Just a bad beat right?

[Sarge85]

Party .50/1.00

Don't think I did anything incorrect here, but I'd like to know if there was anything I should have done differently.

I'm on the button with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifK /images/graemlins/heart.gif

2 Limpers to me, I raise, both blind calls.

Flop A /images/graemlins/spade.gif4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Checked to me I bet, SB calls, BB Check Raises, LP calls, I re-raise all call.

Turn K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Check to LP who comes alive and bets. I raise we loose one others just call

River 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Check to LP who bets. I just call (not sure what BB has)

Comments?
LP turns over K /images/graemlins/spade.gif6 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Tosh]

I think you played fine. I wouldn't call it a bad beat though, he made a poor pf call but did flop the nut flush draw.

[Sarge85]

He called 2 cold on the flop... I'm not an odds guy, but doesnt this wreck his pot odds for calling here.

I generally won't call two in this situation, if I'm him...am I wrong?

[Ed Miller]

I generally won't call two in this situation, if I'm him...am I wrong?

Very wrong. If you flop a four flush, you should see the river with it over 95% of the time. Throwing away flush draws will cost you some pretty big money.

[crockpot]

when it gets to him, there are 14 small bets in the pot, and two people will almost surely call behind him making it 16. it costs him 2 bets to call, 7:1 current odds and probably better if two call behind him. even in the worst-case scenario where you reraise, SB folds and BB caps, he will still get 19:4, better than the 4.1:1 he needs to call with the nut flush draw.

if you automatically fold a four flush for two cold bets on the flop, you aren't correctly incorporating the size of the pot into how you play a hand. of course, it helps that he is drawing to the nuts; i might fold a very low flush draw here. i have an essay on considering the pot size at my website, and Mason Malmuth has written some excellent stuff on it in his Poker Essays books. you should know to always consider the odds you're getting, especially with a drawing hand.

[Sarge85]

My confidence is shaken.....

I check-raised the flop to, as the mantra goes, to charge as much for the flush draw as possible.

Now if I'm not able to manipulate the odds enough to get those draws to fold, should I back off?

BTW - Was Checking-raising here "status-quo" or do should I just bet out?

[pudley4]

These two things (charging the draws the max and them calling) are not mutually exclusive. Making him call 2 bets on the flop does cut down his odds, but doesn't cut them down enough to make him incorrect in calling.

You played it perfectly.

LP played it ok - his initial preflop limp was slightly loose, but he has to call the single raise back to him. Then he flops the 4-flush, so he's in to the river.

PS You didn't check-raise the flop, you (correctly) bet and 3-bet it.

[ramjam]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
I check-raised the flop to, as the mantra goes, to charge as much for the flush draw as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

You bet and 3-bet, not check-raised.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Now if I'm not able to manipulate the odds enough to get those draws to fold, should I back off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally, no. If you were HU with the flush draw, you would be about 2/1 on to win the hand - therefore, although the pot is big enough for the draw to have odds to call you, you make about a 1/3 profit on every dollar you put into the pot. Multiway, you're still the relative favourite to win the hand and should be putting money in on the same principle - but if there are two or more other parties calling, the flush draw will also be making money (but making it from those with top-pair-worse-kicker, middle/bottom pair, gusthots, backdoor draws, etc). Multiway you're not charging the flush draw anything - you and he are charging everybody else. I would suggest re-reading the relevant chapters of TOP.

The only strategy change to consider is in some circumstances smooth-calling the flop so that you get the chance to raise the turn if the flush card doesn't come and there's not heavy action in front of you. See HPFAP pp 170-171.

[Sarge85]

Opps thinking of a different hand...I wasn't in position to check-raise here.

--

The other points are well taken.

--

I'm a bit curious on his play on the turn. He came out firing. Trying to get into my opponnents head here - what do you suppose he's thinking?

My guess is that he fealt he had even more outs when the King hit, either that he would be ahead if another King hit, his kicker, and of course his flush draw.

Comments on his play?

[Ed Miller]

I check-raised the flop to, as the mantra goes, to charge as much for the flush draw as possible.

This "charge the flush draws" mantra has annoyed me for a year and a half now. As ramjam accurately noted, there is virtually no situation on the flop where you are in a multiway pot and raising to "charge the flush draws." When the flush draw gets multiway action, it makes money on the bets going in just like you do (at the expense of those calling with weaker made hands and weaker draws).

I'm not 100% sure where this idea first appeared, but I think I know. It does not appear in 2+2 books... but it does appear almost word-for-word in a popular book on low-limit hold 'em of suspect quality.

This single line has caused more confusion on this forum than any other "concept" in poker:

1) Apparently you have concluded that if you are "charged too much" with your flush draw, you should fold
2) Others have concluded that it is correct always to play a flush draw passively to avoid being "charged"
3) Still others put in silly 3-bets and 4-bets on the flop (in situations where their winning chances are dubious) because they are deathly afraid of "failing to charge the flush draws." Ironically, the 3- and 4-bets are often better for the flush draws than the player making them.

Because pots are so big before the flop in limit hold 'em, anyone who flops ANY flush draw is usually correct to see both the turn and river almost no matter what. Virtually the only situations where it is correct to dump the flush draw is if it is CLEAR that someone already has you drawing dead. This is if the board is DOUBLE (not single) paired on the turn and there is heavy action, or if there are trips on board. You have to be quite sure that you are drawing dead, though, because the pot is typically very large. This gives you a massive overlay to draw to your nine outs. Folding when you "think he might" have a boat can be very expensive.

This means that flush draws are very easy to play... and play against. If you are playing a flush draw, you usually should play aggressively for the first bet or two on the flop, for various reasons. Otherwise, you are calling all bets until the river. Thus, when you are playing against a flush draw, he is your companion to the river. If it gets there, he wins. If it doesn't, you win. There is nothing you can do to get him out, so don't worry about him. Your job is to protect your hand from the people with bottom pair, gutshots, backdoor draws, etc. whom you can force out.

Everybody... for my sanity... please stop "charging the flush draws." It is not a helpful concept, and you guys interpret it in funny ways that lead you to make significant errors.

[Tosh]

Well said major.

[Sarge85]

Excellent, and I certain have a better understanding. Your reply should be a stand alone post somewhere.

Thanks for responding.

[Dylan Wade]

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, the 3- and 4-bets are often better for the flush draws than the player making them.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly

[harboral]

This is a very clear point that has just been made - the ONLY time you can chage a flush or straight draw is when you are head-up, and even then it is close. I believe this point is stressed in Doyle's book - in the NL section, and many readers in the early 1980's (and maybe now also) read the NL and the Limit sections and got some ideas crossed. If you are playing NL and there is a flush or st8 draw out there, you make a bet at least 2x the pot size to leave poor odds for the other players in the pot with you - this does not happen in Limit.

[William Wilson]

I have to question this "charge the flush draws" annoyance. Let me know if I'm wrong here.

Doesn't this pertain to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker? If you raise so your opponent is paying too much to ride out a flush draw, then you've gained. That's TOP, if I'm not mistaken.

If I'm playing 5/10, and the pot is $20, and I have top pair (say the Aces from an earlier example) UTG on the flop against a possible flush draw on the button, I'll raise because the pot will have to be $50 for him to correctly call the $10 bet.

If I just call, he's got great odds to call the flush and could possibly raise to get a free card if everyone else calls.

What's wrong with this strategy? I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I really want to know if I've misunderstood.

[William Wilson]

As Kong pointed out privately (thanks), a raise UTG is impossible, so my above scenario must be adjusted accordingly.

[Ocho]

Thank you major!!! Excellent post.
I agree with Sarge this definitely deserves to be a stand alone post, if not added to the 2+2 essay list.

[sublime]

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
If you raise so your opponent is paying too much to ride out a flush draw, then you've gained.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is correct but I believe his point was (please feel free to correct me when I'm wrong) that you can very rarely make it enough bets in limit hold'em to make it incorrect for the flush draws to call. Pot-limit or NL is a different story but I agree that this concept is focused on too much in limit. If you have the best hand you almost always do want to "charge" all drawing hands but that doesn't mean you will make it incorrect for them to call. Also as was pointed out, if it is a multiway pot (with 5-6 players for example) all bets going into the pot are probably helping your opponent with the nut flush draw more than you with top pair. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't bet into him as it is +EV for both of you and -EV for the other callers playing lower pairs, top pair weak kicker, worse flush draws, etc.

[chief444]

To avoid confusion for anyone unsure about this concept...This is absolutely true but does NOT mean that 3- and 4-bets are bad for the player making them if they do have the best hand or even another good drawing hand that would give them the best hand. It just means that it is good for both you and the best flush draw. It is bad for the others calling down with 2nd best hands and few outs to improve.

It is almost always a bad thing for you to let weaker hands see a free card unless you have a legit slow-playing hand or are sure you can check/raise.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I check-raised the flop to, as the mantra goes, to charge as much for the flush draw as possible.

This "charge the flush draws" mantra has annoyed me for a year and a half now.

I'm not 100% sure where this idea first appeared, but I think I know. It does not appear in 2+2 books... but it does appear almost word-for-word in a popular book on low-limit hold 'em of suspect quality.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Ed, if you're going to say something like this go ahead and identify the book please. Some of us may be relying on it. I know, that may feel unseemly, and I don't know if for some reason its bad to offend other authors, but my feeling is if you're going to voluntarily wade into a subject either give us advice that helps us or leave it alone.

I immediately assumed you were talking about a low limit hold em book I have, because I'm not familiar with any other books specifically aimed at low limit and because that book fequently gets dissed around here.

However, going back and looking at that book I can't find that phrase in it. (I didn't re-read it word for word just looked at the places I thought that phrase would be likely to come up.) Since that book seems to say the right things about playing against flush draws I'm not sure if I've just missed the phrase in it somewhere or you are talking about another book.

You get a ton of respect around here, including from me. If you are in fact saying that a book on low limit hold em that I think is pretty solid, is actually "suspect" I'd really like to know.

--Zetack

[blackaces13]

Limping in LP with a suited king isn't that bad PF is it? I often limp with such hands in Party .5-1. Granted he was the second one in the pot which isn't so great but if he can reasonably expect the button and both blinds to come along without a raise then I think he's gettting his money's worth here.

[blackaces13]

The book he speaks of is obvious. However, I feel that this book gets a bad wrap here because the author NEVER says that you are making it incorrect for the flush draws to continue or that they should fold. In fact, the author does specifically state that the lessor draws and lower pairs are "subsidizing you both". This appears on Page 87 of the text in question.

However, the idea of "charging the flush draws" isn't really THAT bad because there is less than a 50% chance of the flush draw getting there. So the more you pump the pot the more you stand to make in the long run, its the opposite of giving a free card. So you're not charging him to get him out or make it wrong for him to call, more bets are good for both of you, as is stated in the book I speak of. However, since the flush will only hit 35% of the time why not have a bigger pot for yourself when it doesn't hit. You're charging the calling stations, it benefits the both of you.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Limping in LP with a suited king isn't that bad PF is it? I often limp with such hands in Party .5-1. Granted he was the second one in the pot which isn't so great but if he can reasonably expect the button and both blinds to come along without a raise then I think he's gettting his money's worth here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is. You're making a lot of assumptions if you are counting on every remaining player to come in.

Also, even if you have the requisite limpers already in, I've been thinking about K-x suited a lot since Joe Tall mentioned in a post that he doesn't play it. And the more I think about it, the more I think that A-x suited is much better than K-x suited. So give me a real good reason to jump in with K-x suited--like a lot of limpers.

--Zetack

[blackaces13]

I look at it this way, and I'm sure this a BAD way to look at it but I'm good at rationalizing things to myself that may be harmful. Unless someone in the hand has the ace of your suit AND has another card of that suit in their hand, then Kxs IS Axs. As long as we're agreeing that almost all the value of the hand comes from flushdraws or 2-pair or better.

The more I think about it the less that makes sense since there could be a 4-flush on the board. However I still think Kxs has a lot of value in LL hold 'em. And it is true that unless another player has Axs in your suit, which is very rare, then your hand is ALMOST like having Axs.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
The book he speaks of is obvious. However, I feel that this book gets a bad wrap here because the author NEVER says that you are making it incorrect for the flush draws to continue or that they should fold. In fact, the author does specifically state that the lessor draws and lower pairs are "subsidizing you both". This appears on Page 87 of the text in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I read that when looking for the charging the flush draws language. Do you see that anywhere in this book? So it is the one that Ed is saying is suspect?

--Zetack

Oh, wait, he says: "A player who calls your bets or raises when he has flopped four to a flush is not making a mistake. However, if you check and let him draw at his flush for free you are giving him infinite odds on his draw...which is far better for him than your charging him a bet for his draw." WLLHE p. 86-87 (italics in original, bold added).

Damn, I guess this is the book Ed is talking about.

[blackaces13]

Yeah, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence IMO. Hence the bum wrap I think that line gets.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I look at it this way, and I'm sure this a BAD way to look at it but I'm good at rationalizing things to myself that may be harmful. Unless someone in the hand has the ace of your suit AND has another card of that suit in their hand, then Kxs IS Axs. As long as we're agreeing that almost all the value of the hand comes from flushdraws or 2-pair or better.

The more I think about it the less that makes sense since there could be a 4-flush on the board. However I still think Kxs has a lot of value in LL hold 'em. And it is true that unless another player has Axs in your suit, which is very rare, then your hand is ALMOST like having Axs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but given that almost all of its value comes from its flush potential, you really need the players in to make shooting at the flush worthwhile.

Also, with these long shot hands, the more good longshot things you can add to the main one, the better. A-x makes two straights instead of one and one of em is the nuts and if your kicker is 2-5 then an A-5 straight is very likely to be the best straight too. (If you think this isn't worth something, well I lost twice last night with KK when the final board had 2-5 on it, and one of my opponents in each hand had a random ace.) And pairing your ace is just flat out better than pairing your king, and two pair will probably be top 2 pair.

Oh, and you already covered this, but K-x suited is vulnerable to a four flush on the board.

And this may be seldom applicable point in micro, but Ace high is a way better finishing hand than king high.

--Zetack

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence IMO. Hence the bum wrap I think that line gets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps Ed's saying the book is just generally lousy, not specifically in respect to flush draws.

--Zetack

[blackaces13]

Excellent points Zetack, I'm reconsidering how much I value Kxs as we speak. Good post.

[chief444]

I agree.

Your betting is correct as is his calling. His calling being correct does NOT mean you should not bet. That was the original question that started this whole "charging the draw" portion of the thread. I've never read any book that recommends otherwise and the quote from that book listed is certainly not what I would consider bad information.

[jedi]

Okay, let me try to summarize Majorkong's essay in my own words. (Feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted this).

When you have a made hand vs. a flush draw, you're not betting to charge the flush draws. You're betting to put more money in the pot with the best of it. The flush draw is also putting more money in the pot with the 2nd best of it and both of you are making money off of the people with weaker hands and weaker draws (bottom pair or weaker flush draw for example). Either way, both of you have the most equity in the pot, followed by the other players who will be paying one of you off.

[blackaces13]

Jedi,

As I see it that's it, you nailed it. But now let me let the cat out of the bag and say that WLLHE says this too. If people misinterpret it and think that book is telling you to make the flush draw fold or make the flush draw incorrect in calling then that is the reader's fault. The book simply does not list those as reasons to bet or raise against a likely draw.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Jedi,

As I see it that's it, you nailed it. But now let me let the cat out of the bag and say that WLLHE says this too. If people misinterpret it and think that book is telling you to make the flush draw fold or make the flush draw incorrect in calling then that is the reader's fault. The book simply does not list those as reasons to bet or raise against a likely draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a follow up. The original poster played the hand correctly, but NOT for the reasons he thought. He played the hand correctly because he was getting his money in with the best of it, but not because he was "charging the flush draw." This sounds like an example where you can play a hand correctly for the completely wrong reasons, right?

As with many of us here, I think we're trying to understand the reasons behind certain moves that should or shouldn't be made, not just to learn the moves themselves.

[chief444]

True. There are times (with enough opponents) when the nut flush draw will even be a favorite to take the pot in the end. I agree completely with Majorkong's logic (as always) but also agree with blackaces that the information in the book in question is not incorrect but the interpretation often is. I do agree though that "charging the flush draw" isn't the best terminology and this seems to be confusing to many. It's actually ok to look at it that way sometimes but with that terminology many people can't seem to understand that both the best hand at the moment and the nut flush draw want as much money going in as possible with enough callers. I think we're all saying the same thing but just wording it differently. Hopefully someone has benefitted from this. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
The original poster played the hand correctly, but NOT for the reasons he thought. He played the hand correctly because he was getting his money in with the best of it, but not because he was "charging the flush draw."

[/ QUOTE ]

He played the hand well because he was charging everyone else in the hand with lessor draws and lessor hands. Also, even though the Flush draw was benefitting from the bets going in on the flop as well. On the turn the flush draw is not benefitting as much from additional bets anymore because his odds of hitting are lower now than they were on the flop. On the turn hero really is charging the flush draw because the Flush draw would rather have the turn checked. Sometimes you really can "charge a flush draw", especially on the turn with 2 opponents. Here he's not getting the 4:1 he needs in bets on the turn, hes getting only 2:1. So as I see it, on the turn the flush draw is being slightly "charged".

[Ed Miller]

Oh, wait, he says: "A player who calls your bets or raises when he has flopped four to a flush is not making a mistake. However, if you check and let him draw at his flush for free you are giving him infinite odds on his draw...which is far better for him than your charging him a bet for his draw." WLLHE p. 86-87 (italics in original, bold added).

This passage is wrong because it implies that someone who flops a flush draw on the button should check if it is checked to him. That is usually not the case.

If he had said that about a GUTSHOT draw, or BOTTOM PAIR, then I wouldn't argue. But when he says it about a flush draw, he has it wrong.

[Ed Miller]

Yeah, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence IMO. Hence the bum wrap I think that line gets.

Actually, that whole passage is wrong. He's saying that someone who flopped a flush draw should call all bets, but be glad if no bets go in on the flop. That's just totally wrong. It's not partially wrong, and I'm not nit-picking. It is, at its core, incorrect.

[Ed Miller]

He played the hand well because he was charging everyone else in the hand with lessor draws and lessor hands. Also, even though the Flush draw was benefitting from the bets going in on the flop as well. On the turn the flush draw is not benefitting as much from additional bets anymore because his odds of hitting are lower now than they were on the flop. On the turn hero really is charging the flush draw because the Flush draw would rather have the turn checked. Sometimes you really can "charge a flush draw", especially on the turn with 2 opponents. Here he's not getting the 4:1 he needs in bets on the turn, hes getting only 2:1. So as I see it, on the turn the flush draw is being slightly "charged".

It does sound like you understand the principle.

[Ed Miller]

Perhaps Ed's saying the book is just generally lousy, not specifically in respect to flush draws.

I am not saying that. WLLH is a great book for people that are just starting to play poker seriously. It will take a rank beginner and improve his winrate (or reduce his lossrate, rather) dramatically. I recommend the book.

But just because I recommend the book does not mean that I endorse all of the advice. There are some specific strategic suggestions that are flat out wrong, and there is also some fuzzy thinking. One example is what he says about flush draws. He seems to get it right in some places, but wrong in others.

IMO, it is particularly bad to be fuzzy about this sort of thing in a book aimed specifically at low-limit games. Ideas about pot equity and betting draws for value mean most when the game is loose. There are also other spots in the book where he gets advice wrong that is particularly wrong for low-limit games (i.e., the advice would be bad for mid-limit, but it is even worse for low-limit). Most of the numerous places that he recommends that you check the turn with a weak made hand fall under this category.

Lee Jones seems like a good guy, and his book is a great one that has helped countless people. But the best advice in that book is his most basic advice. When he tries to get more advanced, he gets it wrong frequently.

[Ed Miller]

And it is true that unless another player has Axs in your suit, which is very rare, then your hand is ALMOST like having Axs.

This is TOTALLY wrong. I address this specific misconception in my book.

[sublime]

what is the tenative DD for your book?

[Ed Miller]

what is the tenative DD for your book?

Late June

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, wait, he says: "A player who calls your bets or raises when he has flopped four to a flush is not making a mistake. However, if you check and let him draw at his flush for free you are giving him infinite odds on his draw...which is far better for him than your charging him a bet for his draw." WLLHE p. 86-87 (italics in original, bold added).

This passage is wrong because it implies that someone who flops a flush draw on the button should check if it is checked to him. That is usually not the case.

If he had said that about a GUTSHOT draw, or BOTTOM PAIR, then I wouldn't argue. But when he says it about a flush draw, he has it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

Look I like his book. It gave me a very good foundation when I was starting out jumping from a computer program to playing for play money. So I both wonder about the criticism of his book and wish people would be explicit about it, because his were the first guidelines I learned, to the extent they're flawed I may have fundamental flaws deep in my basic assumptions abou the game.

In his defense, the section above is about when you hit very strong hand and not about playing the flush draw, and is actually in response to the complaint of some players that betting and raising won't get out the guy on the flush draw.

He does make it clear in the section on playing when you flop a flush draw that you should bet if checked to, and if you have the requisite number of opponents your only concern should be getting the maximum number of bets in the pot. So I personally never picked up on the implication you've found.

I do find his caveat, that if your flush draw isn't to the nuts, though, that you want to be calling bets and raises and not putting them in yourself too weak...although it does fit into his premium hand philosophy of low limit poker.

Geez, now I sound like an apologist for Lee Jones. Maybe its simply because, although I feel like my game has expanded since when I first started and his book was my guidebook, I'm not bright enough to pick out the problems in it for myself so it makes me feel dumb when people criticize it--particularly when they just criticize it in a general way.

--Zetack

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
This is TOTALLY wrong. I address this specific misconception in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I look forward to that. I'm fairly new to poker so I welcome being told why I'm wrong. I'll keep throwing it out there and you keep telling me why it aint so. Everybody wins. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
It does sound like you understand the principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this sarcasm? I personally do think I understand the concept but if I don't then let me know about it. I can handle the truth.

[Ed Miller]

Is this sarcasm?

No way. I think you understand the principle. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I may be blunt sometimes, but I try not to be snide. I'm really just trying to help.

[StellarWind]

The reason you should avoid 72s is not because the resulting flushes get cracked by bigger flushes. It is because flush potential is almost never enough to pay the bills. Axs needs to scratch and claw its way to +EV by winning hands every way possible. Having Kxs instead hurts you in many ways:

1. Not improving and losing to someone's high card ace.

2. Making a pair of kings and having an overcard ace appear on the board.

3. Making two pair and losing to aces up.

4. You have K5s and make trip fives. You lose to A5.

5. You can't make a wheel.

6. Yeah, losing to an ace-high flush, often with extra flush-suit cards on the board. Somewhat unusual but very expensive.

This list could go on for a while. #2 is by far the worst, but the point is that wherever you go with Kxs, you find aces ripping off your pots. It really adds up. You don't just lose the profits from these pots, you also lose the money you spent playing them, the value bets/raises you don't make because you don't trust your hand, and the winning hands you fold because you don't trust your hand.

The only good thing about Kx vs. Ax is that fewer people play kings. It matters somewhat less that your kicker is no good.

[blackaces13]

Again, excellent points. I'm glad I brought it up because obviously I was placing too much value on suited kings and not thinking it through thoroughly enough.

Thanks for the post, it makes a lot of sense.

[Felipe]

[ QUOTE ]
I generally won't call two in this situation, if I'm him...am I wrong?

Very wrong. If you flop a four flush, you should see the river with it over 95% of the time. Throwing away flush draws will cost you some pretty big money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? I'd think if its capped at the flop, then flush draws should exit stage left!!! Why should I stay if the odds do not justify it? Or am I overlooking the implied odds?

Felipe

[Felipe]

never mind! I read it above. Thanks Ed.

[cnfuzzd]

New computer is coming in, so i have to send all my favorites to myself, came across this. BUMP IT UP BABY!!!

peace

john nickle

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, wait, he says: "A player who calls your bets or raises when he has flopped four to a flush is not making a mistake. However, if you check and let him draw at his flush for free you are giving him infinite odds on his draw...which is far better for him than your charging him a bet for his draw." WLLHE p. 86-87 (italics in original, bold added).

This passage is wrong because it implies that someone who flops a flush draw on the button should check if it is checked to him. That is usually not the case.


[/ QUOTE ]

This thread was linked to from another, and I wanted to post a hand which I thought was interesting last night.

3/6 B&amp;M casino. Players are mostly loose passive (with an exception or 3). The table is 9 handed.

Jedi is BB with Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif.

There are 4 other limpers in the hand, plus the small blind. Button-2 is agressive, has fairly loose starting requirements. Button is fishy, will play anything that looks pretty and is pretty passive, though he'll gamble it up if everyone else is already.

(6 small bets)
Flop comes 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif3 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. I have top pair, flush draw.

SB checks. I bet, 2 callers, Button-2 raises. Button calls, SB folds. I reraise, 2 cold-callers. Button-2 calls, Button now caps. All call.

(13 big bets now)

Turn: 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

I bet out, get 3 callers this time. (Button-2 and button)

(17 big bets)

River: T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

I bet, 1 call. Button-2 calls, Button Raises. I re-raise. The other 2 fold and button calls me down.

I show my hand. Button shows J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif for a lower flush. Button-2 shoots me a dirty look: "You were behind the whole way. I had A9."

Even if I knew what he had, did I play this poorly? I don't think I did. I built the pot with top pair, decent kicker (button-2 would raise with 9T in this spot) and a flush draw. While I might not have chosen to play this hand in early position, I didn't have much of a choice with the free look in the BB. I did what I could and caught 1 of my (as it turned out) 10 outs.

[Greg J]

I think all the new posters should read this. This did quite a bit to open my eyes when I first read it.

[Greg J]

Nice hand.

[LethalRose]

Any thoughts on Jedi's hand? I felt he played it fine.

[NateDog]

Great post

[ojc02]

LP has the equity to cap the flop, with 4 ppl in RAISING has greater EV than calling in this situation, folding in his situation would be absolute lunacy.

Calling was the correct move intially because he doesnt want to drive out hero and SB but he should definitely have capped for value when it got back to him.

[NAU_Player]

bumpage

read the 10th post. add it to your favorites. just remember, Ed Miller is your hero.

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]
bumpage

read the 10th post. add it to your favorites. just remember, Ed Miller is your hero.

[/ QUOTE ]

pwnt...

[droolie]

*This is a crosspost from another thread*

There is a such thing as charging flush draws!

This thread has begun to take things the other direction and the growing idea that someone might think there is no such thing as charging flush draws bugs me. The time to charge flush draws is on the turn when they aren't making money off all the bets that are going into the pot like they are on the flop. With multiway action on the flop all the money that goes in profits flush draws. It is therefore true that you are not charging them anything as they are in fact profitting. This is not necessarily the case when the pot is HU or on the turn ie when the action is HU, 3-way or even 4-way. At this point flush draws would love to see the river cheaply or for free. They aren't folding due to the pot odds but they don't want to put any money in unless the action is 3-way or better on the flop or 5-way or better on the turn. When they don't profit charge 'em I say! Charge 'em!

[mvoss]

I'd bet the turn, but the c/r looks got too. I'd also just call the river.

[tor]

*grunching*

I think you played it fine.

[TomBrooks]

I think you played that correctly Jedi.

Here's a hand I played last night in which I had A /images/graemlins/club.gif 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif for the nut flush draw and some top pair chances. I pumped the flop and checked the turn with the intention of checkraising as I had picked up a gutshot there.

Had I not picked up the gutshot, I figure I would have needed all 3 callers to justify adding to the pot as I would be about a 3.5 to 1 dog, right? With the gutshot 2 callers looks +EV to me as I figure about 14 1/2 outs making me just over a 2 to 1 dog. A T on the river could give AK or K9 a higher straight though.

Along the lines of the Original Post, from the point of view of BB who had J /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif for a set, should he not have 3-bet the turn with the likely best hand at that time? He'd be giving the next two players 7 1/2 to 1 to call, good enough for OESDs, but not gutshots. Then again, if he did that he would run the risk of me capping, which I would do if he didn't fold both the other players. Should that matter to him, or should he reraise with the likely best hand at that time?

Party 0.5/1 Hold'em (8 handed)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A/images/graemlins/club.gif, 9/images/graemlins/club.gif.
UTG calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP1 raises</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Hero calls, BB calls, UTG calls.

Flop: (8 SB) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif, Q/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, MP1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, BB calls, UTG calls, MP1 calls.

Turn: (10 BB) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, UTG calls, MP1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, BB calls, UTG calls, MP1 calls.

River: (18 BB) 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, UTG calls, MP1 calls, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 21 BB

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
BB has Jc Jd (three of a kind, jacks).
UTG has Qh Ad (one pair, queens).
MP1 has 9d 9h (one pair, nines).
Outcome: BB wins 21 BB. </font>