Ciaffone's PL and NL poker

[kurosh]

Everyone says this is a good book... but it recommends something horrid IMHO. It keeps saying you want to go all-in with big draws off the flop. That's HORRIBLE advice. It doesn't even mention pot odds regarding it. Do they want you to go in as an underdog??!

[grapes]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone says this is a good book... but it recommends something horrid IMHO. It keeps saying you want to go all-in with big draws off the flop. That's HORRIBLE advice. It doesn't even mention pot odds regarding it. Do they want you to go in as an underdog??!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree... I think you are misunderstanding what they meant and/or the reasoning behind it.

The idea, from my memory of the book, is that raising all-in is often preferable to making a smaller bet on the flop, for several reasons.

First, think about what likely happens on the turn if you still have chips: either your draw missed and you now have half the outs, and have little read on your opponent's hand if he just called the flop, OR you make your straight/flush but the board and your bet practically give away your hand. The idea applies more often to when you are in early position (position is even more crucial in big bet poker, but being all-in eliminates this disadvantage) and more to flush draws than straight draws (it's usually more obvious to opponents when you hit, so you're less likely to collect if/when you do hit).

The whole book seems to be geared to much tougher opposition than you see often see today, now that everyone plays NL... the type you would have seen in the higher limit cash games the authors talk about when the playing population was probably about 1% of what it is now. A lot of ideas, like this one, don't apply, or at least not as often, when your opponents call too much or otherwise make more mistakes.

The play is a semi-bluff, not a value bet. Their whole point is that you don't need nearly the pot odds you would to call all-in as you do to bet all-in. You are hoping (or indifferent) your opponent(s) folds, but still have a good chance to table the best hand if you do get called.

I've also heard only good things about this book from others - until recently, it was the only book on big bet games that I thought was worth having.

[BradleyT]

Big Bet Poker != Party NL. You don't have much fold equity at the party lower limit games.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone says this is a good book... but it recommends something horrid IMHO. It keeps saying you want to go all-in with big draws off the flop. That's HORRIBLE advice. It doesn't even mention pot odds regarding it. Do they want you to go in as an underdog??!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall the passage you refer to. I do know that SuperSystem advocates playing draws strongly against players who can lay down a hand. Two ways to win - they fold or you hit.

In addition, the big draws are favorites with 2 cards to come. A 15 out straight + flush draw has a 54% chance to get there with 2 cards to come. A pair + flush draw has 14 outs. 14 outs is 50% with 2 to come. Something like KQ diamonds with a board of Jd Td blank could have 21 outs (2 overs + flush + straight). Big favorite to hit with 2 to come.

As I recall, Ciaffone advocates betting the non-nut draws on the flop (under the 2 ways to win theory), and seeing the turn with the nut draws (where you might make some money with flush over flush for example).

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone says this is a good book... but it recommends something horrid IMHO. It keeps saying you want to go all-in with big draws off the flop. That's HORRIBLE advice. It doesn't even mention pot odds regarding it. Do they want you to go in as an underdog??!

[/ QUOTE ]
This is also Doyle's advice in SuperSystem. True you may be a dog, but ONLY IF YOU GET CALLED. You have two chances to win the pot. Either suck out or he may fold right there.

[spadeclub99]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone says this is a good book... but it recommends something horrid IMHO. It keeps saying you want to go all-in with big draws off the flop. That's HORRIBLE advice. It doesn't even mention pot odds regarding it. Do they want you to go in as an underdog??!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is also Doyle's advice in SuperSystem. True you may be a dog, but ONLY IF YOU GET CALLED. You have two chances to win the pot. Either suck out or he may fold right there.


[/ QUOTE ]

It also sets up the same move when you flop a set. You are much more likely to get action b/c your opponents have to consider that you are drawing and do not have a made hand.

[Beavis68]

The reason for it is that with two cards to come, these big draws are ~50/50 or a favorite against most hands, and at worst a 1:2 dog.

[Daliman]

It seems all the other posts have the right idea. You are specifically looking to get people to fold and take it down on the flop, but with an uberdraw, you are rarely in bad shape even if he does call.

[kurosh]

Well he's not just talking about big draws. He says even just a plain flush draw is fine. He doesn't make it clear enough that a lot of your equity is from the other player folding. Massive overbets with only a flush draw is begging to be called by made hands that kill you.

[Beavis68]

I don't remember that, do you have the page numbers? I remember a flush and two ovecards, but not just a flush.

To tell you the truth though, I really didn't think the book was very good. Very little info and poorly written. It does leave a lot to the reader to figure out.

And who the hell play london lowball?

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Well he's not just talking about big draws. He says even just a plain flush draw is fine. He doesn't make it clear enough that a lot of your equity is from the other player folding. Massive overbets with only a flush draw is begging to be called by made hands that kill you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read the book?

Chapter 8 is about drawing hands exclusively. He opens the chapter with an example. You have QJ of clubs. Flop comes Ks8c6c. $100 in pot. Someone bets the pot on the flop. He advises a fold, and gives several reasons for it. See p. 27. So, no, he does not advocate betting/raising the flop with any old flush draw.

He then goes on to discuss what types of draws he likes to bet on P.28-29. He specifically states, "At big bet poker, such a wager gives us a good chance to win the pot right there." I don't know how much clearer he can be about the fold equity of these bets.

Please refrain from making wildly inaccurate, overbroad generalizations about a book you apparently have not read.

[kurosh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well he's not just talking about big draws. He says even just a plain flush draw is fine. He doesn't make it clear enough that a lot of your equity is from the other player folding. Massive overbets with only a flush draw is begging to be called by made hands that kill you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read the book?

Chapter 8 is about drawing hands exclusively. He opens the chapter with an example. You have QJ of clubs. Flop comes Ks8c6c. $100 in pot. Someone bets the pot on the flop. He advises a fold, and gives several reasons for it. See p. 27. So, no, he does not advocate betting/raising the flop with any old flush draw.

He then goes on to discuss what types of draws he likes to bet on P.28-29. He specifically states, "At big bet poker, such a wager gives us a good chance to win the pot right there." I don't know how much clearer he can be about the fold equity of these bets.

Please refrain from making wildly inaccurate, overbroad generalizations about a book you apparently have not read.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I haven't read the book. I touched it and suddenly gained all the knowledge.

I'm referring to page 69.

"Of course, anyone can see when the fourth street card makes a possible flush. If you get only a portion of your stack into the pot on the flop, there is a strong possibility your opponent will make the correct play on fourth street. If you make your flush, he'll dump his hand. If you miss, he will charge you a very steep price to continue to draw at the last card. We'll talk more about this a little later."

THAT is what I'm referring to.

[Beavis68]

The paragraph above that one talks about backing the "right" kind of draw, the paragraph below talks about having a pair and a flush draw or an OESD and a flush draw.

He also says that a flush draw will usually be
'part" of your draw, not the entire draw.

[binions]

Sounds like someone skipped the drawing hands chapter and went straight to the hold'em chapter.

I think the authors put the chapters in order for a reason, and when discussing drawing hands in the holdem chapter, assume you read the previous chapter on drawing hands.

At least you now admit that you haven't read the book you criticize.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
"Of course, anyone can see when the fourth street card makes a possible flush. If you get only a portion of your stack into the pot on the flop, there is a strong possibility your opponent will make the correct play on fourth street. If you make your flush, he'll dump his hand. If you miss, he will charge you a very steep price to continue to draw at the last card. We'll talk more about this a little later."

THAT is what I'm referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's discussing the disadvantage of playing draws out of position. The point is to illustrate why you normally fold them preflop from up front. It also illustrates why you are best being allin on the flop with a big draw rather than being out of position with a large part of your stack already in the pot seeing the turn.