Insane play

Is it ever correct to routinely raise back when your free card attempt is thwarted by a re-raise? And then to continue betting out or raising with nothing but a flush draw?


I see this on PP a lot with some of the rougher types. They built a nice pot but it seems a very expensive draw, with no other outs. Many do this. How is this possibly a good play against someone who is obviously not folding?


-AMD

If you're sure he doesnt fold, it would only be correct if you get imediate positive EV by raising (so enough callers of your raise). So you can endlessly raise a flushdraw (nut) on the flop if you get 2 or more callers.


Regards

If you have a nut flush draw on the flop and have 3 or more opponents it is usually correct to raise and reraise... as long as you will not lose any opponents.


Derrick

a (nut) flush draw against a set is about 3:1 against because you must complete your draw, AND you can't have the board pair.


So, it is sometimes only correct to ram and jam with 3 or more opponents.


And, it is only correct if your opponents will NOT fold.


Derrick

The advice given about jamming vs. many opponents with the nut flush draw on the flop is good, but does increase your variance.


However, even headsup, 4-betting the flop after your opponent spoiled your free card play by 3-betting, can be useful. It is basically a second attempt at a free card. Even though it costs you 3 more small bets than if you had just flat-called on the flop, it does save you 1 small bet vs. calling the 3-bet on the flop, then having to call a big bet on the turn. This assumes that your opponent will check the turn to you after you 4-bet.


But then, your question is why would you bet the turn if your flush doesn't hit, essentially giving up the value of the free-card play? Well, that depends. I think you should bet the turn if:


> You think the opponent only 3-bet because he read your first flop raise as a free-card play AND you think he'll lay down a hand like top pair-weak kicker if you bet the turn


OR


> You picked up another draw on the turn that you think would be good. Like a pair or a gutshot straight, etc. You're still hoping to win it right there, but at least you have additional outs.


OR


> The pot is so large (either many players folded on the flop and/or there were pre-flop raises) that it's worth a stab even if there is only a 10% chance that your opponent will fold.


Obviously, if all three are true, then I'll surely bet the turn. Otherwise, I'll just take the free card and cross my fingers for the flush on the river.

"a (nut) flush draw against a set is about 3:1 against because you must complete your draw, AND you can't have the board pair."


Yes, I kinda suspected this comment was coming, and my initial answer was a bit fast and incomplete. But I still think 2 callers is enough, IF you have not a very strong reason to believe a set is out. Because since a flushdraw is 1:1,9 and since raising will give other benefits also (like free card play, disguising your hand (and opponents misreading) etc) I think a tiny overlay is sufficient to cover those times when you're up against a set (I mean randomly, when you have no good reason to believe the set is out).


BTW a nut flush against a set is 1:2,6...(I think this makes a bit difference) you're just drawing a 7 outer to river.


"So, it is sometimes only correct to ram and jam with 3 or more opponents"


Yes, when you have a good reason to believe the set is out.


"And, it is only correct if your opponents will NOT fold. "


Yes, or if everyone will fold.


Regards