TOURNAMENT POKER-David Sklansky

[butch]

Greetings from Texas! In reading the David Sklansky book, "Tournament Poker for Advanced Players" page 169...Is there a type-o mistake? I can't figure out why a 2 of Hearts would hurt on 4th street. Help! butch

[jwvdcw]

Not trying to be an ass, just trying to help since you're new: You'll get more replies in the books/software section. And even the multi-table tournament forum is a better place for this question.

As for your question: The heart gives you a flush draw. You want to see the river now to see if you hit your draw. If a heart didn't fall, you could bet, if someone raises then you figure you're beaten no matter what and you fold. But now , even if you're currently beat then you have many out, so you would want to see the last card. Betting gives an opponent the opportunity to raise enough that you can't call to see the last card.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I can't figure out why a 2 of Hearts would hurt on 4th street. Help! butch

Because if you bet your hand, your opponent can raise you enough to either force you fold or make an FTOP mistake by calling and you want to do neither.

[butch]

First, I would like to kindly thank you both for taking the time to respond to my question... Here's my take on it... You have an A and K of hearts...you have flopped the highest pair...with the K of diamonds on the flop. Fourth street is a 2 of hearts making two hearts on board... The most any opponent could have is a flush draw ... Why would you be afraid of a raise when you also have the nuts for the same flush draw? If I were to be afraid of a raise it would be because someone might have a pocket pair...not two hearts. That's what I didn't understand...why would you be afraid of someone holding two hearts when you're holding the top two hearts giving you the better draw for the same flush. I do agree, however, that checking for a free chance to hit the flush is the proper move to make, just not for the reasons stated.

[Ed Miller]

I do agree, however, that checking for a free chance to hit the flush is the proper move to make, just not for the reasons stated.

Ok. So why do you think it's right to check?

[Tosh]

Eh? You talk in a way that goes completely against a check, but conclude that a check is correct?!? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Tosh]

On Party against 90%+ of opponents checking is wrong IMO, the book assumes your opponents are vaguely competent and won't call with any 2.

[butch]

"You talk in a way that goes completely against a check, but conclude that a check is correct?!?"

Thanks for your response Tosh... The only reason I feel checking might be the right move is out of fear of someone trapping with a set...not because someone may have two hearts, which is the explanation the author gives. I just thought the reason stated for checking was wrong... I was not necessarily making a case against checking.

[Tilt-a-Whirl]

You've hit the nail on the head Butch. In No-limit if someone did have trips, they could very well be ready to check raise, possibly all-in. It would be a difficult (possibly wrong) call to make hoping for the flush to come.

If the the card wasnt a Heart, then you know that the flush draw is dead and the best you can hope for is an A or K to come. Therefore with only 5 outs, it would be an easy lay down against a large reraise.

I just happned to read this exact section of the the book, So its funny that you posted this.

[butch]

Thanks for your response TILT... I really was puzzled by that from the start...I kept going over it and just couldn't figure out what the problem was with a heart on fourth street. Thanks again!