I typically don't use these, but once in a while I do. Here's an example:

Preflop, I raise w/ AQo to $10 in MP against one limper. Villain calls on the button, BB calls, limper folds. Flop comes 1032. Checks around. Turn is 2. Checks to villain on the button who bets $8. I call, because I may have the best hand, plus I'm almost getting the right expressed odds to hit a six outer. River is 10. I bet $8....

The idea behind the bet is that if I make the bet, but I'm behind, its not that big of a mistake since its such a small amount of money. Also, if villain has like Q or J high, it will discourage a bluff.

Does check > bet $8 here?

you typically use blocking bets on draw heavy boards, oop.- in the example you used you think you have the best hand- A high- why would you want to discourage a bigger bet? There were alot of draws that missed.
Also what happens if you bet small then get raised? what do you do then? The blocking bet is pretty transparent.

occasionally I might use a blocking bet if I have mid pair decent kicker-- depending if there hasnt been too much action on previous streets. This is for pot control.

occasionally i will use a blocking bet, oop, when I have a monster against a thinking, agro opponent. But it is the worst feeling in the world when they just call rather than raise.

blocking bet works against loose-passive players that would call when they would normally raise if you check. but if they have nothing they would call also. So it woulds pretty well vs loose passive because if they have stronger hand then u lose less that what you normally do and if they have weaker hand they pay you off

It's villain dependent.

Assume AK isn't his range as he just called preflop.
Assume he won't fold 44+
Assume he will fold AJ or worse
Therefore you aren't folding out any hands that are worse
Therefore you aren't getting value from worse

That doesn't make the play wrong, though.

Assume we know villain's bluffing frq when you block bet (usually it is assumed when blocking bet that the bluffing frequency is very small, but if you know what it is accurately, it doesn't have to be small)
Assume you don't know what villain's bluffing frequency is if you check
Assume you are ahead of villain's current range

Then the blocking bet is correct.

Couldn't you just make blocking bet with nut or near nut hands then as a counter?

So basically you just use a blocking bet because you don't want to think about his range, your range, and reasons for betting?

Blocking bet to me is a bet that is less than what you believe your opponent will bet, which you will call.

If you believe that your opponent is likely to bet more than $8 and that you believe you have the best hand and will call that amount, then $8 to me is a great blocking bet.

But of course, you have to be able to lay it down if villain raises.

So you have the best hand (assume you mean we are ahead of villain's betting/call a bet range), yet you want to put less money into the pot, solid...

Seriously why is this even in poker theory when half the posts are "I like to make a blocking bet in [insert spot with no logic at all explaining why they like to block bet that spot that in reality is probably 'I'm scared of big pots so I'm going to tell any competent opponent what I have and hopefully he's too scared to bluff me']".

Did you read my post above? It's about range analysis. There are spots where you feel confident about a villain's range in one line but not in another, i.e. if I bet, he depolarizes and plays value, if I check I have no idea if I am getting taken to value town or bluffed. Yeah, if I knew the answer to his frequencies and tendencies coupled with his ranges, clearly embrace variance and make the highest EV play but very often that isn't the case. A lot of multi-tabling nits play very straightforward against aggression but they are a lot more diverse when they sense weakness. Some merge their ranges, some value bet thin, some bluff like a maniac, some check and give up.

I am not saying that I endorse the line in most situations, just saying that there is a time to use it. That time is

When:

We know villain's bluffing frq when you block bet (usually it is assumed when blocking bet that the bluffing frequency is very small, but if you know what it is accurately, it doesn't have to be small)
We don't know what villain's bluffing frequency is if you check
We are giving ourselves the right price vs. villain's current range

Then the blocking bet is correct.

Base on your interpretation, there is no need for blocking bet at all. So some idiot must have made up this concept for some idiotic reason.

So much for the purpose of blockers :


Grabbed by Holdem Manager
NL Holdem $0.50(BB) Replayer
SB ($46.70)
BB ($28.90)
UTG ($45.15)
Hero ($58.80)
UTG+2 ($65.15)
MP1 ($50)
MP2 ($25.95)
CO ($50.75)
BTN ($61.65)

Dealt to Hero T K

fold, Hero raises to $1.50, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, SB calls $1.25, fold

FLOP ($3.50) Q 7 5

SB checks, Hero bets $2, SB calls $2

TURN ($7.50) Q 7 5 6

SB checks, Hero bets $5.50, SB calls $5.50

RIVER ($18.50) Q 7 5 6 J

SB bets $5.50, Hero raises to $49.80 (AI), SB folds

Hero shows T K

Hero wins $28.05

sup 2p2? long time no see.

I don't like these bets. If you think he'll bluff enough that you can c/c, then c/c. If you think he'll call with worse enough to warrant a bet, then bet the most he'll call. If he'll onlly call 8, then bet 8. It's not a blocker, it's a value bet. Think about how this bet affects the rest of your range. The only time i'll consider a blocker is in a tournament where I don't want to put my stack at risk.

I use blocking bets when I think my opponent may make a bet I cannot call on the river if I check. It also has the bonus of picking up value from weaker hands too.

Something like T T, on a board of 7 8 J T Q

Say the pot is $50 on the river. If my opponent bets $35 I can't really call (depends on previous action I suppose) and if I check he may make this kind of bet, or check behind with two pair hands or sets that might have called a bet. I might bet $18 as a blocker and lay down to a raise.

I think the difference between a value bet and a blocker bet in a situation where you use the play is that with a value bet you are betting the most he will call and a blocker bet you are betting the least he will just call and not raise.

c/c instead of using a blocker bet I think is too passive when you're drawing in many situations, you let him set the bet size which when you want to use the play is usually more than the blocker bet, also if you are using a blocker to draw you get value by folding out some bluffs and since they wouldn't pay you off on the river anyway you created value.

Furthermore by using the blocker bet when drawing rather than c/c to some opponents you'll make yourself harder to read on the river and make them more likely to call your river bet if they aren't considering the turn bet size i.e. if you make your nut hand on the river but it's obvious that the draw was there on the turn then if you c/c turn and bet river they might think "oh he c/c the turn he was probably drawing, I fold" rather than paying off your river value bet.

Honestly I think that betting to avoid a raise is a play that most thinking players use without knowing the term, though at least in my experiance I only started thinking about sizing my bet to be the least he will call and not raise after I read about the idea in a book and feel it's pretty effective.

Wasn't talking about your post just generally how the thread was going. However "giving ourselves the right price vs. villain's current range" makes no sense at all. If we are value betting we need them to call with a range such that we win >50% of the time when called. I'm assuming you're not bluffing when you bet this small.

I mean in general 99% of the people I see making these bets are huge fish so you're not really all that far off even though you're trying to be sarcastic...

and ok seriously so many people have posted this but if you can't call a bet then block betting doesn't actually gain you anything from their monster hands and in fact you lose more bet/folding than you do check/folding. If you really can manipulate their bluff frequency with a blocker (in either direction and exploit it) and/or win money from marginal hands that would check behind if checked to it might make up for the dead money you put in when you're beat but knowing you're behind and folding doesn't gain you anything more than knowing you're behind the range of a normal bet and just ch/f. So no it's not a terrible play given the right circumstances but so many people here just aren't even thinking about ranges in the slightest and that's what tilts me.

I wasn't the poster you were replying to but since blocker bets apply to more than just made hands you're protecting I think it's more important to think about $ won rather than the % of the time you're good against his range.

While I am considering range I think opponant type and tendancies is the most important consideration, I use this type of play on a specific player types generally those who will instantly give me feedback on my hand e.g. they would fold many hands I beat as well as occasionaly middling hands I'm behind when drawing, they would only raise a very strong hand and they would call a marginal hand (or slow play a strong hand which often I'm drawing to nut out on).

The other type of player are weak c/b monkeys that I want to draw on and can bluff raise succesfully on the river as a cbet to get them off, also by bluffing ocasionaly you balance making your draws on these plays if you had a made hand when you were blocking and think his range would be often scared by the river, this is based on pot size, tendancy and range i.e. what % of the time do we need to be good based on pot size, will he fold a middle hand or not and what % of the time does his range include cards that would call this river based on the call of our blocker bet?

Blocker bets are more of a bag of tricks play for specific opponants than a standard play for me and I might be a fish that has a negative expectation on these bets but I think they work for me (not sure how I'd filter PT3 to find these).

I like this bet in this spot. It makes it tough for villian to raise without a 10. And by checking you are likely going to call a bet of more than $8.

Hard to respect a wall of text without proper usage of punctuation.

All I see is, blah blah blah blah, I am the best player in the world.

lol it's 4 lines.

I believe Sklansky had a nice blocking bet chapter in NL Theory/Practice

While the math was sound, I had trouble with balancing this sort of bet size with better hands that could call a raise from a perceptive opponent. However, if you don't have to worry about balance (playing with fish), I think blocking bets can be quite good.

Unless you're leveling a really aggressive player, blocker bets are usually just costing you money and making you easy to play against. If you're >50% against villain's range, value bet, if not c/c with the right odds. By blocker betting, you're either a) getting rid of all the air or marginal hands in his range that'll put money in the pot as a bluff, therefore costing you money or b) getting reraised bluffed by his air range, especially if it looks so transparent, making your decision even tougher. Under good br managment, it shouldn't matter if you go to showdown for $15 or $22 in a $30 pot as long as you're maximizing EV.


If you bet, what are you getting called with that you beat? 77,88. If you're the pfr, you bluffing on this board is bad, so no one is going to bluff catch on this board with two pair. And if he is calling with enough two pair hands, then you're value betting.

edit: I just ran {QQ-JJ,88-77,T9s,98s} through stove and you're 37%, betting here is clearly bad. I didn't even include that the fact he could have many more flushes.

I love it when bad players make blocking bets vs me because I usually do the opposite of what they want me to do.

Why can't you call the bet?