Hand Example From 'Inside The Poker Mind'

[larrondo]

I recently purchased Mr. Feeney's book. I'd like to get everyone's opinion on the following example, as I may have played it differently than the book suggests.

From 'Inside The Poker Mind' by John Feeney:

"Say a player is in the big blind holding a hand like: 9s 8s. A tight, aggressive player opens for a raise under the gun. Another aggressive, fairly tight player in MP calls, as does an average player on the button. Now our player in the BB decides to call. The flop comes:

Kc Qs 5s."

You've got a four flush, four players, 8.5 small bets. What, dear reader, do you do?

[CWsports]

Since UTG raised preflop he's most likely going to bet the flop. Therefore, I would check and let him bet since he's next to act after you. That would put 9.5 bets in the pot. If you get a couple more callers you can then check raise.

I wouldn't bet the flop as UTG may raise and you would force the others to call 2 cold. If you hit your flush on the turn or river you want as many players in the pot so you are paid off. If you force them to call 2 cold on the flop there's a good chance all of them will fold.

[larrondo]

The title of the chapter is 'Bad Plays Good Players Make,'and the example relates to betting into a sure raise. So you got it right. You don't want to bet into the field, because there is no chance they will all fold, but a very good chance you will be raised. The result is that one or two of the other players fold for two bets, which is no good for you. Feeney says betting out might be correct only if you were playing very weak tight players. I sort of thought that thinning the field was all right, because your flush is vulnerable, and there would be a fair amount of dead money in the pot.

I would have either bet my flush draw for value (which I see is probably incorrect) or been looking to check-raise, which seems like a decent play to me (and most of you too, it seems.) Interestingly, there is no mention of the check-raise, so I assumed that Feeney advocates calling, but perhaps this is wrong. He doesn't explicitly say, and his point is really just that betting is wrong.

Anyway, thanks for the responses.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
The title of the chapter is 'Bad Plays Good Players Make,'and the example relates to betting into a sure raise. So you got it right. You don't want to bet into the field, because there is no chance they will all fold, but a very good chance you will be raised. The result is that one or two of the other players fold for two bets, which is no good for you. Feeney says betting out might be correct only if you were playing very weak tight players. I sort of thought that thinning the field was all right, because your flush is vulnerable, and there would be a fair amount of dead money in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

To what is your flush vulnerable? A higher flush? That's probably not folding anyway. When you are drawing to the nuts or near-nuts, you don't protect your hand, you need people in to pay you off. If there is a higher flush draw out there, that's poker. You'll find out when your flush card comes and you bet out and get raised. Until then assume you are good.

[larrondo]

Fair enough. When I said your flush draw is vulnerable, I was thinking that if the turn is a spade, anyone with the A, K, J of spades has a great redraw, and if someone has trips, they have a strong redraw, too. Your hand really doesn't have any other outs, so even as flush draws go, this isn't a great one. Maybe it's wrong, but that's what I was thinking.

[larrondo]

To clarify: of course no one with trips will fold for two bets. But someone with one high spade card might.

Again, I'm not saying this is right, but it was why I thought thinning the field might be OK.

[DeuceKicker]

It would have a good chance of folding out single high spades, but you have to ask if that's what you really want.

Right now you have a drawing hand. Most of the time your flush isn't going to get there and you'll lose a couple bets. Some of the time (but not often) the flush will get there and there will be a bigger flush out, and you'll lose a few bets. Rarely will your flush get there on the turn, followed by another spade on the river, in conjunction with someone holding a higher spade. If this happens, you'll lose a few bets. But when the flush gets there and yours is the only one, you'll win a nice pot, especially if you check-raised the flop. The size of the pot when you hit your flush will outweigh the times you miss or your flush is second best, but only if you do what you can to pump it up.

Inducing a raise behind you to get rid of callers isn't worth it when you're doing it to avoid fairly uncommon beats.

[johnnybeef]

if you want as many people as possible in the pot, then check raising is simply not an option, i check and call as this is a marginal draw at best considering that all you have is a flush draw which isn't even the nut draw. you are getting pot odds if you check and call (assuming no raise of the utg bet). by checking and calling, you are minimizing loss.

[kross]

Check to the UTG raiser, who will probably bet, and then raise for value, trapping the field for an extra bet.

-- Kevin

[Rah]

Check, let UTG bet, and then raise if everyone stays in the pot.