Huggy, your definition of a bluff is very far off on any street but the river in position. If you never get called by worse, I guess you still protect against worse that folds so you can bet or raise neither as a bluff or for value, but as a semi "bluff" protection bet. Weird. That's not the case on this board though

Grindcore ended this thread. You should think about his first post.

Commonly used definitions of a valuebet and bluff are so that both aren't the exact opposite of eachother, meaning there are situations that fall in between. You would have to use different definitions to make it only 2 sided. Something like, when you want your opponent to fold (because it's the most +EV) it's a bluff, and when you want your opponent to call it's a valuebet. (and even then there's always a perfect 50/50 in between)

As always, it has to do with the odds you're getting/offering and the equity you have against villains calling/folding range.

But wether you call it a reptile or a mammal doesn't change the matter it's made of, the structure of the molecules, the DNA, the organs, it's feeding habits, mating behaviour, it's still the same elephant. Language is something humans made up, but the physics behind the universe and the elephant etc were always there and won't change based on how we call it in our language.

You have a range. Your opponent has a range. There are certain possible strategies to be employed. The EV of strategies depends on your opponents strategies etc. Wether a bet is +EV or not is purely a math problem. Arguing over wether it's a protection bet, a valuebet, or a bluff, won't change anything. Valuebetting/bluffing/protecting are just concepts we made up to help us come up with +EV plays, but the math behind it has always been there even before poker was invented and will never change based on some language label people put on it.

If value or protection were some sort of mathematical laws that could be proven, then it'd be relevant. But they're not laws, just human made definitions.

+1

It was a bad analogy, but his point (at least, I assume this is his point) is still valid. If I call shoving with the nuts a "bluff," and betting 8-high OTR a "value bet," I am going to have an extremely difficult time communicating with other poker players. This is (in almost all cases) going to affect my rate of improvement as a poker player. (Obviously if I am alone in my own little universe and figure out everything on my own then potential communication difficulties are irrelevant. But this isn't the case for the vast majority of people.)

Sure, but if the shove with AQ here is +EV, but it's not really for value or for protection or as a bluff, and the inability to put a clear label on it will prevent you from making the shove, then it's holding you back aswell. I was just trying to point out that a shove may or may not be +EV based on the ranges etc, and that arguing over wether its value or protection or bluff is useless. These threads tend to turn into huge definition discussions rather than focussing on what's really going on.

are you sure this is a +EV shove in the first place?

That's not really the point of my posts.

But yes, I do think that without history/image a shove is +EV there.

what kind of nitnetworks do u guys play on?

Is calling the cbet bad unless we have specific reads on how they play the turn?

This is def what i did not want this discussion to turn into. Great input so far. Lets be sure to keep in mind that villain was 3 Betting light enough so that my shove was plus EV.

bump

If the hand were to end on the flop (i.e. he calls, we showdown, the pot is won/lost at that point), and assuming villain calls all better and folds all worse, the shove is EV neutral if he folds 58% of the time.

0 = (X) x Shove and achieve a fold + (1-X) x Shove and get called, where X is folding frequency

0 = X($238) + (1-X)(-$329)

X = 58.02%

This obviously makes more sense when applied to river spots in which we don't have to construct and stove a range for villain that continues on with the hand, which would obviously alter villain's break-even folding frequency.

Since the hand doesn't end on the flop, we need to construct and stove a flop-continuing range extrapolated from villain's 3bet range and factor those into this equation:

EV of shoving = X(what's in the pot) + (1-X)[(what we stand to lose) x (villain's equity) + (what we stand to gain) x (our hand's equity)]

EV of shoving = 238X + (1-X)[-329 x villain's equity + 567 x our equity]

It doesn't really matter how we define what "shoving for protection" is, as long as we achieve a fold the percentage of the time that we need in order to turn a profit.

Sick thread. I agree w grindcore completely also. There's obviously a gray area when it comes to flop and turn bets because "worse" hands hold some amount of equity in the pot.

sorry for the bump but i just see this thread for the discussion on poker language it was good.

As for the hand i really like the shove on the flop mainly because pre flop he isn't folding AK if you 4bet shove and he can call if off with TT JJ which is not that great for us.

but if you shove flop you have now traped more dead monies if he is polar 3beting (eg 68s or something) and he has cbet then folding instead of 3betting an folding to shove.

also he can now fold AK on the flop but is basically never pre flop.

.

People don't suck enough nowadays to b/f AK and pairs and such

Agreed 2011 AK is snapping the flop. But what is now super cool is that you actually could be shoving the flop to protect with AQ, because you're probably getting snapped by AJ too! Guy was way ahead of his time.

AK is snapping that flop ?

what planet are you guys on ?

we're on planet earth, and AK def snaps that flop. Thats why I dont like shoving AQ here against a 6% 3bet, but Im a nit tho

against a not so good tagfish AK is snapping flop?

wow @ some msnl responses.

i mean if you read the earlier posts in the thread it was already agreed upon in 2009 that AK is snapping. imo its not this hand that is so interesting, but more of the general theories being discussed

Thats why you overshove your trips or flat your KK pre

love this thread, i like the valubluff concept too and use it quite often, in hand op posted, how would you mathematicaly define the ev of avoiding spots where hero flats and has to fold to a turn bluff by villain.