Sure. But that is meant to be in contrast to the other two. In my second post here, I tried to clarify that.

A person who believes there are only two reasons to bet would miss a lot of correct bets, erroneously thinking, "My opponent won't call with worse, so I can't bet for value. Therefore I shouldn't bet."

I think what we disagree on is this: can a bet really be considered a value bet if it has no chance of getting called by worse?

The situations where we know our villain will always fold are rare enough that I don't spend a tremendous amount of time debating them.

I agree that the erroneous thinking you point out is, well, erroneous. I would frame my response differently though and I think of bluffs and value bets are opportunities to allow our opponents to make incorrect actions. We bluff not in the hopes that our villain will make the correct decision and call, but in the hopes that he will make a mistake and fold/forfeit his equity. When we value bet we are again wanting our opponent to make a mistake and call. In both cases our villain may or may not do what we want, but our goal behind the action unfortunately doesn't always match his response. In both situations not betting allows our villain to never make a mistake and sets us up to make mistakes on future streets.

When we bet 88 on the 7 high board against two possible overs (and remember, we never know exact holdings so he can have worse hands that can call, and we also never know his exact reaction), I am still betting with the goal of giving my opportunity to make a mistake, and I will get value from that mistake if it occurs. Not betting = no mistake for him.

I get the concept of what you are saying, and I agree that we should be betting in a manner that doesn't allow him to play correctly. I simply disagree with the belief that we want him to play correctly (ie fold), which is what you said very clearly in your OP and which I believe is incorrect. In poker we make most of our money punishing our opponents for their mistakes, not from them making good decisions.

Again, I'd like to know where specifically you think I said that, because in Section 1 (which are all heads-up examples) I tried to make the opposite clear: that protection betting is only viable when we know value bets won't get called, and we'd prefer to get value than to get a correct fold.

And that is the premise I disagree with. The times when we "know" that a worse hand cannot call are quite rare, and trying to break protection into a 3rd category (ie: 3. Protection: A protection bet is a bet made with the intention of getting an opponent to fold correctly) is where I have an issue. Thinking of protecting our equity as a subcategory of betting for value seems more correct to me.

OK, now I think I see what's going on. We don't disagree that much. There are 3 things I'd say to this.

First, a wording error on my part in the OP. I clearly misused the word "intention".

In my head, when I'm evaluating a bet (pseudo-)mathematically to see whether it was good or not, what the bettor consciously intended the bet to do is actually incidental. (Like, for example, I once raised a flop lead with an overpair for what I thought was value and the guy folded two pair face-up. My bet worked as a bluff even though I had no idea it was going to.)

What I'm really looking for when I evaluate a bet is not what the bettor wanted to happen, but where the EV actually comes from.

So it's probably more accurate to say that protection is a third source of EV that is different from value or bluffing.

If I were to re-make all the definitions this way, they'd look like this:
1. A value bet generates EV from our opponents calling (or raising) incorrectly.
2. A bluff generates EV from our opponents folding incorrectly.
3. A protection bet generates EV from our opponents folding correctly.

This also allows for the fact that one bet can have components of value/bluff/protection all generating EV at different times.

The issue you have can then be re-phrased as the belief some players have that protection against live draws is more desirable than value against live draws. That is debatable (and I'd agree with you that it's wrong), but you can't have that debate unless you acknowledge that protection is a different way of generating EV than value is.

Second, and this is a small point, the idea that "value is always better than protection" is demonstrably wrong. I did demonstrate it with an example in the OP--in the last example of Section 2, we're in a multiway pot with the best hand and it is more +EV for us to knock out a third player who is correct to fold than it is to get it in 3 ways. These situations are rare, but they absolutely do exist and, at least to me, show that thinking of protection as a subcategory of value is over-simplifying the concept.

Third, and I guess this just builds on the second point, I used to agree with you that protection was really just a close cousin of value. But now I don't. Sometimes it acts like a poor man's value bet, but other times it acts like a poor man's bluff. Here's an example.

Let's say you raise preflop in MP with KQo and the button, an aggressive player, calls. You're heads-up to a flop, and it totally misses you--A85rb. What are you doing here? And if you c-bet, why are you doing it?

If we had AK here instead of KQ, we'd almost certainly want to bet. That bet would have a value component--we can hope to get called by a worse Ax or 76 or get floated--and a protection component as well, if Villain folds a hand like 97.

But when we have KQ instead, we might also want to bet. But would that bet really have a value component? Is there anything we really want to get called by when we have KQ? Even if Villain floats us with trash like T9, are we putting more money in or are we going to let ourselves get bluffed?

So with AK our bet might give us value or protection. But with KQ, our bet could work as a bluff--if a hand like 66 or 44 folds--or it could give us protection against a hand like KJ or T9 (if he decides not to float).

Whether we think we are value betting, or we think we are bluffing, each bet could have a protection component to it. That's why I don't think protection is just a subset of value. It's in a weird nether region that isn't really either one of them.

great discussion guys. good post OP, Vernon real solid first post. supper time so i have not read these last few.

the best part of my 1/2 game i have been playing is this: 3. The worst-case scenario is to bet an amount that a draw is correct to call, and have that draw call. (This would also not be a value bet or a bluff--it's kind of a fourth reason to bet, but it would probably derail the thread to talk about it)

I mean these people will bet like 15% of the pot when there are mad draws out there with marginal holdings and then 85% of the pot with the stone cold nuts, it's awesome LOL

Very Nice OP.

I read the title and was 1/2 wondering if I was going to flame. But it was a strong, well thought out post with a good betsizing discussion.

Maskk, I'm glad you liked it. I wanted to try to give it a good treatment because, as I pointed out, and I'm sure you know, it's one of the most misused and misunderstood concepts, and it's also one that people reading are likely to hear discussed at the table as well, mostly by people who don't know what they're talking about.

I dont think of it as a protection bet in my poker brain, but I use much of the same logic. Degenerate nation demands that its participants (me) wake up midhand w middle pair and a just arrived fd on the turn vs somebody who called a flop bet after a 4 way limp and vil thinks youre a spewmonkey.

The trick is then betting enough to check around trash rivers but also be able to get as much of 2x pot as you can in the middle w 2 pair or a flush.

In short I often have 2+ plans for one hand or bet depending on board texture, vil range, hand evolution, and villain response. Or the ever fun lets maie a hand bc boredom led me to play this crap pre and then bet flop.

“Better to take it down with kings than see an ace on the flop.”

Great post OP. I love these players; they constantly blow me out of pots when they are clearly ahead and I don't even have to break a sweat. I'm sure these donks also fall into the "win small, lose big" scenario; KK protects his had from Ax on a Q73 flop, but loses his stack to 33

This was a great read thank you

read cotm and middle of page 2 of thread. great great post cotm and discussion

I am seeing a trend in all of the more serious posts by Vernon and by most of the old hands. And that trend is (in my own words but it reflects what is usually being said, and then supported with numerical examples) "it is almost always better to bet out aggressively". (Although this post is extremely thorough in defining the proper AMOUNT to bet out aggressively.)

But oddly, no one in this thread even mentions the words "fold equity". Yet the entirety of the discussion relies on this unstated concept in the context of when and why our Villains are likely, possibly, or if-they-are-playing-right, … folding.

Just my observation. Whether or not that observation has any perceived value is another story.