|
 Originally Posted by krimson
In my view the point of a blocking bet is that if you get raised you know you are beat and can cut your losses. I think it's generally a bad idea to make a blocking bet when you have a strong draw: if you are faced with a raise that only just gives you odds to call (i.e. such that folding has about the same EV) then your draw has essentially lost all hand value (since it doesn't matter what hand you fold with incorrect pot odds). In such a spot you are better off either betting big to get some fold equity, or checking and calling a bet depending on pot odds (costs less, and may have implied odds).
In the posted hand hero can only beat a bluff without improvement. A blocking bet will not achieve a cheap showdown against a worse hand, and has little fold equity. On the turn there is $15 in the pot, and villain has $13 left. If hero makes any bet > $4.50 he has pot odds to call a push from villain. In other words if villain has a flush and raises the turn then the EV of a blocking bet is about -$4.50. Essentially the only situation where the blocking bet is better than checking and calling depending on pot odds is if villain smooth-calls the bet (as happened) and would have made a larger bet himself if checked to. Even then it is only very slightly ahead of check/folding (maybe $0.50?), unless of course villain bluffs big.
Actually, I think this hand is more of an example of bad play by villain (playing with less than a full buy-in being a big part of it) than a good illustration of a blocking bet. In his shoes, I would've either raised on the flop and put the rest in on the turn, or just pushed the turn. (Thoughts here? What's villain's best line?)
Obviously, a fourth club was the last thing I wanted to see, since villain's smooth call on the flop had put him on the flush draw for me. I made the turn bet I did to price my next card, with the hope that he'd smooth call again and, thankfully, he cooperated. If he'd had more money behind, I'm sure he could've forced a fold from me.
|