Stud's triple cursed small straight draw

Stud's triple cursed small straight draw


Synopsis: Small straight draws by tradition have been an anathema to experienced stud players.This discussion is a review of the mathematical influences that tend to make drawing to this "pat" hand hazardous.


Small three straight draws are tempting to play because of the possibility of drawing to a relatively strong hand. But there are three mathematical influences that make this draw "triply cursed". And therefor if the player decides to play this draw, he should do so with caution.


Curse number 1. The "Mano De' Muerte" trap AKA "Sud's Hand of Death!" trap


When the inexperienced stud player is dealt a small three straight draw for a starting hand, he instinctively considers playing it for it's straight making potential.

But the experienced poker player always evaluates potential starting hands with a three dimensional perspective.(That being of it's Straight, Flush and Pair possibilities)


Mathematically a made straight is NOT the most common outcome of this starting hand, but rather the third most common hand.

If the hand were routinely played to the river the most common resulting hand would be a pair (39.5%) of the time, the next most common out come would be TWO PAIR (19%) of the time. And a made straight would only come in third. (18% of the time)


The trap in this scenario is the "made two pair hand." Having started with three small cards, the most common made two pair hand is the "Mano De Muerte" Also call the "Stud Hand of Death" because the two small pair hand can so easily trap the inexperienced player. One of the mantras of the inexperienced stud player being "I hand to call because I had two pair."


Curse number 2. The "second best" made straight trap.


One of the mathematical tendencies that the experienced stud player is aware of, is that when and unequal distribution of suit or rank cards occurs in his hand, there is a significant increase in the probability that an opponent's hand will also have a similar unequal distribution.

This is most noticeable with flush draws. When the experienced player is dealt a live heart flush for example, he knows that, should he make his draw, his greatest danger comes from an opponent making a larger flush.


This is because when a player has a live heart flush draw for example, there is a much higher chance that one of more opponents has a spade,club,or diamond flush draw.


A similar mathematical tendency occurs with rank cards, but in this case when one player has a live small straight draw, there is a significantly increased probability that one or more of his opponents will have big straight draws.


Consequently the rank distribution trap is that, on those occasions when the small straight player does make his hand, he is often beaten by a larger straight.


Curse number 3. The lack of an ideal number of opponents trap.


Hands such as big pairs and potential big pairs do best in heads up and short handed contests.

Hands such as flush draws,on the other hand, tend to do well against a large number of callers.


But small straight draws do poorly in both short handed contests and also against a large number of callers.

Short handed the drawing hand lacks the odds to make the draw profitable, and against many callers if the draw is completed it often is beaten by a larger straight, flush, or full house.


Consequently there is no ideal number of opponents for the small straight draw to play against.


Because of these three mathematical tendencies, the small three straight draw is often a trap hand. And it is for this reason that the hand often tends to be avoided by experienced players.


Consequently the small three straight draw must be played with caution. And the most critical factor in playing the hand profitably,is often not in knowing when to call with the hand, but rather knowing when to discard the hand when the opponents boards and or betting paterns decrease it's potential profitability.


Opinions and or criticisms by forum members welcomed.

Hello,Doc,

Roy West warns his students about the dangers of playing small and medium 3-str. He goes on to say that many pros don't play any strights.

He presents a 2-dimensional view by recommending only straights with high pair potential.

Thanks for supplementing West's ideas.


Sitting Bull

Playing in $1-3 and $1-5 games, I typically play small three straights ONLY under the following conditions:


1) I can see 4th street for just the bring in

2) No gut shots

3) No more than one dead directly contiguous card, no more than 2 dead one out cards.


Under these circumstances, I rarely play these hands. When I do, in my limited experience, the times I win a decent pot against two pair/trips makes them profitable.

I think your strategy is too tight at these limits. If you can get in for the bring in only you should be playing many more hands than this. I would take one off even with a gut shot three straight, since your implied odds can easily be 30-1 or higher. If it is raised then that is a completely different story.


Pat

In $1-5 with a .50 ante I'm inclined to agree. In $1-3 with no ante, I think my guidelines are more correct.

I dont think the ante matters. what matters is the type of players you are against and whether they will pay off even when you make the straight. If you can outplay them then you should probably call whether there is an ante or not. WHether I had an ante or not I would still play a gut shot for one more card if I could get in for just the bring in. But if you cannot fold when you make a small pair on fourth street and someone else bets then you should not play the hand. This is partly an example of outplaying your opponents, since most of them would play on if they paired. If they will play on and you catch a four straight with even one or two cards higher than their pair then you are in good shape.


Pat

Pat, I am only a tiny bit better than a break even

player in the $1-3 games at Mohegan and Foxwoods,

still very much learning, so take my comments with that in mind. But I've concluded that small straight draws (and small pair with small kicker) are death hands in these games -- you've got to play against the field, and too often you can make your hand and lose. I'd be inclined not to play them at all more than to loosen my re quirements. I'm typing this at 2 a.m., having just returned from Mohegan where I lost $24 in seven hours of $1-3.


I had rolled queens beaten by a woman who drew three runners to a low straight (against my $3 bets on every street).


I had broadway made on 6th beaten by a woman who made her flush with runners on 6 and 7 and four of her suit on the board.


I had hidden trip tens on fourth beaten by kings full of aces made from two pair on sixth, with an ace and king dead.


I had aces head up against no pair called down for

max bets beaten by a flush (no other outs) that caught runners on sixth and seventh.


And my post-play assessment (on the drive home with my buddy who won $8) was that I need to play tighter, push big pairs more selectively since you often can't narrow the field, and make sure I've thought through my strategy/effective odds thoroughly.


I'd say there wasn't one long-term winning player at my table all night. But in these games you often CANNOT play just one player -- you must play a field of two or three. They just won't fold. So in that case, tighter hand selection, devaluing high pairs and upgrading top draws seems to make sense to me.


I do think that a good player should be able to win at any level. So until I really feel I'm a solid winner at $1-3, I'm reluctant to move up to $1-5 (which I have tried and lost a small amount in) and certainly don't feel I can move up to $5-10.


I'd be very interested in your comments.

You may be correct. However since you are a small winner at that level you are actually playing very well and could certainly win at 5-10. It is harder to win at 1-3 than almost any other level simply because of the rake. You should not be disappointed because of your results. If you are waiting until you are able to win $6 per hour you may be waiting a long time. I am not sure mason could win that much at 1-3:-). Good luck, and trust me, the best thing you can do for your game is to move up to 5-10 asap.


Pat

Well, I've probably played 100 hours of $1-3 since my first casino foray 18 months back, and I'm about $100 up. Now, that includes about $100 in "learning losses" in my first three or four sessions, so you could say I'm "really" $200 up in about 80 hours since then. I've also played about

30 hours of $1-5 and am $700 down in that -- all from three sessions in my first six months of casino play. In about 10 hours of $1-5 play since, I'm dead even. As you may surmise, I've still got some serious leaks in my game, mainly overly loose hand selection on 3rd and 4th, weak manipulation of people and situations, tendency to get caught up in the current run of cards and lose sight of overall solid playing guidelines and some tells. I definitely feel I'm continuing to learn at $1-3 -- frankly, I'd expect to win at least $3 an hour at this. When I win $50 at $1-3, I move up to $1-5. If I lose the $50, I move back down. Yesterday, I was $43 up at one point and ready to rack, but got sucked out on and never made it to $1-5. When I start to be a consistent winner, with good control at these to limits, I'll be looking to move up to $5-$10. As a recreational, once a month casino player that may take awhile. btw, I play in an ultra-low-stakes weekly home game where I'm a steady winner.

lots of small-limit players tell themselves they're beating the game when really the games beating them, they don't play enough to know it. they should get thier butt to the casino and do some real learning not playing around. i hate to say it but your probably a tourist just dont know it.

I'm a tourist and do know it! I have no desire to "get my butt to the casino and learn" for 40 hours a week or more. I play poker for recreation -- same way I play golf. In golf, I've played seriously for 11 years and can break 80 on a good day. That's probably the rough equivalent of being able to beat the $5-10 game for one big bet an hour. That's my aspiration in poker, and as with golf I believe I will continue to improve by playing, reading and talking with other players, live and in forums like this. btw -- re your comment that lots of low limit players "tell themselves they're beating the game when really the games beating them", I've posted my total results in the casino -- I keep precise track (to the dollar). I challenge you to do the same.

im sure you do keep records it fits the pattern. well champ my hourly win rate averages two big bets an hour vs regualrs but a half bet more vs wannabies who tilt so easy, sigh. 1-3 past four years except now its only 10-20 for even easier action. im waiting for you, champ, come on up like the man says.

I don't usually get involved in these kind of discussions, but I will make an exception this one time. You're being a jerk. The man is asking intelligent questions, and posting his results. He is a recreational player; he isn't looking to make it to the final table of WSOP. Just because you can beat the 10/20 game doesn't make you lord high executioner. I can beat the 15/30 Hold 'em game at my local casino, but I'm still just a recreational player, and that is all I ever aspire to. So, share your opinions when they are constructive, or on point, but keep the BS to a minimum.


Fitz

I agree with Pat here.

It is important to exploit your opponents main weakness at these limits which is that they play too loose and too passive.

When I can get in cheap I play hands that I wouldn't consider playing at the higher limits.The objective here is to try for a lucky catch on 4th street or free cards on 4th and subsequent streets knowing that if you hit you will be paid off well and yet using your superior skills you can stay out of trouble if you don't hit.


Most of the West Disciples that I play at these limits think that I am very 'Lucky'.

Gee I wonder why?

sorry champ what was i thinking. just got back from a 20hour sit did i get ripped hell yeh all punks from colleges nearby they ahd me beat up and down with their tight good play. im sure theyre all recreational players, hell yeh but what the hell am i then? got back 4 am and looked it up, did the math and guess what. ive been on an extra good streak and now its comin back on me. couldnt see it before was it just pride or stuptidy. ive got to go now you wont be hearing from Cap Action anytime soon boys, he knows when hes whipped. .

I am impressed by your record. It's better than the 1 big bet an hour many writers say is a realistic target. I won't be moving up to $10-$20 to take you on any time soon. But I'd be glad to see you in $1-3 -- I'm sure I could learn if you are really as good as you claim. Since most of the proven strong players here don't feel the need to beat up on us "tourists" (in fact thay want to encourage us) I do have to question your veracity....

I presume that they think you are lucky because you play looser than they do. Good for you for figuring out where wests advice goes wrong. Overall his book is good for a beginner but there is more to winning than what he presents.


Pat

Hello,Cap,

MRB might be a tourist,but I would NOT want him in my game unless I were seeking an education and be willing to pay him tuition!


Sitting Bull

Hello,1-5,

In my low limit 1-5 games,there are several tight-agressive players at one casino and loose-passive players at another casino.

If I want to brush-up on my skills,I play in the tight-agressive games;if I want to make some money,I go to the loose-passive games--about 90% of the time!


Sitting Bull

Geez, I tend to side with Mr. B on the question of looseness. An example would be, should you limp in with a small/medium pair and small/medium kicker in late position? You might say "yes" since if you make trips on 4th street that will be a strong hand. But you'll only make trips on the next card 1 in 21 tries, so that by itself isn't enough to justify the $1 expense of limping in, esp. since an unraised pot is likely to wind up being a small one. Your only other out, as well as being the most likely hand you'll catch, is two small pair--a death hand in any but the tightest 1-3 games. To sum it up, in my experience the absence of an ante in 1-3 makes it a game to be played very tightly at the start. As Ray Zee has posted somewhere, you must play 1-3 "so tight it hurts" if you want to beat it.


Where I think Roy West *is* too tight is in not discussing additional situational values, such as having a straight flush kicker to a small/medium pair, in which case the hand becomes playable in many situations. But if someone has additional examples of playable hands that West neglects (other than the small straight draw, which I completely agree is triple-cursed in virtually any size game), please cite them--I'd love to pick up some more hands to play at this limit.

Hello,Mr.RB,

You might obtain additional ideas in the advanced 7-card stud book by Mason,David,and Ray.

West's book is geared for the beginners who play 1-5 thru 10-20.

Looking at a live 2-flush with a small straight is an advanced concept.


Sitting Bull