When I called I was thinking "only 69 beats be, and he can't have that. It is not in his range" Looking at the hand afterwards, and looking at his vpip of 36, I realize he could have 96s in his range. What do you think about my call here?

PokerStars - $0.02 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BTN: 92.5 BB
SB: 69.5 BB (VPIP: 22.35, PFR: 17.65, 3Bet Preflop: 2.86, Hands: 88)
Hero (BB): 116 BB
UTG: 33 BB (VPIP: 22.22, PFR: 22.22, 3Bet Preflop: 20.00, Hands: 18)
MP: 100 BB (VPIP: 20.37, PFR: 11.11, 3Bet Preflop: 8.33, Hands: 55)
CO: 176.5 BB (VPIP: 35.80, PFR: 25.31, 3Bet Preflop: 16.67, Hands: 165)

SB posts SB 0.5 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has 6 7

fold, fold, CO raises to 2.5 BB, fold, SB calls 2 BB, Hero calls 1.5 BB

Flop: (7.5 BB, 3 players) 8 7 5
SB checks, Hero bets 4 BB, CO raises to 13 BB, fold, Hero calls 9 BB

Turn: (33.5 BB, 2 players) 4
Hero checks, CO checks

River: (33.5 BB, 2 players) J
Hero bets 18.5 BB, CO raises to 161 BB and is all-in, Hero calls 82 BB and is all-in

Never folding here.

Why are you leading this flop?

96 isn't all that beats you OTR.

V's line certainly looks a lot like T9 to me but I don't think I could let this go.

Flop lead is bad.

My reasoning for leading this flop is to deny any equity to any unpaired broadway hands. So if he had AK etc he doesn't get a free card. If it was headsup I wouldn't lead, but I do since it is threeway and I would expect V to check any unpaired broadways. And since I also got a straight draw, if V has an 8 or any overpairs, I still got outs.

Oh right, yeah T9 also beats me.

so many people on this forum seem to like the idea of protection betting OTF which is questionable in the first instance, but you can't protection bet when you probably don't even have a valuebet. Plenty of 8x, overpairs, sets, 2pair that you're just donating money to by betting. You're also in a bad spot when V raises.

As a general rule you will often want to play draws like you would if there wasn't a draw on the board. You have 2nd pair and certainly enough SDV to x/c, don't get yourself into tough spots .

More inclined to 3b pre than flat.

Xc flop.

There are benefits to protection betting even if it's not a value bet so to speak. I always hate examples with overly contrived villains, but I'll use one anyway:
You hold 55 in a hu pot in a live game. You know villain never calls without top pair or better. You know villain never bets without top pair or better. The flop comes J97r and villain lifts his cards and without realising shows you he holds AQo. Should you bet?



As for the OP, I kind of expect villain to have 9T always, but I guess he had 96s for you to mention it. And it's probably fine to have a donking range on this flop, but I'm pretty bad with actually applying that so I'm not sure if this hand should be in it. Probably shouldn't.

^ True, but I feel like that example kinda relied on villain showing you his exact cards, right? I would have thought in a real world example where we're up against a range of made and unmade hands that if we are behind in that range we would need enough equity to improve on future streets to the best hand to have a protection bet? Though in that case I wouldnt be defining it as a protection bet but a semibluff, but that's purely semantic.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Yeah, like I've said before, you have to be mistrusting of examples that rely on overly constructed villains, because you can do almost anything vs. the right hypothetical. But still, I think it illustrates the point that protection betting can be good. In a practical sense I think it amounts to the fact that protection is never/rarely the sole reason for a bet, but it's definitely worth considering. If villain folds all or most of his 24% hands (or hands that would otherwise bluff you out of a pot) you still see a significant rise in your ev.

Other more sane examples are spots where it's say 3-ways to the flop and you hold 77 on a 335 board. Your hand probably can't get very much value, but it's very likely to be a significant favourite over either villain's hand in isolation but an equity dog/flip vs. the two combined. You then bet for thin value but largely for the equity denial vs. a possible four overcards.

It's definitely an area where things have changed. When I started playing it was a mantra that you never ever bet for protection.