Not a Revolution but a Revelation About “Blockers” and “Deflectors”

On October 27, 2025, Upswing Poker coach Aaron Barone coined the term “deflector” while breaking down a hand history from a super high-stakes Triton cash game between Wayne Heung and Sosia Jiang (see for yourself here).

During his analysis, Barone paused to discuss “blockers,” a well-established poker concept referring to cards in your hand that reduce the likelihood your opponent holds certain combinations. He mused:

This is normally where the trolls come in. Maybe they're upset with the term blocker itself—and if that’s the case, I sort of get it. A blocker doesn’t completely block your opponent from having the goods. Maybe deflector is a better description because it reduces the probability.

That simple yet poignant observation launched a brainstorm within me. Poker players have long accepted “blocker” as the standard term, but Barone’s “deflector” reframing sparked reflection: is it time to refine our poker vocabulary to better describe probability rather than certainty?

To unpack that question, let’s start with the hand that inspired the term.

The Hand that Inspired the Word “Deflector”

Preflop, we had a single-raised pot. Jiang defended her big blind holding K♠8♠, and Heung opened from the hijack with A♠9♦.

Flop: 8♣7♠J♠Jiang paired her eight and held the second-nut flush draw. Heung picked up a gutshot straight draw and a backdoor nut flush draw. Jiang checked, Heung bet $16,000, and Jiang called.

Turn: K♣This gave Jiang two pair and killed Heung’s nut flush draw, though Heung could still (of course) represent having the nut flush. Jiang checked again; Heung bet $58,000 (a pot-sized bet), and Jiang called.

River: Q♠Jiang made her king-high flush. After another check, Heung overbet $240,000, and Jiang called to win the $326,000 pot.

Barone’s “deflector” comment came while discussing Heung’s holdings—the A♠ and 9♦—as examples of cards that influence, but don’t always block, the opponent’s range.

The Revelation About “Deflectors”

The debate isn’t about whether “blocker” is wrong—it’s about precision. In my view, both terms have value, but they apply to different degrees of influence on an opponent’s possible range.

Blockers: Absolute Exclusion

A blocker is a card that completely prevents an opponent from holding a specific hand.In this example, Heung’s A♠ blocks Jiang from having the nut flush—there is simply no way Jiang can hold it when it is literally in Heung’s hold cards. Likewise, the 9♦ blocks the Tx9♦ straight specifically. Blockers represent absolute information within a probabilistic game.

Deflectors: Probabilistic Reduction

A deflector, on the other hand, reduces the likelihood of an opponent holding a certain hand but doesn’t eliminate it. 9♦ blocks four specific combination of straights (T♣9♦, T♠9♦, T♥9♦, and T♦9♦), but it allows for other combos (i.e. straight combinations with the remaining nines) to continue to exist. It deflects the probability that Jiang has a straight rather than blocks it entirely.

To visualize this distinction, imagine the deck as a funnel of possibilities. A blocker seals off one path completely; a deflector simply narrows the opening.

The Burn Card Analogy

A flipped burn card is the purest example of a true blocker—you know with 100% certainty that no opponent can hold that specific card. But that same burn card also deflects probabilities by slightly reshaping the remaining combinations available. The concepts overlap, but one speaks to certainty (blocker) and the other to degree (deflector).

A Writer versus Author Analogy

Think of it like this: all authors are writers, but not all writers are authors (because they haven’t released a published book). Similarly, all blockers deflect, but not all deflectors block.

In the Heung hand, the A♠9♦ combination both blocks the nut flush and deflects straights. Each word describes a different dimension of informational advantage.

Arguments For the Term “Deflector”

1. More Accurate Probability Language – Poker is a game of incomplete information and weighted probabilities. “Deflector” better captures the idea that certain holdings reduce likelihoods without fully eliminating them.

2. Modern Game Complexity – As solvers and population tendencies evolve, ranges are rarely binary (yes/no). A term like “deflector” reflects a more nuanced, solver-informed way of thinking.

3. Linguistic Precision – It adds depth to poker terminology and clarifies in discussion whether a card fully blocks or merely deflects a holding.

   
   

Arguments Against the Term “Deflector”

1. Conceptual Redundancy – Many, like my coach, argue the poker world already uses “blocker” to imply both complete and partial blocking depending on context. Adding a new term may create confusion without adding real value.

2. Overcomplication – Introducing “deflector” risks diluting communication. When analyzing hands quickly, simplicity often wins—“blocker” is already widely understood.

3. Language Fatigue – Poker has seen many “new terms” that fade quickly. For a word to stick, it must feel natural and fill a genuine linguistic gap. “Deflector” might feel like linguistic flair rather than functional necessity.

   
   

Conclusion

Barone’s coinage of “deflector” isn’t a revolution—it’s a revelation. And one I love.

It doesn’t overthrow the concept of blockers; it refines it. Poker language, like poker itself, evolves with precision and creativity. Whether “deflector” becomes mainstream or not, it highlights an important truth about how we think: poker isn’t about absolutes—it’s about edges, weights, and probabilities. In that sense, “deflector” perfectly mirrors the game it describes, subtle, probabilistic, and open to interpretation.