Do you bet the river?

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Checking this flop is horrible.

The board contains a 2-flush, so bet and protect your hand. As the preflop raiser you're expected to bet almost regardless of the flop anyway, so checking just looks suspicious.

When BB calls SB's turn bet and then caps, I just want the cheapest possible showdown, so I check the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Small point: we're betting the flop for value more than protection. We're never getting a flush draw to fold. We can, though, protect against weak backdoor draws, gutshots, pairs which have set outs against us, and so on.

Betting this flop is absolutely automatic, though. So is, in my opinion, betting the river.

[olavfo]

[ QUOTE ]
Small point: we're betting the flop for value more than protection.

[/ QUOTE ]
A digression:

I sometimes use the term "protection" when I talk about not letting your opponents draw for free (even if they have odds to call). Is this technically incorrect poker lingo?

Of course I agree that a flop bet is first and foremost for value.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Small point: we're betting the flop for value more than protection.

[/ QUOTE ]
A digression:

I sometimes use the term "protection" when I talk about not letting your opponents draw for free (even if they have odds to call). Is this technically incorrect poker lingo?

Of course I agree that a flop bet is first and foremost for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right that my point is entirely semantic.

It is important to realize that this bet is really for value and not "protection" proper. "Protection" is a tough concept, and confusing when we are betting with the primary intent to protect and when we are betting primarily for value might become confusing (for you or others reading this thread) in later situations when the two factors seems to be exclusive/contradictory/etc...