William Wilson
01-03-2004, 04:33 AM
Buried in an earlier thread, Major discussed his annoyance with people "charging" flush draws. This led to an interesting email exhange between he and I concerning the subject. We decided it would be good for the forum.
What follows is the original post, my original reply, and most of the emails that followed:
[ 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. 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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) 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A flush draw is correct to call in your example, even if he isn't getting 5-to-1 pot odds. That is because he can expect to collect bets after he makes his hand. It is also because he can expect to call only $10 again on the turn, where he will be getting significantly better than 5-to-1 odds. He can take slightly the worst of it now because he knows that he will likely be getting significantly the best of it on fourth street.
A four flush on the flop has a 35% chance of completing his draw by the river. So with two other players in the pot on the flop (which there have to be for there to be a bet and a raise), the flush draw is actually very slightly making money on the flop action. This would be true without question if he never had to call a bet on the turn when he misses. When there may be turn action, this is not quite true anymore. But it is close.
Basically, since a flush draw gets there so often, and since it will collect some bets after it gets there, it is almost impossible to construct an example in limit hold 'em where a flush draw actually should fold (assuming that all of his outs are clean). And when the pot is multiway, the flush draw is perfectly happy to see action on the flop... he makes money from all the people in there with weak draws and made hands.
Occasionally a situation may come up where a flush draw is "paying" on the flop. But when it is paying, it isn't paying much. And usually the flush draw (especially if it comes with an overcard or other value) is making money on the flop action.
On the other hand, it is crucial that you make the people with weak draws and made hands "pay." These guys tend to be taking significantly the worst of it on all action, and giving them cheap cards to beat you is what costs you pots. There's nothing you can do about the flush draws... they will come, and they are supposed to. You can force the weak draws to fold... it's important to do that.
A final point, it is correct to protect your hand more aggressively when there is a two flush on board than when it is rainbow. But it's not because you need to "make flush draws pay." Instead, it's because you need to make BACKDOOR flushes pay. You can't give cheap cards to hands like the lone ace of trump.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're speaking of implied odds, right? Would you keep calling when it's capped to the river with nothing but a flush draw? And I assume you bail as soon as the board pairs, is this correct?
Also, just to be clear, you agree with being aggressive with top pair against a flush board, just not the idea of charging any two-flushes? I don't see any practical difference here?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a practical matter, you should not fold a flush draw before the river. This includes when the betting starts to get heavy and when the board pairs once. You call when the betting starts to get heavy because usually it will stop. You can't know that the turn is going to be 5-bet when you are still calling bet #2. You call when the board pairs once because the pot is typically large, so you have an overlay even if you are drawing dead some of the time.
Again, you can construct situations where the flush draw needs to fold. But 90%+ of the time in real poker situations, the flush draw should keep coming.
When there is a two-flush on board, you are very vulnerable the 1/24th of the time that the turn and river are both of that suit. You need to do what you can to protect your hand against those that might beat you if that happens. This has nothing to do with "charging" someone who flopped a four-flush.
To prove that, say you are the one who flopped the four-flush with a hand like 87s. You should play aggressively because you want hands like the lone ace or king of your suit to fold. When they fold, you save the pot for yourself the times when both the turn and river are of your suit. Here you are, the flush draw, and you are "charging" the backdoor flushers.
The practical difference is this. If you don't expect your raise to force anyone to fold, then you no longer need to keep pushing marginal hands on the flop. Say you have AJ on the button, and there are two limpers to you. You raise, and both blinds and the limpers call. Five-handed for two bets each. The flop is JT7 with a two flush (you don't have the ace of that suit). The small blind bets, and everyone calls to you. You should just call. You have no reason at all to be aggressive here. You likely have the best hand now, but your hand is very vulnerable. Your raise will not force anyone to fold... anyone who called one bet and has a reasonable chance to beat you will call the raise as well. So if you raised, it would be "for value." But you don't really have value here, because you will lose this hand so often. So you should just call and hope for a safe turn card. If you get one, you might raise at that point.
I saw players raising in spots like this, claiming that they needed to "charge the flush draws." That is dumb, though, because flush draws will actually be making more money on your raise than you might be. Someone with a flush draw will win the pot more often than you will, from this point forward. Since you can't protect your hand from the backdoor flush draws anymore, you should just call.
Is that example clear?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's very clear. Thanks.
It's just a hard concept to shake, not raising as a 3-to-1 favorite, especially with that Ace overcard.
Since we're on the subject, is this is when your jacks benifit from pot- and no-limit games, although a set might be a better example here? Then you can charge the draws with extreme raises, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not raising as a 3-to-1 favorite? Who's a 3-to-1 favorite? When you hold AJ on a JT7 board against four opponents, you are nobody's favorite. You will be outdrawn most of the time... by the flush draw... by a gutshot... by an overcard... by someone making two pair. The guy with the flush draw is going to win 35% of the time. Against four opponents, there is almost no chance that your AJ will win that often. You should PREFER a flush draw to AJ in that spot.
If you had a set, then you might want to raise (though waiting for fourth street is still a reasonable option). Your set is going to win much more often.
I'm not a no limit expert by any means. But yes, in no limit, you can protect hands that are likely to be best, but very vulnerable by making prohibitively large bets on the flop.
[/ QUOTE ]
What follows is the original post, my original reply, and most of the emails that followed:
[ 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. 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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) 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A flush draw is correct to call in your example, even if he isn't getting 5-to-1 pot odds. That is because he can expect to collect bets after he makes his hand. It is also because he can expect to call only $10 again on the turn, where he will be getting significantly better than 5-to-1 odds. He can take slightly the worst of it now because he knows that he will likely be getting significantly the best of it on fourth street.
A four flush on the flop has a 35% chance of completing his draw by the river. So with two other players in the pot on the flop (which there have to be for there to be a bet and a raise), the flush draw is actually very slightly making money on the flop action. This would be true without question if he never had to call a bet on the turn when he misses. When there may be turn action, this is not quite true anymore. But it is close.
Basically, since a flush draw gets there so often, and since it will collect some bets after it gets there, it is almost impossible to construct an example in limit hold 'em where a flush draw actually should fold (assuming that all of his outs are clean). And when the pot is multiway, the flush draw is perfectly happy to see action on the flop... he makes money from all the people in there with weak draws and made hands.
Occasionally a situation may come up where a flush draw is "paying" on the flop. But when it is paying, it isn't paying much. And usually the flush draw (especially if it comes with an overcard or other value) is making money on the flop action.
On the other hand, it is crucial that you make the people with weak draws and made hands "pay." These guys tend to be taking significantly the worst of it on all action, and giving them cheap cards to beat you is what costs you pots. There's nothing you can do about the flush draws... they will come, and they are supposed to. You can force the weak draws to fold... it's important to do that.
A final point, it is correct to protect your hand more aggressively when there is a two flush on board than when it is rainbow. But it's not because you need to "make flush draws pay." Instead, it's because you need to make BACKDOOR flushes pay. You can't give cheap cards to hands like the lone ace of trump.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're speaking of implied odds, right? Would you keep calling when it's capped to the river with nothing but a flush draw? And I assume you bail as soon as the board pairs, is this correct?
Also, just to be clear, you agree with being aggressive with top pair against a flush board, just not the idea of charging any two-flushes? I don't see any practical difference here?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a practical matter, you should not fold a flush draw before the river. This includes when the betting starts to get heavy and when the board pairs once. You call when the betting starts to get heavy because usually it will stop. You can't know that the turn is going to be 5-bet when you are still calling bet #2. You call when the board pairs once because the pot is typically large, so you have an overlay even if you are drawing dead some of the time.
Again, you can construct situations where the flush draw needs to fold. But 90%+ of the time in real poker situations, the flush draw should keep coming.
When there is a two-flush on board, you are very vulnerable the 1/24th of the time that the turn and river are both of that suit. You need to do what you can to protect your hand against those that might beat you if that happens. This has nothing to do with "charging" someone who flopped a four-flush.
To prove that, say you are the one who flopped the four-flush with a hand like 87s. You should play aggressively because you want hands like the lone ace or king of your suit to fold. When they fold, you save the pot for yourself the times when both the turn and river are of your suit. Here you are, the flush draw, and you are "charging" the backdoor flushers.
The practical difference is this. If you don't expect your raise to force anyone to fold, then you no longer need to keep pushing marginal hands on the flop. Say you have AJ on the button, and there are two limpers to you. You raise, and both blinds and the limpers call. Five-handed for two bets each. The flop is JT7 with a two flush (you don't have the ace of that suit). The small blind bets, and everyone calls to you. You should just call. You have no reason at all to be aggressive here. You likely have the best hand now, but your hand is very vulnerable. Your raise will not force anyone to fold... anyone who called one bet and has a reasonable chance to beat you will call the raise as well. So if you raised, it would be "for value." But you don't really have value here, because you will lose this hand so often. So you should just call and hope for a safe turn card. If you get one, you might raise at that point.
I saw players raising in spots like this, claiming that they needed to "charge the flush draws." That is dumb, though, because flush draws will actually be making more money on your raise than you might be. Someone with a flush draw will win the pot more often than you will, from this point forward. Since you can't protect your hand from the backdoor flush draws anymore, you should just call.
Is that example clear?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's very clear. Thanks.
It's just a hard concept to shake, not raising as a 3-to-1 favorite, especially with that Ace overcard.
Since we're on the subject, is this is when your jacks benifit from pot- and no-limit games, although a set might be a better example here? Then you can charge the draws with extreme raises, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not raising as a 3-to-1 favorite? Who's a 3-to-1 favorite? When you hold AJ on a JT7 board against four opponents, you are nobody's favorite. You will be outdrawn most of the time... by the flush draw... by a gutshot... by an overcard... by someone making two pair. The guy with the flush draw is going to win 35% of the time. Against four opponents, there is almost no chance that your AJ will win that often. You should PREFER a flush draw to AJ in that spot.
If you had a set, then you might want to raise (though waiting for fourth street is still a reasonable option). Your set is going to win much more often.
I'm not a no limit expert by any means. But yes, in no limit, you can protect hands that are likely to be best, but very vulnerable by making prohibitively large bets on the flop.
[/ QUOTE ]