Good use of the turn donk?

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying each individual bet doesn't protect your hand. I agree. I'm saying the two bets together can protect your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two bets aren't going to protect your hand when calling the second bet is giving your opponent better odds on his call than he had when he called the first bet.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're saying each individual bet doesn't protect your hand. I agree. I'm saying the two bets together can protect your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two bets aren't going to protect your hand when calling the second bet is giving your opponent better odds on his call than he had when he called the first bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you're only looking at one bet here-- namely, the second bet. I agree that if he only had to call the second bet, he'd be right to do it. When he calls the first bet, he's made a -EV call. The only way your opponent could make a -EV call is if your hand was protected. This is the essence of hand protection. Your opponents have a choice to a) call incorrectly or b) fold. When those are their choices, you've protected your hand.

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

[Mister Z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're saying each individual bet doesn't protect your hand. I agree. I'm saying the two bets together can protect your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two bets aren't going to protect your hand when calling the second bet is giving your opponent better odds on his call than he had when he called the first bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you're only looking at one bet here-- namely, the second bet. I agree that if he only had to call the second bet, he'd be right to do it. When he calls the first bet, he's made a -EV call. The only way your opponent could make a -EV call is if your hand was protected. This is the essence of hand protection. Your opponents have a choice to a) call incorrectly or b) fold. When those are their choices, you've protected your hand.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

If opponents have a 5 or 6 out hand, then calling the first bet on the turn is +EV for them. If you're checking this turn with the intention of raising a bet from the player to your immediate left, it's for value, not for protection. There just isn't a good way to protect your hand on this turn since the flop raiser is to your immediate left.

[SeaEagle]

[ 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.

[mtdoak]

Anyone else make it 3 for value on the flop and lead the turn if uncapped? The problem with your donkbet is your shouldn't have slowed down. Value bet the river.

[ QUOTE ]
Proctecting your hand involves cutting down your opponents odds so that calling becomes an unprofitable situation for them. A checkraise on this turn would have made the pot even larger and given your opponents even better odds to chase X-outters to the river. So checkraising 3 opponents who have already called one bet is not protecting anything, it's just for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

That is... assuming that I'm understanding both your post and SSHE correctly (I don't have a copy in front of me), the point of a check-raise in regards to protecting your hand is to have your opponents face two bets cold, not a raise from a single bet that they've already called.

[donny5k]

[ QUOTE ]


Again, you're only looking at one bet here-- namely, the second bet. I agree that if he only had to call the second bet, he'd be right to do it. When he calls the first bet, he's made a -EV call. The only way your opponent could make a -EV call is if your hand was protected. This is the essence of hand protection. Your opponents have a choice to a) call incorrectly or b) fold. When those are their choices, you've protected your hand.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
With your definition your opponents are not making a LONGTERM mistake. They aren't going to get check-raised every time that they call in this situation.

[mdob]

[ 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?

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]

With your definition your opponents are not making a LONGTERM mistake. They aren't going to get check-raised every time that they call in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they are going to get check-raised every time. We know it. We're the ones doing the check-raising. It might be the right play for him to call from his perspective (when he doesn't know whether or not we'll check-raise), but we know from our perspective that calling is a long term loser.

[Mister Z]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else make it 3 for value on the flop and lead the turn if uncapped? The problem with your donkbet is your shouldn't have slowed down. Value bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]