Are blocking bets a good idea?

betgo · #1 09-23-2005, 04:14 PM

Isn't it better to let your opponent bluff. It puts more pressure on you to make the right read. However, if you don't know if you are ahead, you may be throwing away chips. If your opponent bluff raises, you may lose additional chips and lose a hand where you were ahead.

Discussion from Jesus' website

Toro · #2 09-23-2005, 04:31 PM

Remember the TV hand between Freddy Dweeb and Daniel Negreanu. On the River Dweeb had TPTK with AK and DN had nothing but the board was very scary. Dweeb made a "blocking bet" and Howard Lederer one of the commentators jumped right on it saying Dweeb should not have bet but rather just checked and called.

That bet set DN up for a great bluff which he successfully pulled off.

#3 09-23-2005, 06:20 PM

I've never liked blocking bets, and though I clearly haven't thought through it as thoroughly as Jesus, my gut was leading me to pretty much the same reasoning: I'd rather check call, win more when I'm right, and lose less when I'm wrong. Occasionally I end up in some tricky spots when a skilled opponent makes a bet of just the right size, but I still feel the good outweighs the bad.

Since betgo made this post, I've been trying to play devil's advocate and spot some situations where a blocking bet could have been useful. I played this hand recently in a Party 5+1 rebuy. It's halfway through the second hour, nowhere near the money, my stack is a little below average but plenty comfortable:

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t150 (9 handed) converter

MP2 (t4155)
MP3 (t605)
CO (t2690)
Button (t7160)
Hero (t4375)
BB (t13905)
UTG (t12005)
UTG+1 (t10890)
MP1 (t655)

Preflop: Hero is SB with T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
1 fold, UTG+1 calls t150, 3 folds, CO calls t150, 1 fold, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: (t600) 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (4 players)
Hero bets t200, BB calls t200, UTG+1 folds, CO folds.

Turn: (t1000) 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, BB checks.

River: (t1000) J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets t1000, Hero folds.

Final Pot: t2000

I feel like, since we were unraised blind versus unraised blind, he might have called a bet out on the river with a worse T than mine, and he certainly couldn't discount my having a 2, so if he raised, it would be pretty safe for me to fold. Should I have bet out maybe 350-400 here, and folded to a raise?

PS: Apologies if this comes across as a threadjack, I'm really more interested in what would be a spot where those who advocate a blocking bet would use one, and thought this would be a good example, since the original post wasn't generating a lot of discussion.

Blindcurve · #4 09-23-2005, 07:29 PM

I don't know how to look at this. It seems like he'll only raise you with a better hand on the end, if you bet 400, if he's an average player. The point of a blocking bet is to deter a weaker hand, held by a weaker player from bluffing you off the pot, right? The weak player sees your bet as committment to the pot and decides to just call if he's marginal too, or just fold if he's got nothing.

But, if he's a stronger player and he goes with his correct read (you don't have a 2, you probably don't have a jack), he's going to make a play at the pot despite your bet, because he knows you can't call. Maybe even because of your bet, if he's familiar with blocking bets.

However, since most players don't bluff-reraise on the end, (I can count the number of times I remember intentionally doing so on all my fingers) your 400 should keep the pot from getting stolen from you, most of the time.

So, perhaps the answer to whether or not blocking bets are a good idea is: Only when you can't afford to have the pot stolen from you. Which I would imagine happens when you have made enough of an investment in a pot to severely reduce the effectiveness of your stack should you lose. I don't think that applies here, given the blinds and stack sizes.

That having been said, what about the times that you are raised by a marginally worse hand that puts you on a bluff? Also, would you have called this down if he had moved in? What sized bet on the end would have induced a call? Why did you check the turn?

-D.

Edited for clarity(sic)

Lloyd · #5 09-23-2005, 08:03 PM

I want to think about this a little more as I've identified this as a potential leak in my game. Potential being the key word.

But I do want to point out that when Ferguson makes references to "folding to a single bet" I believe he is referring more to a limit game.

CardSharpCook · #6 09-23-2005, 08:11 PM

Short answer: yes with an "if". Long answer: no with a "but".

SoBeDude · #7 09-23-2005, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I want to think about this a little more as I've identified this as a potential leak in my game. Potential being the key word.

But I do want to point out that when Ferguson makes references to "folding to a single bet" I believe he is referring more to a limit game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think Chris is referring to limit.

And Chris's comments are seriously food for thought.

-Scott

#8 09-23-2005, 08:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how to look at this. It seems like he'll only raise you with a better hand on the end, if you bet 400, if he's an average player. The point of a blocking bet is to deter a weaker hand, held by a weaker player from bluffing you off the pot, right? The weak player sees your bet as committment to the pot and decides to just call if he's marginal too, or just fold if he's got nothing.

But, if he's a stronger player and he goes with his correct read (you don't have a 2, you probably don't have a jack), he's going to make a play at the pot despite your bet, because he knows you can't call. Maybe even because of your bet, if he's familiar with blocking bets.

However, since most players don't bluff-reraise on the end, (I can count the number of times I remember intentionally doing so on all my fingers) your 400 should keep the pot from getting stolen from you, most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess my thinking is this. He's going to have one of four types of hands:

a) a T with a worse kicker than mine
b) a 2 to make trips
c) AT or a J
d) random air that he called my flop bet with because he's got a big stack and felt like it

When I check, here's how I expect him to act, based on those possible holdings:

a) check behind, possibly make a smallish value bet
b) value bet
c) smallish value bet
d) sometimes check behind, more likely try to steal

I'm prepared to call a smallish bet, probably up to T600. His pot-size bet is good because it could be either (b) or (d). I wouldn't expect him to bet a T or J this high. He's either completely bluffing and wants to increase his fold equity, or he's representing a bluff and hoping I'll call with a T, or he's just got a big hand and feels like he 'deserves' to get paid off big.

If I make a blocking bet of, say T400, here's how I'd expect him to respond in each situation:

a) Call, I win the pot plus his T400 call
b) Call, I lose my T400 bet
c) Call or raise, I lose my T400 bet (I fold to a raise)
d) Fold, I win the pot. If he's got the cojones to raise here, he's outplayed me and he deserves the pot.

[ QUOTE ]

So, perhaps the answer to whether or not blocking bets are a good idea is: Only when you can't afford to have the pot stolen from you. Which I would imagine happens when you have made enough of an investment in a pot to severely reduce the effectiveness of your stack should you lose. I don't think that applies here, given the blinds and stack sizes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I follow you here. A blocking bet will be a good idea any time it is +EV. Part of the reason I think this makes a good example is that there's a reasonable chance it's a a value bet, a possibility Ferguson discounts. Because of a unique unraised blinds situation, it's quite possible he's playing a T with a worse kicker than mine and will pay me on the river.

Checking the river is just begging him to bluff me, so check-calling may be +EV as well, in which case the question would be which is more +EV. I was prepared to call some bets, but not one as large as the one he made.

[ QUOTE ]

That having been said, what about the times that you are raised by a marginally worse hand that puts you on a bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a marginally worse hand, say T5, raise a perceived bluff on the river? If he thinks I'm bluffing, he can just call and take it down. He'd have to be a real pro to put me on a better T and expect me to fold to a raise.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, would you have called this down if he had moved in?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't even call his pot sized bet. See above concerning my reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]

What sized bet on the end would have induced a call?

[/ QUOTE ]

Answered above.

[ QUOTE ]

Why did you check the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanted to keep the pot small. If I bet the turn and he smooth calls again, my river decision gets even harder. If I don't go for a blocking bet, I've got to be prepared to call a larger bluff that if I didn't bet the turn, since the pot will be larger.

Thanks for your feedback, you really helped me to think through the hand, and the issue of blocking bets. I guess I've started to think this might not be the best example, since it's a rare instance where there's a reasonable chance a blocking bet would actually be a value bet. Jesus' (very good) analysis assumes a worse hand than yours won't call, and I don't think that's the case here.

adanthar · #9 09-23-2005, 08:14 PM

The correct answer, therefore, is to blocking bet when you can't call a bluff.

In other words, yes with an if.

edit: one cool thing about blocking bets is that if you play good, raising the obvious blocking bet will often result in the raiser's losing his stack.

#10 09-23-2005, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Short answer: yes with an "if". Long answer: no with a "but".

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonderful! One of my favorite Simpsons quotes.