Clarification needed in Carson's Book

[Mike Gallo]

No, that would be awful with 5 almost certainly clean outs.

True.

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
No, that would be awful with 5 almost certainly clean outs.

True.

[/ QUOTE ]

And more importantly, you certainly don't want to create the image of someone who'll fold when faced with a little pressure on the flop. Then everybody'll be raising you with middle pair, flush draws, etc. and you'll be giving up too many winning hands.

[Mike Gallo]

And more importantly, you certainly don't want to create the image of someone who'll fold when faced with a little pressure on the flop. Then everybody'll be raising you with middle pair, flush draws, etc. and you'll be giving up too many winning hands.

More truth [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[SlyR]

Well, I'm a bit surprised at how many agree with Carson. Perhaps I've got a lot to learn.

I have a couple issues with his suggestion:

1. "You can't count on someone else holding a Queen."
You can't really count on anything, can you? What should matter to the beginning player reading this book is that he should expect opponents at low limits to hold just about anything. Here, however, Carson advocates a "they can't hold it, I've got to be good" attitude - the same one which we rely upon in our opponents when hoping for loose calls. Furthermore, isn't a Queen more likely to be held when the pot was unraised before the flop?

2. "You don't want to give a free card."
Give a free card to whom? This board is crap for draws. In this situation, I would rather try to TAKE a free card, if possible.

3. Although this sample hand follows an extensive discussion of game conditions, Carson doesn't explain this hand in context of whether opponents are tight or loose, passive or aggressive. With a lot of players on the flop, I would suggest having a Q or better or getting the heck out, unless you check, a strong player bets after you, and all in between fold. In a weak/tight game, couldn't a check serve better? If there is no action, bet the turn. If there is, fold.

[John Feeney]

I don't know if Gary qualifies his example at all, but yes, this is often a bet. It would be a *better* bet if, for example, you had a backdoor flush draw and/or your kicker was higher than the top card on the flop. But it's still often a bet.

There's a general principle, mentioned first by Sklansky in TOP, that can help guide this sort of decision. It's that idea that if you have a hand such that if you check and someone else bets it would be worth it, or *almost* worth it to call, then you're better off doing the betting yourself. I don't have a lot of time right now, but you can probably think of some reasons for this. (sounds like Gary may have touched on some, and see TOP too)

This, btw, is one of those points that's not well understood by those who disagree with that HPFAP example of betting a T9o into an A-7-6 flop.

[CORed]

Well, as is nearly always the case in poker, it depends. If I were heads up on the flop, I would bet this hand without hesitation. If 5 saw the flop, I would check and fold to a bet. If it checked through, I might bet the turn. In between it would depend on how good a chance I thought there was that a bet would take the pot immediately. This isn'nt a hand I would want to take to the river. Betting is probably better than checking and calling, but middle pair (especially a small pair like 4's) with a poor kicker isn't worth much with more than 2 people in. I would be much more inclined to bet with an overcard kicker, backdoor flush, or gutshot straight draw.

[Big Jon]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if Gary qualifies his example at all, but yes, this is often a bet. It would be a *better* bet if, for example, you had a backdoor flush draw and/or your kicker was higher than the top card on the flop. But it's still often a bet.

There's a general principle, mentioned first by Sklansky in TOP, that can help guide this sort of decision. It's that idea that if you have a hand such that if you check and someone else bets it would be worth it, or *almost* worth it to call, then you're better off doing the betting yourself. I don't have a lot of time right now, but you can probably think of some reasons for this. (sounds like Gary may have touched on some, and see TOP too)

This, btw, is one of those points that's not well understood by those who disagree with that HPFAP example of betting a T9o into an A-7-6 flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi John,

I just finished reading your book Inside the Poker Mind and thought I'd take this opportunity to thank you for the insight that it has brought me. Your take on the subtle effects of tilt and how downswings can unconciously put us on it has caused me to rethink more than a few hands where the insidious condition may indeed have negatively influenced my play. I wish you the best of luck in your future games.

Jon

[Mike Gallo]

You can win a hand by betting, you cannot win a hand by calling.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
2. "You don't want to give a free card."
Give a free card to whom? This board is crap for draws. In this situation, I would rather try to TAKE a free card, if possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have a "made" hand - one pair. It's a weak hand, but it beats any non-pair hand. You'd be giving a free card to anyone with a 5,6,7,8,T,J,K,or A. You might get some of these hands to lay down. You might get a better 4 to lay down.

Someone with 56 has 10 outs against you but may fold, thinking they only have 4 outs.

[Sarge85]

Is Carson a good read. I'm a LL player. I've read TOP and Lee Jones.

I've read Carson on RGP. He seems a bit pompus, but has some good posts every now and then.