I am reading through The Grinders Manual by Peter Clarke and have come across two hand examples I don't necessarily agree with where he c-bets for protection with a low pair. The two hands are below, note that in both hands we are the pre-flop aggressor and are deciding whether to c-bet or not.

Hand 1: A3
Flop: 873

Clarke suggests c-betting here because "Hero protects his hand from being outdrawn by hands that are folding." and "If called and behind hero usually has five outs to improve to two pair or trips."

Hand 2: 54
Flop: K75

Clarke says "This hand is clearly strong enough for a steal using a size that doesn't need to be successful very often at all, especially given the reasonable post-flop playability of this hand" and "Showdown Value is of the vulnerable sort and so should be protected."

In my poker study in the past I remember reading that betting for protection is an invalid reason to bet and we should only either be betting for value or betting to get better hands to fold. In both of these hands I only feel like we are folding out worse hands and getting better hands to call. The only benefit of betting here is folding out our opponents equity in hands that would improve on the turn or river, which I'm not sure is enough reason to bet.

In my poker game right now both of these hands would be standard checks looking to get to showdown. Am I correct in this thinking? Or should I be reevaluating my c-bets to include protection as a reason to bet?

I would be betting both of them. Check/folding ranges generally have 25% equity to hands like bottom pair so having them fold equity is a good thing.

What's in your cbet range then? If you're checking these weak made hands back and betting your strong made hands and strong draws then villain will know that they can bet the turn with air profitably and you're in a tough spot.

I'd rather cbet flop cheap (unless villain has a very wide check raise range or donks turn a lot) and take it down. If called I evaluate turn but mostly take free river card and then evaluate river planning to call often because I'm hoping I induced a bluff. My turn check back range might not be very balanced but I'm less worried about that than the flop because I'm now only one action away from showdown where on turn where I just checked back I'm two actions away from showdown and they can put me on a narrow range.

Adding to this, imagine instead of 54dd you had QJr IP on K75d. Each of these have ~25% equity when called. So why might QJ check and 54s bet? The long answer is buried in the Poker Theory section, but you can start absorbing the logic of it when you think about hands individually and how they stack up to 54 vs QJ on K75. Say he has 99 here and then say, 9Ts - now think about what happens when you check QJ and bet 54s or bet QJ and check 54s...Which is "better" and why? Well, when you bet 54s you can fold out 9T (and the many other hands that have over cards to a pair of 5s) - This is a good bet given there are lots of hands with overcards your opponent has. What about when you check QJ... you are far less concerned about 9T because you are currently ahead of it (and the many other hands that have undercards to QJ) - This is a good check. Start plugging it all in to your brain and it should all click.

1st off without attack depths.... w/e

Hand 1: Meh. Without a BDFD we aren't really repping much but an OP with a bet. Are we b/f to a flop raise? I would. Are we firing turn if called? I wouldn't. Prolly just looking for a reason to fold or get to a cheap SD. Betting here seems bad to me.

Hand 2: Much more interesting and one I would definitely bet. But not for 'protection' but for a semi-bluff that if called has a BDFD and a BDSD with a K that should hit our pre-flop raise/agression range hard. Tons of turn cards we can continue to barrel and tell a credible story and can give us additional equity. Sure we can obv fold to aggression here given our line, but I think the chance of taking this hand down without SD is easily high enough to be profitable.

I am c-bet bluffing my weak hands that can improve (flush draws, straight draws, gutshots, overcards, etc) and c-bet value betting my strong hands (Top Pair+).

I am checking my middling hands (2nd pair, bottom pair, etc) and my complete air (atleast on wet flops, I sometimes cbet air if the flop is dry enough).

If I c-bet flop with my middling hands and get called I feel like I am generally behind (especially these bottom pair hands). Whereas if I check and face a bet on the turn feel I could be facing a made hand or a bluff and will generally call and evaluate river.

I'm fine with cbetting both of these cuz we're totally happy ending the end now due to the weakness of our hand. We're fine getting worse hands to fold now because if we get called we'll most likely have to check to the river (allowing those worse hands two streets to realize their equity) and often won't even be able to call (or make) a river bet. And on top of that we can still get called by worse (draws), can still get better to fold (a better weak pair / kicker), setup a free turn play against better, etc. This is unlike a more robust overpair (where checking would be fine) where we're ok going deeper into the hand / having another bet on a later street go in and yet not building a big pot at the same time.

GimoG

In the scenario where you're always called on the flop and always bet at on turn when you check back (which is narrow and should only be one factor in the decision) you get to the river for one bet either way, but by checking back the flop you lose control of the sizing of that bet.

Why when we have QJ are we far less concerned about T9 then when we have 54? We are ahead in both cases and opponent is going to get there 25% of the time in both cases.

Agree with Hand 2, if I bet I am betting as a semi-bluff and expecting to be behind when called, not really betting for protection. I would continue on any turns that give me more equity or improve my hand directly.

Hand 1 if I bet flop I am checking any turn that doesn't give me 2 pair or trips, I see little reason to bet this except for "protection".

9T was just illustrating the point. His range includes a large number of hands that have two overcards that draw for free to beat a pair of 5s when you check. So that’s a whole lot of hands that fold to a bet which is good when you have a pair of 5s. QJ is ahead of many of those same hands and there is less appeal in betting as a result. Not all hands but many and when we have 54s (and not QJ) there are that many more Qx and Jx combos available that call a bet pre and fold to a bet.

In theory "protection" can be a valid reason to bet, even on its own. The most obvious example would be when both players turn their hands face up and ours is ahead but the opponent has equity with cards to come. We should bet despite never getting called by worse hands and never folding better hands. A more practical example would be IP {TT} vs. OOP {AQ+, KQ, QQ+} on 2233. If OOP's checks are always give ups then TT should bet at 100% frequency for equity denial, but if TT is betting 100% then QQ+ has incentive to x/r. Therefore the equilibrium would have a bunch of mixing between betting and checking for both players, with TT betting a small sizing at a high frequency when checked to despite knowing the opponent will x/r or fold, never calling with worse or folding better.

When we have QJ aren't we giving a whole lot of undercards a draw for free to beat our Qhigh when we check? (In the same way we are giving overcards a draw for free when we check a pair of 5's). In both cases when we bet we are folding out hands worse then ours to deny equity, or checking and giving opponent 25% chance to get there.

The argument "QJ is ahead of many of those same hands and there is less appeal in betting as a result" doesn't make sense to me because 54 is also ahead of many of those same hands and therefore there should be less appeal in betting as a result.

And with QJ by betting wouldn't we be denying equity to those undercards AND folding out better in Ax hands that are currently beating us?

You are rarely going to have an equity stranglehold on the flop and sure, even T9 has draws against QJ but that is not a reason to bet it when you consider what a calling range looks like. It obviously gets complicated, but this was all designed to understand why bottom pair tends to benefit (in a vacuum) to betting for equity denial. You are just taking the idea too far now. It gets all theory-based too when you add it all up, so irl you just want to think about your ranges and how to split them.

So I can understand the merits in betting 54s on K75r because of said equity denial and especially because we have a ton of backdoor draws that we can continue on.

I am just not understanding why the same merits do not apply to say QJ or JT which have so much less showdown value then 54, and can fold out some better holdings by betting (which 54s cannot). In general these are two hands I WOULD c-bet with on a dry flop like this, and I am trying to understand why you are saying I shouldn't?

I can understand putting 54s into your betting range based on the posts in this thread, I'm just not sure why we aren't putting QJ and JT into that betting range as well.

Would we be putting 76s into our betting range for the same merits we put 54s into it?

If you change 9T to JT then Amana's QJ example starts to make more sense. The gist is you can't have a 100% cbet range so a hand like QJ performs better versus JT as a x back rather than a cbet because you can still get value from the hand later on or even delay c-bet.

Against players who don't bluff-raise enough and dont attack capped ranges enough, cbetting is more +EV than checking. H1 should be checking most of your range in general against more balanced/aggro ppl but not against donks who don't bluff-raise with enough air

Just start here and then go read Janda if you want a deeper take from an advanced mind.

While I don't think this answers OPs question, it is a salient point that should be applied in-game. You just don't even need to mix things and can likely cbet almost your whole range almost always against players that have no strategy to counter such aggression.

^Truth.
Against passive players who have zero aggression without big made hands, it’s absolutely worth Cbetting almost every single flop against them. I usually cbet almost any semblance of equity, and check only 25-ish% of the worst flips for me.
It’s profitable for all kinds of reasons, image very much included.

^^^^^ You should mix in about 25% checks on your nutted flops as well. 200+ bb deep obv.

Matthew Janda provides an alternate version which answers your OP well.

Paraphrasing: We bet to build a bigger pot we can win, and/or to deny opponents the opportunity to realise their equity.

So in both OP examples it’s a little bit the first part, but mainly satisfies the need to deny opponents a chance to hit overcards for free.

Notes:

1. MJ book is written for tournament players but I see no reason why it’s not also applicable to cash
2. Unlike the traditional view, the reasons Mj gives are not mutually exclusive ie. you’ll see an ‘and/or’ in MJs definition.

Huh?

Well, I meant to say yes cbetting for protection is a valid reason and doing so is more +EV against people who dont have enough near of a bluff raising frequency as a solver

For simplicity, there is almost zero reason to have a mixing strat in live. In the vast majority of cases, it’s just OP having FPS or as a justification to spew. Mixing is very complicated and often people dont understand why they are even mixing or what it means to be mixing. Mixing is not adjusting your strat/cbet freq/bluffing freq based on who you are playing against in the hand

Having said that, I do think there is a lot of merit to be somewhat balanced in some spots or to be protecting your x range in some spots live, and that the balanced play should be at least the same or higher EV as the “standard” line most people would take, and give us a few better long-term metagame advantages

I mean we can check back some of the time but its normal to cbet when we make a pair. Its pretty much poker 101, don't forget making a pair is not easy.

Also never having bottom pair in heros cbet range is bad if villains figure it out