I heard the saying that we need to bet for protection on board that is dynamic and contains a lot of draws. But take a two-tone flop as an example. Villain will have many flush draws on this flop. But he would never fold those flush draws even against a bigger (say 75% pot) bet. So why do we say we should bet for protection when we have no fold equity against those strong draws?

Will the EV of Villains flush draws have a higher EV to call against a bigger bet or a smaller bet? I have yet to do an in-depth analysis of this but I need to figure out how. However, in some examples I looked at, the EV for calling with a FD was higher against a big bet when holding the nut FD. But for those other lower FD, the EV of calling was instead higher against a smaller bet.

I'm trying to understand the mechanics behind cbetting, but it is so complicated! Maybe some of you guys have a better understanding about whst I just mentioned?

I think low equity bluffs and protection bets are ill advised on dynamic boards. That said, in equilibrium all pairs within rhe range that bets the flop will receive some portion of ev as protection. If I bet 77 and my opponent folds Q3s unimproved on the flop, I'm surely earning ev in the form of protection. I like to have additional ev sources like backdoor straights and flushes to go with my pair on flops like 345, 467, etc, as well as the good ole bet flop check back turn and river unimproved line which wins often vs passive players depending on positions and pair strength. That line works much less often vs aggressive players unless u like getting wrecked on the river.

If I hold AA, and the flop is Ts7s3h. Then how would our betting strategy change on this flop which is more wet compared to if the flop were the same but rainbow and had no FD potential? We benefit from fold equity if our opponent would fold many of his draws. But if he doesn't fold those draws, why would we then bet?

Like you suggested, although you never fold flush draws, by sizing up you lower their EV and equity realisation because they have to put in more now and lose the pot every time they miss or fold to a turn barrel. Compared to going small, flush draws have good pot odds to "flush mine" and realise equity well.

On some boards like T82 sizing up folds out gutshots and then even when the straight completes your overpairs are higher equity than if you sized small.

calling that kind of bet "protection bet" is a misnomer, if you bet for protection it's to fold out overcards/backdoors etc

You barely push any EV by getting called by a flush draw, since those have 35-50% equity and they overrealise, it shouldn't be your goal to get called by those most of the time

I agree with aner0. It's not protection if they don't fold.



I don't size my bets to make draws fold and I don't consider semibluff ev to be the driving force in betsize. I size my bets based on where I'm getting ev distributed into my lines. My strong hands have the most to gain by betting. Thus "what am I trying to accomplish with my strong hands in this spot?" Is what I ask myself when flops and turns come as they do.

I'm glad I clicked on this post as I seem to have a misunderstanding of what a protection bet is. I've always understood that a protection bet is a value bet with the byproduct of denying your opponent's equity. For example having top pair on a 9-high rainbow board. I'm betting for value while denying the correct price to over cards. I don't want a fold.

I actually found an aggregation report generated using all possible flop textures, for BTN vs BB SRP.
The results are as the follows:

Rainbow: check 39.8%
Flush draw: check 50.3%
Monotone: check 61.7%

And as for the bet sizes:
Rainbow: bet small
Flush Draw: bet larger
Monotone: bet small

So flush draw boards are bet less frequently but with a larger sizing on average. This seems contradictory to me, because your equity with value hands is less certain on draw heavy boards, so you may end up inflating the pot with what turns out to be a very medium strength hand.

Maybe betting bigger on monotone board doesn't have as mush to do with denying opponent from realizing equity but rather has to do with the fact that we check this board more often and so when we bet we bet more polarized, and that is why we size up?

FDs make up average to make up only 10% of BBs range on average. So intuitively, this should not alter our cbet strategy much from the Rainbow boards.

Or when the board is more dynamic (lots of draws), equities will run closer. And because you have less of an equity advantage, you want to polarize your betting range more by checking more often with your medium-strength hands. And medium-strength hands realize more of their equity by checking than by betting when the board is very dynamic (you are also facing check-raises more frequently on dynamic boards, which makes you want to check your medium strengths hands more).

You want to bet more polarized when you have a polar range, and your opponent has a condensed range. But if both ranges have similar equity and neither has a nut advantage. Then you want to bet polarized too.

Is there some truth behind my thinking?

to deny equity the guy has to fold hands with equity, if he calls, it's just growing the pot for value

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVZ1CdESSTw

Great video on Cbet sizing ^

The "wetness parabola" (at around 2:40) stuck with me the most. Basically in SRP wet boards = bigger bets only to a certain point. On the wettest boards (e.g. monotone), Cbet sizing goes back down.

Yes, I've seen it. But it's an oversimplified model that doesn't explain anything. Did you read my post where I hypothesized that one should be betting more polarized on dynamic boards where neither player has a nut advantage, but equities run closer.

But there is often a trade off between EQ and EV. If the similarities in equity depends on the OOP player having many high equity draws then the IP player still will have a much higher EV and EQR. That is just because the power of having position in these kinds of boards, I think.

Don't monotone boards in SRP have all these characteristics? Yet solvers choose small flop bet sizes and not so polar betting ranges.

So maybe I'm confusing concepts. Using the example you described (TP on a 9-high board); let's say that there are 2 over cards in play within V's range and none for our actual hand. This gives V ~12% to hit one of his over cards on the Turn. We know that V will call a 1/2PSB and fold to a larger bet.

My thinking is if V calls the 1/2PSB and hits his card on the Turn; he still made a mistake by calling at 3:1 direct odds.V realized his equity, but over the long run is getting a negative return. Are you saying that the correct play is to induce a fold?

If this is the case then why doesn't this apply to any hand needing protection, say TP vs the straight draws in a V's range? We certainly don't want to bet so large that we induce a fold; rather we want V to call and take a bad price.

They dont always have a draw.