocker bets against tight passive opponents, not LAG ones. Against LAG ones, I'll just check-call.

Lawrence

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
People in that game also have no fear (it could also be stupidity) and almost every bet I see on the turn/river is pot-sized (read: not optimal).

[/ QUOTE ]

as I've said before, people that always bet the pot are damn hard to play against. I am not saying it's always optimal to bet the pot, but there is a hell of a lot to be said for it.

--turnipmonster

[tbach24]

You use the blocking bet to get a cheap showdown. If you suspect a player is coming over the top of you with trash, then you can use the same sized bet as a weak lead. Or you can make your blocking bets the same as your value bets so that they can't come over the top of you. At a game as aggressive as UB 25/50, I suspect that weak leads work well.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People in that game also have no fear (it could also be stupidity) and almost every bet I see on the turn/river is pot-sized (read: not optimal).

[/ QUOTE ]

as I've said before, people that always bet the pot are damn hard to play against. I am not saying it's always optimal to bet the pot, but there is a hell of a lot to be said for it.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer making the same bet with any betting hand on a particular board.

i.e. on a K72r board, I would half the pot with a set, a bluff or a middle holding but on a QT7 two tone board I would be the pot with any hand that I want to bet with.

I am reading some HOH, and he keeps talking about making continuation bets and probe bets of 1/4-1/3 of the pot on a draw heavy board, and this seems like very bad advice to me.

[gomberg]

Maybe in tournaments it's not that bad. But online no-limit ring games I don't like betting less than 1/2 pot ever - unless in very special circumstances.

I also agree it's tough to play people who always bet the full pot. I like varying my bets, though - it's fun and adds an element to the pyschology of the game in my mind. I'll generally bet 1/2 to 2x pot (sometimes more), with my default usually being around 3/4ish size.

[RainFall]

HOH is specifically talking about tournaments.. in which case this can often be correct i believe based on the stack sizes.