Flush draw hand

[Clarkmeister]

20-40. This may be interesting to those of you starting to run into thinking opponents.

My image is semi-loose very aggressive at the moment. Weak tight player (WT) open limps on my immediate right. I am in the CO and raise with A /images/graemlins/spade.gif9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. Button folds, fairly tight aggressive player calls in the SB. BB folds.

Flop: Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 6 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. SB bets out. WT raises. I pause for a few seconds then coldcall on the button. SB now 3-bets. WT calls, I 4-bet (5 bet cap). SB calls, WT calls. 3 to the turn for 9.5 BBs.

Turn: 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Checked to me, I check.

River: 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. SB bets, WT calls, I call.

Comments?

[blackaces13]

Why not raise the river? Did you think the SB flopped a set and wanted to CR the turn?

[aas]

I think the WT player is more dangerous than the small blind. Did he show 77?

[colgin]

I like the way you played this. It looks like WT was on a lower flush draw that he could not get away from. Can't really put him on a boat since he would have raised the river presumably. I think SB either had an overpair on the flop or a set, although it is hard to see him not betting your semi-loose aggressive self pre-flop if he had pocket Aces, Kings or Queens. I think SB put you on a flush draw and was looking to C/R the turn if a non-spade fell. His betting the river into two opponents with the three flush and pair on the board does not look good for you but you are obviously calling here, especially since your failure to bet the turn could have led an overpair to think his hand is actually good. I can't see raising the river here, however, as I don't think your hand is good often enough and you will certainly get reraised by a better hand.

[PraetorianAZ]

All I know is I'm scared to death and not ready for 20 40.

You 4-bet the flop looking for a free card on the turn.
At that point, I suppose you're behind to Qx from WT and SB has a set or possible straight draw. (SB entered the pot on an implied odds hand)

SB was looking for a check-raise on the turn with his set or made straight.

SB value bet the river or made his full house.

God knows though.

[Ralph Wiggum]

This is how simple-minded Ralph would have played it. I probably 3-bet the flop, hoping they'd check the turn to me. If they did, then I'd check also. Then I probably would have raised the river. Of course if I'm 4-bet on the flop, then I have to call an extra SB, then also call a bet on the turn.

Ralph's 0.02: SB is a TAP, so I don't see him with 76, but he could have KQ, QJ maybe. I think he's most likely got the set, so he 3-bets the flop killing the odds for the draw believing he's ahead. You wake up and show agression with your 4-bet, so then he calls and plans to check/raise you on the turn. Unfortunately for him, he's not thinking clearly and doesn't realize that you're going for the flush. If he thought you were on the flush draw, then he'd probably bet out on the turn, seeing how a non-spade hit. I guess he had you on AA, KK, or AQ. The river gives you your flush, but pairs the board. You're likely beat by a boat, so you call down. I have WT on a lower flush or AQ, KQ, QJ.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the WT player is more dangerous than the small blind. Did he show 77?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anyone really so weak as to check a set on the turn and only call with a boat on the river after the flush hit? If they are then they should not be playing mid stakes poker.

[MarkD]

I played a hand today where an opponent bet the flop, someone called and I raised. They checked to me on the turn and the river which I bet. Both of my opponents had flopped sets. The board was non-threatening on the river.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Was it at a $20/$40 table?

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
I played a hand today where an opponent bet the flop, someone called and I raised. They checked to me on the turn and the river which I bet. Both of my opponents had flopped sets. The board was non-threatening on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure but I bet it wasn't 20-40.

[MarkD]

No. It was 2-4. These players exist at 20-40 though.

I believe the situation I cited to be an extreme example that I have trouble fathoming but I have no doubt that the same hand could play the same way at 20-40.

Let's not get sidetracked though. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I think if WT in Clark's hand was as weak tight as the players I posted about we would have gotten a more detailed description of them then just "weak tight".

[Ralph Wiggum]

[ QUOTE ]
These players exist at 20-40 though.

[/ QUOTE ] I'll have to take your word for it, seeing how $3/$6 at a B&M is the highest I've ever played. I guess calling stations, WT, & maniacs are at all levels. Someone has to lose. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Clarkmeister]

"I think if WT in Clark's hand was as weak tight as the players I posted about we would have gotten a more detailed description of them then just "weak tight". "

True. To stave off more tangents, suffice it to say that WT does not have a full house on this hand.

[MarkD]

Raise the river.

I think this would be the consensus on this forum if anyone else posted the hand.

Personally, I'm overagressive (trying to work on this) but if I'm being honest I probably bet the turn when that nice 8 comes to compliment my hand and give me 6 more clean outs. I like the turn check though as you are a little over 3-1 against hitting your 14 outer and only have 2 opponents and after the flop action there is almost no chance of winning the pot with a bet on the turn.

Couldn't TAG be playing a flush draw like that on the flop? Your hesitation could be enough for him to think he can drop you on the turn if he continues his agression the flop. He is also likely aware that weak tight is weak tight and thinks he might be able to knock him off his hand as well. In general I think you are best enough times on the river to make raising correct.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Raise the river.

I think this would be the consensus on this forum if anyone else posted the hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it probably would but most of us post hands involving more or less unthinking opponents. With a bet coming from a tight aggressive player on this board and a call in front from a weak-tight who by definition is willing to let go of hands (not that I think Clark is behind WT here; I think he is certainly ahead of him) then I don't think Clark is ahead often enough to justify a raise, especially since he will have a tough decision if it is re-raised back to him. If these circumstances applied in the $2/4 or $3/6 games that we generally post about then I think the advice would (or at least should) be the same.

All the best.

Colgin

[Festus22]

Think about what the SB is thinking Clark has. He (Clark) cold-called a flop raise and then 4-bet a reraise after it was clear he had customers. OK - maybe slow-played queens or an overpair OR a big draw.

Then he checks behind a no 3-flush turn card.

That REALLY reeks of a flush draw to me.

Now the flush gets there and the SB bets. Remember, the SB is labelled as a TAG and doesn't seem to fear what is very likely a made flush. Seems to me Clark's call is good when I think about what's inside SB's head.

[Rico Suave]

Hey Festus:

I agree. Clark's play has to look like a flush draw to the sb, especially since a "somewhat" loose aggressive is not going to let the turn check through with made a hand. The sb's bet, imo shows he is unafraid of the flush getting there, and is looking to 3-bet with his full house. (66 or 77 are reasonable hands that sb would semi cold call with preflop and then go nuts with on the flop)

--Rico

[Ralph Wiggum]

If SB has Clark on a flush draw, then why not cap the flop and/or bet out on the turn? Would he expect Clark to bet the turn when he could just see the river for free?

[Festus22]

I don't think the SB can put Clark on just a flush draw based on his PF and flop play. It could be one of many possible hands Clark could play this way with an overpair or set being on the list. It's the check-behind on the turn that really narrows the list.

SB could be setting up a turn C/R assuming Clark has a big hand that he'll bet.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
If SB has Clark on a flush draw, then why not cap the flop and/or bet out on the turn? Would he expect Clark to bet the turn when he could just see the river for free?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would expect the turn to be raised by SB if clark had bet. I put WT on KQo or something of the sort, SB spiked a set on the flop and made boat on the river. My question is this:

Since this was not HU, shouldnt SB have capped the flop? Is this what is reffered to as a value bet?

[Rico Suave]

Hey Ralph:

[ QUOTE ]
If SB has Clark on a flush draw, then why not cap the flop and/or bet out on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind, that I am a mental midget when it comes to poker, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

If the sb thinks that Clark is a somewhat loose, very aggressive player, he may think Clark would play the flop like he did with a variety of hands, and I do not necessarily think that the sb put clark on the flush draw on the flop. The sb, knowing clark is aggressive, may have gone for the c/r on the turn, but whiffed when clark checked. And it is Clark's check that leave no doubt in the mind of a thinking player, that he is on a flush draw. A lag does not check through with a made hand.

Of course, I would not be surprised if I am out in left field on this one.

--Rico

[Schmed]

pretty standard.

I like the lag raise on the flop when you got all of your customers committed. You're getting Sklansky dollars on every bet and call.

The turn str8 flush draw may be worth a bet but if it smells like a C/R it may be better to just take your free one here. On top of that your image is that of being LAG and they would certainly love to C/R the loosie...it's everyone's favorite pasttime /images/graemlins/grin.gif

River, I like the call because if you are beat by a FH and raise here you lose one more yet win the same or more by not raising and allowing the button to overcall.

[sfer]

Great post Colgin. I think you got it right.

[sfer]

Clark's gratuitous 4-bet looks like a flush pump on the flop. Anyone on this forum would read the raise that way I think. The turn freebie confirms that, so I think SB betting into it suggests that he's got a flush beat.

[Schmed]

What the raise the river crowd is missing is the fact that if he raises he will certainly lose the player behind him and if the original bettor has the FH clark loses and extra bet. If he doesn't have the FH and Clark raises he loses the LP guy and probably loses the TA in the EP. His raise would cost him one BB either way.

[Schmed]

[ QUOTE ]
You 4-bet the flop looking for a free card on the turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

He 4 bet the flop because he was getting at least 3-1 on every bet he put in there. That's Sklansky dollars baby...they don't buy the groceries but they sure do spend well here...... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[StellarWind]

If I posted that river I'd be flamed.

If I played that river I wouldn't post it.

If SB is half as smart as we seem to think he is then he probably knows the truth about Clarkmeister. Image has limited effect upon strong players. Based on the preflop and flop he should realize it is very likely that we have either first/second nut flush draw or a set.

I think SB's turn check is a little strange if he has a set. The problem with the checkraise theory is why should SB expect anyone to bet and why would it be a good thing if they did?

I would not be shocked if SB's set turned out to be snowmen. That would explain the failure to cap the flop and make a checkraise look a little better.

On the river SB should know that he is facing a (higher) flush. Therefore it would be foolish to bet without a full house. If you trust SB you just call.

[Ralph Wiggum]

[ QUOTE ]
I think SB's turn check is a little strange if he has a set. The problem with the checkraise theory is why should SB expect anyone to bet and why would it be a good thing if they did?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why I don't think SB has Clark on a flush draw before the turn. SB thinks Clark has AA, KK, AQ, or QQ (SB hopes not). SB is expecting to c/r Clark on the turn, but when Clark checks through, he realizes that Clark was on the draw. However the river gives him the boat, and he knows he has Clark beat, so he bets hoping to get raised.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I don't think SB has Clark on a flush draw before the turn. SB thinks Clark has AA, KK, AQ, or QQ (SB hopes not).

[/ QUOTE ]
If SB thinks Clark has one pair and no draw then he's clueless and I raise the river. If you checkraise a good player here you better hope your set is higher.

[Schmed]

I can't speak for anyone else but I would have the exact same reponse if you posted that river or Clark.

If you play a hand that has a questionable decision in it it makes more sense that you post it than not. You're afraid of being flamed??? Shoot how do you learn anything then by being told about your mistakes. If it makes you feel stupid all the better because you certainly wont make that mistake again.

[MarkD]

Clark is last to act. The river action goes: Bet, Call, Clark's action. So I don't see how clark's raise will do what you say it will.

The only problem with it is if you believe TAG has a tight.

[MarkD]

The flop 4 bet doesn't say flush pump until Clark checks the turn. The flop 4 bet could be two pair or a set as well.

The way I see it is TAG played the flop quite fast by betting and then reraising. When Clark 4 bets I believe TAG would likely continue to play it fast on the flop with a set. Smooth calling and going for a check raise on the turn is a bit inconsistent with his 3 bet IMO.

I'm not convinced TAG has a set and I think it's just as likely that he has a flush.

Edit: Granted, I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here as I can see all the reasons for just calling the river but I still think raising should be considered.

[MarkD]

He's only gettign 2-1 on the flop bets. It's essentially break to put in bets on the flop for him.

[MarkD]

Button folds pre-flop and clark is last to act on the river. He can't get an overcall, he is the overcall.

[slavic]

Clark a couple of questions. I haven't read the rest of the thread but I'll run through it after this.

Why pass on the turn bet? You are giving a bit on that bet but if weak tight folds AQ or KQ doesn't this help you? I would have to think that the SB would not raise here without the straight though I could be way off.

On the river, I'm going to assume your 4 bet on the flop check the turn is a dead give away of your hand to this player. Correct or no?

[balkii]

While brushing my teeth last night, I thought - Well, SB has to put Clark on a flush draw, so if he had a boat then why not checkraise the river when the flush card hits. But then its so obvious - SB knows clark just hit his flush, and fully expects him to raise. So SB traps WT for at least 1 river bet, and gets to 3-bet clark, the "LAG" who might go a lot of bets with his flush.

Clark - the real move on the river was folding. Then you would have completely owned him. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Clarkmeister]

Most of you pretty much concurred with my thoughts at the table.

At the time, when he bet the flop, I put him on either a big hand or a big draw. He'd have definitely tried to checkraise with something vulnerable. Either way, it served no purpose to 3-bet the WT player. There was no "clean up" to do for my ace overcard. It would be easy for either a big hand or a big draw to put me on TPTK or an overpair. So I would likely get 4-bet and lose WT player. Since I gain little from losing WT, I decided to call.

Once SB 3-bets, It should be obvious that I now don't mind 4-betting to slow things down. I don't want WT getting fancy and raising the turn on me. Also, I think I gain some info with the raise. I think it is actually more likely that SB caps with a draw than a set. A draw really doesn't mind or care, but a set or two pair may want to use my "overaggression" against me to checkraise the turn. My 4-bet could still be an overpair or a bigger set too. Since I raised preflop, the flush draw is still probabaly at the bottom of hands SB is considering. In short, I think it looks like I have a "real" hand most of the time and given my image, it is likely SB thinks its a perfect checkraise opportunity.

On the turn, I obviously have no chance of winning the pot, and a large chance of getting raised. Plus, I picked up extra outs. So I made the pretty easy check-behind.

On the river SB bets out. Now while my flop bet at the time may have looked like a made hand, now it really looks like flush draw. To him it is more likely that I have the nut flush than a small flush since I raised preflop. So isn't it less likely that he'd bet a flush here? He's a thinking player, so he's put me on *something*. What else would I check behind with given a pretty safe card on the turn. I think this is a case where he was again hoping to get me to raise so he could 3-bet.

Anyways, SB had 66 for the flopped set/rivered full house, WT flashed me a Queen, and I silently mucked my loser.

[Clarkmeister]

WT would have raised KQ or AQ preflop. And without overcards coming, WT isn't folding top pair for a single turn bet. And if WT has to face two bets on the turn, then my ace is no good anyways.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
While brushing my teeth last night, I thought - Well, SB has to put Clark on a flush draw, so if he had a boat then why not checkraise the river when the flush card hits. But then its so obvious - SB knows clark just hit his flush, and fully expects him to raise. So SB traps WT for at least 1 river bet, and gets to 3-bet clark, the "LAG" who might go a lot of bets with his flush.

Clark - the real move on the river was folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about it. But its hard to say he won't bet a smaller flush into me at least 8 or 9% of the time isn't it?

Good thought process btw.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't speak for anyone else but I would have the exact same reponse if you posted that river or Clark.


[/ QUOTE ]
Relax. You took my remarks more seriously than I intended them. This river play is not exactly SOP in the small and micro forums. People do open their minds a little wider when someone like Clarkmeister does something. That may not be right but it's reality.

[Actually it *is* right. The world is full of silly people. If we all thought in depth about every piece of junk that shows up we would have no time to do anything else. Considering the source of extraordinary claims is an important filtering mechanism that allows us to focus on the good stuff.]

[ QUOTE ]
If you play a hand that has a questionable decision in it it makes more sense that you post it than not. You're afraid of being flamed??? Shoot how do you learn anything then by being told about your mistakes. If it makes you feel stupid all the better because you certainly wont make that mistake again.

[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly have posted some hands I'm not proud of. Not to mention some that weren't as well-received as I expected /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

The ones I usually don't post are the "Doh! What were you thinking when you did that!?" hands. I don't ask if I've been an idiot when I already know.

[Clarkmeister]

"If SB is half as smart as we seem to think he is then he probably knows the truth about Clarkmeister. Image has limited effect upon strong players. "

True. But I don't think he is putting me on *nothing*. I think that he figures I am more inclined to autobet when checked to than most players and thus am a pretty easy checkraise target. I think his river bet as opposed to a checkraise is because of the image. Its not like he thinks I don't have a hand.....to the contrary, I think he thinks I DO have a hand. He just figures that my overaggression allows him to win more money with his better hand by milking a bet from the WT player and then 3-betting me if I raise. Its actually a good river bet by him.

[Clarkmeister]

"This river play is not exactly SOP in the small and micro forums."

That's why I posted it. I don't think it was really that interesting a discussion for the Medium Stakes forum. But for Small Stakes players who occassionally run into other good players, I thought this was an interesting hand to look at how you sometimes need to tone down the aggression against other thinking players. In short, I thought this was a good "how do I transition from small stakes to medium stakes" type of hand. Kind of like the material in Feeny's book.

[balkii]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While brushing my teeth last night, I thought - Well, SB has to put Clark on a flush draw, so if he had a boat then why not checkraise the river when the flush card hits. But then its so obvious - SB knows clark just hit his flush, and fully expects him to raise. So SB traps WT for at least 1 river bet, and gets to 3-bet clark, the "LAG" who might go a lot of bets with his flush.

Clark - the real move on the river was folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about it. But its hard to say he won't bet a smaller flush into me at least 8 or 9% of the time isn't it?

Good thought process btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I wouldnt fold the nut flush in a pot this big if SB flashed me his boat...I think the "earthquake" call definitely comes into play here...

[Tony Corbett]

Forgive me for being dumb but

[ QUOTE ]

On the turn, I obviously have no chance of winning the pot, and a large chance of getting raised. Plus, I picked up extra outs. So I made the pretty easy check-behind.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why the check is easy.
7 spades give you the nuts.
6 more cards make a straight to beat his possible trips.
Why is being check raised a problem? You have a 13 outs and the pot is 9.5BB it would cost you 2BB to potentally win at least 11.5BB. Doesn't the size of the pot and odds justify a bet and call on the turn?

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is being check raised a problem? You have a 13 outs and the pot is 9.5BB it would cost you 2BB to potentally win at least 11.5BB. Doesn't the size of the pot and odds justify a bet and call on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

The size of the pot would mean that if he bet and were raised he'd have to call but it doesn't justify betting.

He still has substantially less than a 50% chance of winning the hand even with 13 outs so if he bets and is CRed by SB as he believes he will be then he is clearly losing money on that bet. Also WT will most likely fold which is not good.

Just because you can call doesn't mean you want to be betting.