Do you find this sexy?

I think it also needs the criteria that you're fairly certain you'd hold the best hand if he didn't hit his draw, which is possible since this opponent is so fishy, but not very certain, since another ace is also very likely. With an excellent kicker or two pair, no doubt a blocking bet would be fine, but in this case perhaps better to just check fold, since he'll also check behind with the missed straight a fair amount of the time.

I don't mind the check-fold on the river, too much although it is probably a wasted bet. The problem comes up when the other player decides to bluff and you might have the best hand. At that point you have to calculate. For a 1/2 pot bet you found out very quickly that you were behind. You probably could have bet 1/3 of the pot and found out the same thing.

[mudbuddha]

or.. if he's calling with the flush draw
misses. and then bluffs. thats the one ur blocking if a brick comes up..

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
A flush calls or raises. But a missed draw will bluff on a scare card. Say the guy was on a straight draw and misses, he sees the third flush card and I check to him. So he bluffs with the scare card. The blocking bet prevents that. This is how I thought it was supposed to be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point, if the flush draw didn't complete, then the blocking bet would work to prevent a busted flush draw from bluffing at you. As it stands, the flush did hit and there isn't much you're trying to block (the flush hit).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the river I think the blocking bet could be useful with any NON [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] river card. As it is, check/fold would have most likely been the better option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Err, isn't a blocking bet supposed to block a bluff? Why block a blank river card?

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose the river was the J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] , you would then have had TPWK. You would want to see a showdown, but cheaply. Then, your half pot bet would have been perfect, because it would prevent any missed draws from making a pot sized or bigger bet. With the K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] on the river, your hand goes from possibly ahead to most likely behind IMO.

[Macquarie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A flush calls or raises. But a missed draw will bluff on a scare card. Say the guy was on a straight draw and misses, he sees the third flush card and I check to him. So he bluffs with the scare card. The blocking bet prevents that. This is how I thought it was supposed to be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point, if the flush draw didn't complete, then the blocking bet would work to prevent a busted flush draw from bluffing at you. As it stands, the flush did hit and there isn't much you're trying to block (the flush hit).

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree - we're better to block when the flush completes.

If the river is a blank, and we think we've been ahead all the way, we don't mind a player firing a bluff, and we can happily call it. His weak hand won't call a river bet, so why would we make one?

If the flush completes, we don't want to check and have any old hand fire a PSB at us. Hard to tell if they have the flush or not. So make a blocking bet...

In the first case, we're likely ahead if they bet after we check. In the second case, we're ahead less often, and so want to block.

[Macquarie]

[ QUOTE ]
Then, your half pot bet would have been perfect, because it would prevent any missed draws from making a pot sized or bigger bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

We want the missed draw to bet into us! We don't want to make a blocking bet that no worse hands will call.