Originally Posted by matthenearly
I agree about 'information', but i think it is wrong to say that 'protection' can never be a primary reason for betting. We can bet to make people call with worse (valuebetting), to make them fold better (bluffing) but we can also bet when their range includes a lot of hands which we beat, but which have substantial equity vs our hand, and which he will fold to a bet (protection). For example, 22 on A73rbw. He is not calling with worse, he is most likely not folding any better, but it is a good idea to bet, because any random hand that he has will have at least 6 outs vs our hand. We do not want him to realise the equity of a hand like J10, which he will fold to a bet. We are 'protecting' our hand by betting.
This particular hand is another good example, as any random low club in his range has 9 outs vs our hand, so we want to bet to protect.
This is how i see it anyway
This may be how you see it, and I hope I don't come off as a prick, but you're incorrect. The example you just gave, we are betting for thin value, not for protection. The protection is a positive outcome of betting for thin value.
Why would you ever bet to "protect" a hand in poker? Think about it? it's a game where you're trying to relieve people of chips. It's a game of equity smashing together, hand values fluctuating up and down on every street, position and player tendencies.
Or you could say that the goal of the game is to make the most money. If you're trying to make the most money the most efficient way of doing so is value betting. The second most efficient way is bluffing because you're getting value out of a hand that has less equity share in the pot than others.
What does protection do? Protection doesn't make you profit. It's not a primary reason to bet because it won't make you money if your sole reason for betting EVERY hand is protection.
Your goal isn't to protect when you're a 65/35 favorite, it's to maximize value.