Betting for protection in the sense of some fish logic applied to nearly every remotely vulnerable hand is of course -ev but the concept has its place. I don't really care all that much for the terms though.

We bet for 2 reasons, to make the pot bigger in case we win or to deny equity to our opponents.

These reasons encompass any labels you might want to apply, value, bluff, semi-bluff, protection.

You can label one value and one protection but it's not really accurate. First, anytime a villain folds equity we get value as they have surrendered their eq*pot (PLO players are far more appreciative of this). Second we aren't certain to win the pot by the end of the hand whether we are "better" ATM or not. And mid-hand does "better" mean higher equity or currently outranking our opponents? (Edit: I know you specified in terms of equity but it's worth restating)

Lastly, depending on our position and our hand some flop textures and hands become more difficult to play than others. 8 hi flops oop are classically difficult. It will be easier for the in position player to realize his equity and much more difficult for the out of position player. For this reason I disagree a little bit with case2 that it's all about outs/equity. All equity is not created equally. Although if we essentially commit to the pot then position is effectively neutralized so there's that.

But the main point being that multiple players surrendering equity benefits us in terms of increasing our equity and decreasing the number of players with position on us who could end up winning the times when we fold the better hand on later streets.

I get not wanting to argue the merits of protection bets as a concept but it does apply to this hand.

All of that is why 3! The flop had some merit. I personally felt however that opening our stack up oop on a dynamic board early in the hand might be a bigger mistake but I don't know if I'm correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I agree with Case and Cam. Betting for "protection" against future equity can, if that equity comes to you, be a straight value bet, making you money immediately.

I understand fundamentaly what you are saying..... To simplify:
We want to fold out all the bare 8s because they all have reasonable equity against us...

But here's the rub... When we raise, we potentially lose the value from the 8s that miss on further streets and there are much more 8s that miss than call.... This all applys to a Hu, pot, and assumes we have the best hand...

In this particular instance we are not Hu, and probably don't have the best hand, so I'm not sure this is the best example....
Tbh I feel like with this hand if you 3! We are basically turning our hand into a 'semi' bluff with boat outs... If we realise that is what we are doing then the play to raise makes more sense, but I just don't think it's going to work very often...and I would be surprised if Brian turns up with less than us very often in this spot anyway.

What is this "We prob don't have the best hand" idea? 842r, we haz 2p. It's a crappy 2p, but on that board it's essentially the best one there is, and anyone with 42 is prob thinking to themselves the same thing.

If Brian or any other fish has an overpair, they can easily call a 3!. The can call with an 8, they can do all kinds of dumb stuff they're not "supposed to" do. Say "No gamble no glory" with A5. It's 1am on a Tuesday ffs, and everyone is shortstacked. These aren't God-fearing Puritans. Make em stick their last 100 in the middle.

1. Arguably a bad habit from limitarding but ATS = autocomplete.

2. I think one or two other people advocated this, but I would advocate checking the flop with the intention of raising anyone (especially Brian). This likely goes along with #1 above - you should be completing a really wide range here and leading (which is not donking by the way) narrows it way too much. At a really passive table I can buy the argument that top pair may not bet so we should; the deacription of Brian suggests he will fire off ATC if checked to.

3. As played, flop 3-bet is essential. Folding is self-consistent with gobbledygeek nittery , I agree that if gg led and 4 people called, folding should be considered, but that's because his range is super strong. As played, we have a wide range when we lead, and Brian has a wide range when he raises.

4. As played, donking (and this is a donk) the turn is terrible. What is your perceived range when you bet/call 842r and then donk? 82s is probably towards the bottom of that range and you're giving Brian a pass on his weak made hands including ace-highs which raised the flop for ****s and giggles.