I hate blocking bets

[Fallen Hero]

[ QUOTE ]
If you assume he will bet the same amount that you would block, it costs you the same amount to check-call as it does to blocking bet, and you are gauranteed to get a showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

well...duh, sorry to point out the obvious but the idea of a blocking bet is that you bet what you are willing to call, if you think villain will bet less than that there's no point in making a blocking bet.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]

well...duh, sorry to point out the obvious but the idea of a blocking bet is that you bet what you are willing to call, if you think villain will bet less than that there's no point in making a blocking bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I said, I said if he would bet the same amount that you block, then at least with check-calling you're gauranteed to get a showdown. If you bet that same amount, he might call and you get a showdown, or he might raise and you either have a more expensive showdown or a fold when you might be ahead of a bluff. If he's likely to bluff for a much larger amount that your block, then blocking becomes a much cheaper way to find out if you're ahead.
I guess there are two cases where it's clear :

1. he likely has a weaker hand that will call a bet but not bet if you check - blocking bet is good here

2. he either has hit the draw or he has junk which will either fold to your bet or often bluff if you check - check/call is better here

But if he's tricky and will raise big with a weaker hand even when you blocking bet, that's nasty. The big problem is people who recognize a block and will raise it.

Any pointer to the previous discussion? I need to learn...

[Fallen Hero]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess there are two cases where it's clear :

1. he likely has a weaker hand that will call a bet but not bet if you check - blocking bet is good here


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a blocker bet, that's a regular value bet

[ QUOTE ]
2. he either has hit the draw or he has junk which will either fold to your bet or often bluff if you check - check/call is better here

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really get how you tighten someone's range to "hit their draw or air".

Generally you make blocking bets when some obvious draw hits because your opponent can't raise you unless he has the flush/straight and there's a good chance you have the best hand so you don't want to be bluffed out of the hand.

If you check call your opponent determines the ammount, if you make a blocker you decide the ammount, that's all there is to it.

[ QUOTE ]
But if he's tricky and will raise big with a weaker hand even when you blocking bet, that's nasty. The big problem is people who recognize a block and will raise it.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is ssnl, 90% of the players don't make blocker bets let alone recognize the 10% of players capable of doing them and then recognizing a blocker bet and raise it with air.

There's no need to second guess yourself here, if villain raises your blocker bet it's not because he knows what you're doing and countering it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Any pointer to the previous discussion? I need to learn...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if anyone could provide a link to this thread, that would be vey helpful.

[gabbahh]

If I'd be your opponent and the third spade came on the board:
If you check I will bet.
If you raise I will reraise.

So I think against your average TAG it is better to check.

Against a passive player I think you can safely check the river and fold to his raise if it is big. He's passive so he will only bet strong with the nuts. If he bets weak (indicating a low flush) you can reraise, but only if the bloke is capable of folding a strong hand. Guys who call pot size raises with a low flush draw AND fold to a reraise on the river when they made their hands are very rare.