I'd love to get deeper into this now but I have an appointment in literally fifteen minutes.
However, now it sounds like we have pretty decent reads on this villain. So ask yourself this:
If he has some raggy 75o or whatever, and we bet really small - £3 or so - what does he do?
If we think he folds, then we're stealing his equity for £3 instead of £24. If he calls, we're getting value from a weaker hand. If he shoves, we can call and get a lot more value from a weaker hand.
On the fold equity point: The villain doesn't need to know what it is to realise that you've bet so much that you're not going away. If he's the type to 4-bet jam his junk into us then great, we're inducing. However, he didn't jam here and presumably wouldn't with his other junk. Obviously that doesn't make the big 3-bet bad because he's calling light, but it isn't inducing a light 4-bet.
I'd love to get deeper into this now but I have an appointment in literally fifteen minutes. However, now it sounds like we have pretty decent reads on this villain. So ask yourself this: If he has some raggy 75o or whatever, and we bet really small - £3 or so - what does he do? If we think he folds, then we're stealing his equity for £3 instead of £24. If he calls, we're getting value from a weaker hand. If he shoves, we can call and get a lot more value from a weaker hand. On the fold equity point: The villain doesn't need to know what it is to realise that you've bet so much that you're not going away. If he's the type to 4-bet jam his junk into us then great, we're inducing. However, he didn't jam here and presumably wouldn't with his other junk. Obviously that doesn't make the big 3-bet bad because he's calling light, but it isn't inducing a light 4-bet. Posted by BorinLoner
Maybe not from his 34os hands. But other hands like AQ, AJ, A10, KQ, KJ, K10, QJ, Q10, J10 are all types of hands in his range that he could potentially get carried away with pre and jam over my raise - expecting a fold or not.
Even PPs im not too unhappy to call against pre and take a flip against a shorter stack.
In Response to Re: How do you play this spot? : Domination is over-rated. Or so I've been told! But in this situation when villain is so wide pre-flop domination is going to happen so infrequently that I don't think calling pre-flop can be best. Unless ofc villain is either a complete calling station (or incredibly aggro post flop) - where we can be confident of nearly always getting their stacks any time we flop an A or K. Posted by F_Ivanovic
but thats just one villain- before we make in £10 theres 3 others in the pot- flatting with AK in these spots rather than 3betting, knowing ur gonna get peeled by at least one is decent - and vs 3 vilalins stacking hands like KQ or Ax (given SS) isnt too difficult.
what if everyone calls and we dont hit with PSB behind- yeaaaa great spot lol i often flat with strong Ax hands here and its immensley +EV imo
I said the flop jam wasnt terrible. And I dont think it is. It isnt a guarenteed -ev play either. Against an unmade hand we have about 66% equity. Our rightful share of the pot is 33bb. If we fold out unmade hands we gain their equity, ie we pick up 17bb in ev everytime he folds.the question is how often does he connect with a paired board or have a pocket pair? I think we need the jam to work 75% of the time in order to be profitable. I cant access flopzilla to plug ranges in, but I think it would be close v this villain. We may be better to check our entire range on thiis board as we hate bet folding so much, and we will often have ace high hands that want cheap showdown. Therefore checking everything makes us difficult to play against and stacks ate shallow enough to get it in easily. But I dont know if we want to balance against this villain. Whatever, I think jamming and checking are pretty close and I dont think jamming is all that bad. Cheers, TEDDY Posted by TeddyBloat
First thing to say is that any unpaired hand without an Ace or King has only roughly 25% equity, not 33%. That means the equity we're stealing is around 12BB. Now, I can't say with absolute certainty that this is -EV without using equilab or similar software but, since when we're called we will be putting in 50BB more as mostly a 25% dog, I imagine it is. Obviously sometimes we'll be putting it in as a bigger dog against a 3 or better or a 40% dog against 22.
Of course we don't surrender our own equity when we check, so we can't assess the options as "Shove to pick up the 50BB pot or check and give up the 50BB pot".
If the villain is not going to put another chip in the middle with any hand we beat, then we can steal his equity with a much smaller bet than the shove. If he's going to call a smaller bet with weaker hands, then we can value bet. If he might ship a weaker hand over a smaller bet, we can induce that bluff. We just have to trust ourselves to assess the villain's range correctly.
The only reasons to shove the flop are: i) We can be called by worse hands. ii) He can fold better hands.
Obviously the first option is a much better reason to shove because there are more weaker hands in his pre-flop range than there are better hands and many of those better hands don't fold to our shove. Either one would require history with our opponent to make the shove better than a smaller bet or a check. Without that specific history, shoving is definitely the worst option because it's the most costly way to steal our opponent's equity and the best way of missing value from worse hands.
In Response to Re: How do you play this spot? : but thats just one villain- before we make in £10 theres 3 others in the pot- flatting with AK in these spots rather than 3betting, knowing ur gonna get peeled by at least one is decent - and vs 3 vilalins stacking hands like KQ or Ax (given SS) isnt too difficult. what if everyone calls and we dont hit with PSB behind- yeaaaa great spot lol i often flat with strong Ax hands here and its immensley +EV imo Posted by LnarinOO
I think this counts as results oriented thinking. If we get stationed by three weaker ranges, that's +EV. If we miss the flop, we probably check-fold. That makes it high variance but still very +EV.
In Response to Re: How do you play this spot? : Maybe not from his 34os hands. But other hands like AQ, AJ, A10, KQ, KJ, K10, QJ, Q10, J10 are all types of hands in his range that he could potentially get carried away with pre and jam over my raise - expecting a fold or not. Even PPs im not too unhappy to call against pre and take a flip against a shorter stack. Posted by gazza127
Well okay, if you have specific reads that the villain is going to 4-bet shove those weaker hands over this size 3-bet, it's fine to think you can induce here.
However, you're still strengthening your range with this big 3-bet and making it tougher for the villain to shove. If we're really trying to induce, then we would 3-bet a size that he won't see as unusually big (We're repping a range that crushes the hands you've quoted, so the shove requires a degree of lunacy). I don't think there's anything wrong with this 3-bet size when you think you're going to be stationed a lot. I just don't think we can say it's a size that both induces a light 4-bet and will be stationed light.
I'm not sure if I've mentioned this in my earlier posts, but playing our hand with the shove on the flop never looks like AA or KK. Presumably you don't just shove those on such a dry flop. If we can't have AA or KK, we're more likely to be called by those pairs. We might be more likely to be called by worse hands, but realistically our pre-flop 3-bet isn't going to be viewed as weakness too often. We basically play our hand face-up as AK or maybe AQ, so we're still not going to be called by his junk.
think ya all concentrating on the fact that we have AK
what do we do with our entire range
deffo a portion we should be flatting pre
3 bet with reads should be max value hands, where we getting it in on the flop because of SPR
if your 3 beting the correct range then the fact we have AK here doesn't matter it's going to be +EV for our range to be betting, jamming or checking <----depends on oppo tendacies post
re: 3 bet size pre
if you have a wally calling big 3 bets then ofcourse go bigger, kinda obvious! It doesn't mater how stroung we look cause they obviously don't care lol
Rancid, I don't think we are getting hung up on the fact that we have AK. We're just talking about which is the most +EV line.
Would we really open-shove JJ+ on this flop? If we would, then it would be because that's the best way to gain value from as wide a range of weaker hands as possible. We may still beat that range with AK and therefore a shove would not be bad.
If we wouldn't shove this flop with JJ+, then shoving it with AK is obviously unbalanced. If shoving this flop with JJ+ would only gain us value from a very small portion of the villain's range, then shoving this flop would not be the most +EV decision with those hands and would be -EV with AK.
Rancid, I don't think we are getting hung up on the fact that we have AK. We're just talking about which is the most +EV line. Would we really open-shove JJ+ on this flop? If we would, then it would be because that's the best way to gain value from as wide a range of weaker hands as possible. We may still beat that range with AK and therefore a shove would not be bad. If we wouldn't shove this flop with JJ+, then shoving it with AK is obviously unbalanced. If shoving this flop with JJ+ would only gain us value from a very small portion of the villain's range, then shoving this flop would not be the most +EV decision with those hands and would be -EV with AK. Posted by BorinLoner
Exactly.
I haven't continued in the debate since my first reply but I hate the flop shove and as I said in my first reply, I don't think we'd be just shipping the flop with JJ+ so we shouldn't with AK. If we do just ship with JJ+.... I hate that too lol.
Flip that argument around. If i haeve JJ+ and im sure he's got a PP and he wouldnt expect me to jam JJ+ then surely shoving is +ev if im going to get looked up by a loose villain who cant give me credit for anything.
So theortically if I can shove JJ+ with +ev then shoving AK isnt unbalanced. Even though I dont think villain cares about whats balanced.
Just in this case... PPs dont make up most of his range. So in this case a shove with AK will be +ev if im getting folds most of the time, and a shove with JJ+ won't be the most +ve line.
Its about what range he thinks i've assigned him... although im sure he doesnt care.
Its evident that he's not a thinking player. He is thinking about what he has... not what I have. The question is does he fold the flop a certain % of the time to make this play +ev. IMO on a paired board where his range is still as wide as harrys waistline... probably.
indeed bl if our range consists of 80% value % 20% bluffs then it doesn't matter that we jam 100% because it's good only dependant on oppo perceived range and tendacies post as to if we check,bet or jam. in turn what we do on flop can change our range pre ie. can we hold 40% bluffs if oppo folds x amount on flop given reads I would opt to jam 100% of range Posted by rancid
I'm not sure which reads you're talking about.
The only reads I could think of that could make this shove the most +EV play with our value range would be...
i) The villain is going to call any bet with any pair.
ii) The villain will not bluff if we check to him and must improve to call any bet with his unpaired hole cards.
Those two reads could make shoving the flop the best option with our value hands.
However, we don't need to worry about balancing our range against someone that doesn't bluff or call light. So if we have those reads, we should shove our value hands and bet small with our unpaired hands. I don't think we have those reads, though.
Flip that argument around. If i haeve JJ+ and im sure he's got a PP and he wouldnt expect me to jam JJ+ then surely shoving is +ev if im going to get looked up by a loose villain who cant give me credit for anything.
So theortically if I can shove JJ+ with +ev then shoving AK isnt unbalanced. Even though I dont think villain cares about whats balanced.
Just in this case... PPs dont make up most of his range. So in this case a shove with AK will be +ev if im getting folds most of the time, and a shove with JJ+ won't be the most +ve line.
Its about what range he thinks i've assigned him... although im sure he doesnt care.
Its evident that he's not a thinking player. He is thinking about what he has... not what I have. The question is does he fold the flop a certain % of the time to make this play +ev. IMO on a paired board where his range is still as wide as harrys waistline... probably. Posted by gazza127
The bolded portion: Now you're talking about levelling. You've given us no indication that this thought process is likely to be happening at the table. If you knew that he'd think you'd be shoving JJ+ here, then shoving AK wouldn't be unbalanced... but you don't know that, or at least you've not told us about it. Without that specific read, he's going to assume you wouldn't shove JJ+ because you shouldn't. If you shouldn't have JJ+ then shoving AK would be unbalanced.
It doesn't matter if the villain understands balancing. He understands which hands he can beat and which hands he thinks your betting looks like. Even if he doesn't know what a balanced range is, he knows how to beat an unbalanced one.
The non-bolded portions: As I said earlier the shove probably won't be +EV if we are only being called by hands that beat us. Even if it was +EV, it wouldn't be the most +EV as we have the option to bet smaller or check to induce bluffs.
In Response to Re: How do you play this spot? : I'm not sure which reads you're talking about. The only reads I could think of that could make this shove the most +EV play with our value range would be... i) The villain is going to call any bet with any pair. ii) The villain will not bluff if we check to him and must improve to call any bet with his unpaired hole cards. Those two reads could make shoving the flop the best option with our value hands. However, we don't need to worry about balancing our range against someone that doesn't bluff or call light. So if we have those reads, we should shove our value hands and bet small with our unpaired hands. I don't think we have those reads, though. Posted by BorinLoner
BL ok, so what is the most +ev play with our range ?
Flip that argument around. If i haeve JJ+ and im sure he's got a PP and he wouldnt expect me to jam JJ+ then surely shoving is +ev if im going to get looked up by a loose villain who cant give me credit for anything. So theortically if I can shove JJ+ with +ev then shoving AK isnt unbalanced. Even though I dont think villain cares about whats balanced. Just in this case... PPs dont make up most of his range. So in this case a shove with AK will be +ev if im getting folds most of the time, and a shove with JJ+ won't be the most +ve line. Its about what range he thinks i've assigned him... although im sure he doesnt care. Its evident that he's not a thinking player. He is thinking about what he has... not what I have. The question is does he fold the flop a certain % of the time to make this play +ev. IMO on a paired board where his range is still as wide as harrys waistline... probably. Posted by gazza127
Sigh, don't drag me into this! You're all using big poker speak words that I don't understand
In Response to Re: How do you play this spot? : Sigh, don't drag me into this! You're all using big poker speak words that I don't understand Posted by hhyftrftdr
In Response to Re: How do you play this spot? : BL ok, so what is the most +ev play with our range ? Posted by rancid
Well, it depends on our reads. We think the villain's range is very wide, so how do we gain value from it?
If we think he'll bluff his weaker hands if we check, we should check-call.
If we think he'll call a small bet with his junky hands, we should bet small.
If we think he could bluff raise when we bet small, we should bet-call.
If we think he will neither bluff when we check, nor call a bet unless he's caught something, then we should bet small to steal his equity and give up if he doesn't fold. Checking would just be giving him a free card to get there.
The same would be true whether we had AK or quads. We're not trying to get value from a narrow part of his range when we have the nuts, and we're not unbalancing our range by betting small or checking with AK.
You can go into a thousand different scenarios based on previous history. If we want to shove, though, it should be because he can call us with lots of worse hands - so thinks we'd be 3-betting big, then shoving the flop very, very wide - or he can fold all his hands weaker than AA or KK - so we've always had one of these hands when we've done it in the past.
If we were in a vacuum, we could give a fairly definitive answer on what's going to be best in general - probably be scared by the pre-flop flat and give him a range like AK, QQ, JJ, TT - but we're not in a vacuum here.
im not too sure what all the discussions are about ?? the hand isnt that interesting..?? and BL u tilt me so much with parragraphs of if's and but's which arent too relevant to the hand in question ..!!
as the hand has played we have a pot sized bet left in a 3bet pot - im Jammin 100% of my range - i would do this with JJ , AA and most importantly all my bluffs i was squeezing with pre- i dont see any other play given the pot size and how we've got to the flop..??
i dont want to sound arrogant or arsey but i dont care tbh- most the ppl who do post on this forum are stuck in 2009 - noone seems to want to throw anything different out there or adapt to any kind of change- (this has no relevance to the hand in question) IM JUS SAYING..!!
i also saw BL state...
The only reasons to shove the flop are: i) We can be called by worse hands. ii) He can fold better hands.
there are two more big reasons that ppl never take into account, ofcourse we bet for value and bet to bluff- but we also have to take into account betting to protect and bet to stop us being bluffed off the best hand
these two are just as important but ppl never think about them-
to relate this to the hand in question then why chck what could be the best hand but is soo vunerable- say the Q comes on the turn and now villain jams?? he could have KQ or he could have 67os we just lost the pot by letting him catch up OR he's just bluffed us off the best hand-
im not too sure what all the discussions are about ?? the hand isnt that interesting..?? and BL u tilt me so much with parragraphs of if's and but's which arent too relevant to the hand in question ..!!
as the hand has played we have a pot sized bet left in a 3bet pot - im Jammin 100% of my range - i would do this with JJ , AA and most importantly all my bluffs i was squeezing with pre- i dont see any other play given the pot size and how we've to the flop..??
i dont want to sound arrogant or arsey but i dont care tbh- most the ppl who do post on this forum are stuck in 2009 - noone seems to want to throw anything different out there or adapt to any kind of change- (this has no relevance to the hand in question) IM JUS SAYING..!!
i also saw BL state...
The only reasons to shove the flop are: i) We can be called by worse hands. ii) He can fold better hands.
there are two more big reasons that ppl never take into account, ofcourse we bet for value and bet to bluff- but we also have to take into account betting to protect and bet to stop us being bluffed off the best hand
these two are just as important but ppl never think about them-
to relate this to the hand in question then why chck what could be the best hand but is soo vunerable- say the Q comes on the turn and now villain jams?? he could have KQ or he could have 67os we just lost the pot by letting him catch up OR he's just bluffed us off the best hand-
*tilted* Posted by LnarinOO
Don't worry about seeming arrogant. I never do.
Just on the bolded portion - No one wanting to "adapt to any kind of change" - surely that's what all the ifs and buts are about. We wouldn't want to say something silly like "Shove with 100% of my range" on the flop if it can be demonstrated that this would be bad because of our history with the villain. The ifs and buts are us adapting to our circumstances.
When we bet to protect, that's a value bet. As discussed, we're either looking to be called by worse hands (generally draws) or we're trying to fold out our opponent's equity. That discussion is pretty much what this thread has been about.
When we bet to prevent ourselves being bluffed off the best hand, we've got to ask why we're doing that. Why are we trying to stop our opponent putting more money into the pot with a worse hand?
Sometimes the villain gets there. If we check the flop to allow the villain to bluff but the villain checks back, we have to judge how well the turn hits the villain's range. You say our hand is vulnerable but, as discussed, it isn't.
We're either already behind on the flop or we're at worst a 75% (ish) favourite. On the turn, we go behind around 12.5% of the time to that range.
that part wasn't directed at anything to do with this thread, just at the general thought process of the forum in general- i read an inspiring blog for vanessa selbst which ill try to find and post about changes in poker..
the if's and but's were in regards to the previous post where u was asked a simple question and responded with too many if's this and if's that- thats jus sooo tilting ..!!!
and when ever im betting - i dunno bout u guys but im thinking of more than the two u mentioned - betting to protect is not jus a pure value bet - it may be a hand which shouldnt be good enough to bet for value but i would still bet to protect against a certain range (hint- overs)
and i also bet to stop myself being bluffed - (cant belive you have never heard of these before)
an extreme example would be why id cbet KK on Axx - i dont wanna give my opponent the oppoutunity to bluff me off the best hand even if theres not many worse hands that could call a value bet-
in the hand as played i see no point point trying to get cute with AK my whole range would be jamming and expect that i have enoughs value hands ahead of villians calling range for it to be +EV -
yes this time we have AK and may not improve but this defo isnt the top of our range- id expect to get called a decent amount but aslong as my range is correct, then the whole play will be +EV.. i dont want to bother confusing things with check some hands and betting small with other- jus JAM 100%
Comments
However, now it sounds like we have pretty decent reads on this villain. So ask yourself this:
If he has some raggy 75o or whatever, and we bet really small - £3 or so - what does he do?
If we think he folds, then we're stealing his equity for £3 instead of £24. If he calls, we're getting value from a weaker hand. If he shoves, we can call and get a lot more value from a weaker hand.
On the fold equity point: The villain doesn't need to know what it is to realise that you've bet so much that you're not going away. If he's the type to 4-bet jam his junk into us then great, we're inducing. However, he didn't jam here and presumably wouldn't with his other junk. Obviously that doesn't make the big 3-bet bad because he's calling light, but it isn't inducing a light 4-bet.
Even PPs im not too unhappy to call against pre and take a flip against a shorter stack.
flatting with AK in these spots rather than 3betting, knowing ur gonna get peeled by at least one is decent - and vs 3 vilalins stacking hands like KQ or Ax (given SS) isnt too difficult.
what if everyone calls and we dont hit with PSB behind- yeaaaa great spot lol
i often flat with strong Ax hands here and its immensley +EV imo
Of course we don't surrender our own equity when we check, so we can't assess the options as "Shove to pick up the 50BB pot or check and give up the 50BB pot".
If the villain is not going to put another chip in the middle with any hand we beat, then we can steal his equity with a much smaller bet than the shove. If he's going to call a smaller bet with weaker hands, then we can value bet. If he might ship a weaker hand over a smaller bet, we can induce that bluff. We just have to trust ourselves to assess the villain's range correctly.
The only reasons to shove the flop are:
i) We can be called by worse hands.
ii) He can fold better hands.
Obviously the first option is a much better reason to shove because there are more weaker hands in his pre-flop range than there are better hands and many of those better hands don't fold to our shove. Either one would require history with our opponent to make the shove better than a smaller bet or a check. Without that specific history, shoving is definitely the worst option because it's the most costly way to steal our opponent's equity and the best way of missing value from worse hands.
However, you're still strengthening your range with this big 3-bet and making it tougher for the villain to shove. If we're really trying to induce, then we would 3-bet a size that he won't see as unusually big (We're repping a range that crushes the hands you've quoted, so the shove requires a degree of lunacy). I don't think there's anything wrong with this 3-bet size when you think you're going to be stationed a lot. I just don't think we can say it's a size that both induces a light 4-bet and will be stationed light.
I'm not sure if I've mentioned this in my earlier posts, but playing our hand with the shove on the flop never looks like AA or KK. Presumably you don't just shove those on such a dry flop. If we can't have AA or KK, we're more likely to be called by those pairs. We might be more likely to be called by worse hands, but realistically our pre-flop 3-bet isn't going to be viewed as weakness too often. We basically play our hand face-up as AK or maybe AQ, so we're still not going to be called by his junk.
what do we do with our entire range
deffo a portion we should be flatting pre
3 bet with reads should be max value hands, where we getting it in on the flop because of SPR
if your 3 beting the correct range then the fact we have AK here doesn't matter it's going to be +EV for our range to be betting, jamming or checking <----depends on oppo tendacies post
re: 3 bet size pre
if you have a wally calling big 3 bets then ofcourse go bigger, kinda obvious!
It doesn't mater how stroung we look cause they obviously don't care lol
Would we really open-shove JJ+ on this flop? If we would, then it would be because that's the best way to gain value from as wide a range of weaker hands as possible. We may still beat that range with AK and therefore a shove would not be bad.
If we wouldn't shove this flop with JJ+, then shoving it with AK is obviously unbalanced. If shoving this flop with JJ+ would only gain us value from a very small portion of the villain's range, then shoving this flop would not be the most +EV decision with those hands and would be -EV with AK.
I haven't continued in the debate since my first reply but I hate the flop shove and as I said in my first reply, I don't think we'd be just shipping the flop with JJ+ so we shouldn't with AK. If we do just ship with JJ+.... I hate that too lol.
only dependant on oppo perceived range and tendacies post as to if we check,bet or jam.
in turn what we do on flop can change our range pre
ie. can we hold 40% bluffs if oppo folds x amount on flop
given reads I would opt to jam 100% of range
So theortically if I can shove JJ+ with +ev then shoving AK isnt unbalanced. Even though I dont think villain cares about whats balanced.
Just in this case... PPs dont make up most of his range. So in this case a shove with AK will be +ev if im getting folds most of the time, and a shove with JJ+ won't be the most +ve line.
Its about what range he thinks i've assigned him... although im sure he doesnt care.
Its evident that he's not a thinking player. He is thinking about what he has... not what I have. The question is does he fold the flop a certain % of the time to make this play +ev. IMO on a paired board where his range is still as wide as harrys waistline... probably.
The only reads I could think of that could make this shove the most +EV play with our value range would be...
i) The villain is going to call any bet with any pair.
ii) The villain will not bluff if we check to him and must improve to call any bet with his unpaired hole cards.
Those two reads could make shoving the flop the best option with our value hands.
However, we don't need to worry about balancing our range against someone that doesn't bluff or call light. So if we have those reads, we should shove our value hands and bet small with our unpaired hands. I don't think we have those reads, though.
It doesn't matter if the villain understands balancing. He understands which hands he can beat and which hands he thinks your betting looks like. Even if he doesn't know what a balanced range is, he knows how to beat an unbalanced one.
The non-bolded portions: As I said earlier the shove probably won't be +EV if we are only being called by hands that beat us. Even if it was +EV, it wouldn't be the most +EV as we have the option to bet smaller or check to induce bluffs.
maybe.
If we think he'll bluff his weaker hands if we check, we should check-call.
If we think he'll call a small bet with his junky hands, we should bet small.
If we think he could bluff raise when we bet small, we should bet-call.
If we think he will neither bluff when we check, nor call a bet unless he's caught something, then we should bet small to steal his equity and give up if he doesn't fold. Checking would just be giving him a free card to get there.
The same would be true whether we had AK or quads. We're not trying to get value from a narrow part of his range when we have the nuts, and we're not unbalancing our range by betting small or checking with AK.
You can go into a thousand different scenarios based on previous history. If we want to shove, though, it should be because he can call us with lots of worse hands - so thinks we'd be 3-betting big, then shoving the flop very, very wide - or he can fold all his hands weaker than AA or KK - so we've always had one of these hands when we've done it in the past.
If we were in a vacuum, we could give a fairly definitive answer on what's going to be best in general - probably be scared by the pre-flop flat and give him a range like AK, QQ, JJ, TT - but we're not in a vacuum here.
i) We can be called by worse hands.
ii) He can fold better hands.
In Response to Re: How do you play this spot?:
Don't worry about seeming arrogant. I never do.Just on the bolded portion - No one wanting to "adapt to any kind of change" - surely that's what all the ifs and buts are about. We wouldn't want to say something silly like "Shove with 100% of my range" on the flop if it can be demonstrated that this would be bad because of our history with the villain. The ifs and buts are us adapting to our circumstances.
When we bet to protect, that's a value bet. As discussed, we're either looking to be called by worse hands (generally draws) or we're trying to fold out our opponent's equity. That discussion is pretty much what this thread has been about.
When we bet to prevent ourselves being bluffed off the best hand, we've got to ask why we're doing that. Why are we trying to stop our opponent putting more money into the pot with a worse hand?
Sometimes the villain gets there. If we check the flop to allow the villain to bluff but the villain checks back, we have to judge how well the turn hits the villain's range. You say our hand is vulnerable but, as discussed, it isn't.
We're either already behind on the flop or we're at worst a 75% (ish) favourite. On the turn, we go behind around 12.5% of the time to that range.