On Not Protecting

Here’s an archived hand that illustrates a key point from my Betting for Protection article. The idea is that you don’t have to worry about protecting against a draw if you expect your opponent to bluff very often when he misses his draw. Essentially your implied odds from catching bluffs can be big enough to compensate you for the times that your passivity costs you the pot:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $6 BB (5 handed) Hand History converter Courtesy of PokerZion.com

MP ($940)
Button ($670.05)
SB ($249)
Hero ($1197.95)
UTG ($609)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 7d, Ad.
2 folds, Button raises to $12, 1 fold, Hero raises to $48, Button calls $36.

Flop: ($99) Ks, 5h, Ac (2 players)
Hero checks, Button checks.

Turn: ($99) 7c (2 players)
Hero bets $66, Button raises to $180, Hero calls $114.

River: ($459) 3d (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $180, Hero calls $180.

Final Pot: $819

Results in white below:
Hero has 7d Ad (two pair, aces and sevens).
Button has 9c 8h (high card, ace).
Outcome: Hero wins $819.

It’s also important to note here that I can’t really get action from worse hands by three-betting this turn. I expect to have the best hand very often, but I don’t think that even 75 will continue if I 3-bet. This means that bluff-catching has much more merit than “protecting” against the many draws Villain is likely playing this way.