Harrington's flush draw

[soah]

Dan Harrington raises before the flop with the ace of clubs and a jack. Flop is all clubs. Harrington checks, Marcel bets all in, Harrington calls. The only way he is a big favorite here is if Marcel pushes with no pair. From what I recall, Marcel's play after the flop has been pretty reasonable. If I'm Dan Harrington and I hold the ace of clubs, I would not expect Marcel to push on this flop with anything that is losing to ace high. (Do others agree with my "read" on him?) Harrington is at best a small favorite if a jack will win the hand for him, otherwise he could be anywhere from a small to a significant underdog.

So... if he is willing to take a coin flip, why take the check/call route? Is he hoping that Marcel will give him a free card, but willing to gamble if he does not receive it? I can't see this being very good though, because he's usually getting a free card only if his ace high is already ahead. Which brings me back to the question... why not just move all your chips in and root for a fold? Is there a logic behind check/calling that I simply don't see?

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Dan Harrington raises before the flop with the ace of clubs and a jack. Flop is all clubs. Harrington checks, Marcel bets all in, Harrington calls. The only way he is a big favorite here is if Marcel pushes with no pair. From what I recall, Marcel's play after the flop has been pretty reasonable. If I'm Dan Harrington and I hold the ace of clubs, I would not expect Marcel to push on this flop with anything that is losing to ace high. (Do others agree with my "read" on him?) Harrington is at best a small favorite if a jack will win the hand for him, otherwise he could be anywhere from a small to a significant underdog.

So... if he is willing to take a coin flip, why take the check/call route? Is he hoping that Marcel will give him a free card, but willing to gamble if he does not receive it? I can't see this being very good though, because he's usually getting a free card only if his ace high is already ahead. Which brings me back to the question... why not just move all your chips in and root for a fold? Is there a logic behind check/calling that I simply don't see?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good topic starter, but let me throw a quick word before (hopefully) anyone gets around to it first:

Harrington speaks about this hand in an interview I BELIEVE on cardplayer. He says he misplayed the hand, as he meant to lead at the flop, putting marcel on a small pocket pair without a club. (And expecting a fold)

However, given his check and his read, it was the correct play.

I wish I could find the link to the article, as Dan is quite articulate about it...

[BobboFitos]

Got it! (Link to the whole article, then the excerpt from the hand) http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14241

The 35th World Series of Poker

Dan explained that with 10 players left, he made a big mistake that ended up working out OK for him. "I had A-J. Marcel Luske raised; I reraised, but I didn't look back at my cards because I didn't want to show weakness. Marcel called. The flop was Q 8 6 and I checked. Marcel moved all in. I knew he had a small pair. I looked back at my cards and saw the A. I quickly started calculating: nine outs for the spade, three outs for the jack, three outs for the ace, and so on. I called.

"As I suspected, Marcel had a small pocket pair with the 4. A jack came on the river and I busted him, but I really didn't like my play. I was supposed to move all in on the flop."

"Well," I said, "you won a bigger pot this way because he would have had to fold his underpair if you had gone all in on the flop."

Dan started to laugh, and said, "Yes, I guess I cleverly check-called!"

[soah]

Thanks for the link. He seems to be saying that he wanted to move in but couldn't remember if his ace was the right suit, so he checked. /images/graemlins/confused.gif Not quite the explanation I expected, but I suppose it makes sense.

[DimensionPresident]

Don't most players look back at their cards to "double check" straights or flushes? Doesn't seem weak to me.

[300CE24]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't most players look back at their cards to "double check" straights or flushes? Doesn't seem weak to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not weak, but seeing a suited flop, looking again at the cards u just reraised with, and then moving allin pretty much gives it away?

BRGDS,

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't most players look back at their cards to "double check" straights or flushes? Doesn't seem weak to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

When most players do it, it is weak because it's a huge tell that they didn't flop the flush. Peeking followed by a bet/call/raise generally indicates that they have one of the top three of the draw.

If Harrington did it headsup against me, I wouldn't know what to think, because I know full well that he knows peeking back when the board flops suited looks weak.

So he probably could have looked back and not actually risked anything at all, at least against me.