Flush Draw: Raise on Turn?

[Peter Harris]

I would c/r flop, but not raise the turn.

Peter Harris

[Ed Miller]

You might want to take a look at this thread (A2 UTG), in which Ed Miller advocates check-raising the flop in a somewhat similar situation. That one wasn't clear-cut, either, but just to give you an idea...

Yes, I think check-raising is clearly the better play on this flop as well. But I would have followed through with a bet on the turn. The pot is large, and you need to give people an opportunity to fold.

[Ed Miller]

Also, thanks everyone. I think I've got these flush draws down.

Betting out is DEFINITELY not the better play. Check-raising is. Do not take bad advice from this thread.

This topic is specifically addressed in my book as well.

BTW, what you guys are saying about betting out would probably be true IF THE POT WERE TINY. As with so many other decisions, the size of the pot determines your correct action. I noticed that no one mentioned the size of the pot in his argument.

[Ed Miller]

THINK AGAIN MY FRIEND!!! MP3 is INCREDIBLY BAD. His play in this hand is the funniest thing I've read all day.

BTW, MP3's holding should remind you why it is important to bet the turn. He had five outs to beat you, and you gave him a free card in a nine big bet pot. Now he happened not to take the free card because he is a gimp, but giving free cards with a strong draw (but a weak made hand, ace-high) in a big pot is a generally a BIG no-no.

[bernie]

What if he had a smaller flush draw? I can see since he has high cards doing a c/r, but what about small cards?

b

[ddubois]

I thought the modus operandi with flush draws was to bet in whichever position gets the most customers to come along for the ride so that when we hit out nut draw we win the most amount. We don't want people to fold, so we try to not make them call two cold. In other words, lead out if there's many to act between us and the PFR, check-raise if the PFR acts relatively soon after us. There seems to be competing theories at work here.

Besides, our aces outs are questionable (we might be reverse-dominated or out-kicked), and signifigantly less plentiful than our flush outs, so I consider the flush scenario to be more likely than the paired-Ace scenario.

I sort of get this 'maximize your chance of winning the pot when it gets big' idea, but at the same time, I'm having trouble differentiting the advice from "whenever the pot is big, throw money at it and hope everyone folds".

[Ed Miller]

What if he had a smaller flush draw? I can see since he has high cards doing a c/r, but what about small cards?

Smaller cards are different too. With a baby flush draw, he might be better off betting out as well. But with big cards and a big pot, check-raising is definitely better.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
With a baby flush draw, he might be better off betting out as well. But with big cards and a big pot, check-raising is definitely better

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanted to make sure that was clarified since some in the thread may have been generalizing about flush draws in general.

I also wanted to make sure i was on the same page or if i was missing something with a small draw.

b

[Ed Miller]

Besides, our aces outs are questionable (we might be reverse-dominated or out-kicked), and signifigantly less plentiful than our flush outs, so I consider the flush scenario to be more likely than the paired-Ace scenario.

It doesn't matter which is "more likely." Even if your flush won the pot 100x more often than overcards, when comparing two plays, you compare the DIFFERENCE between them. Your flush is gonna win whether you bet out or check-raise. The DIFFERENCE between the two plays is how often you win when you don't make your flush. So who cares how often the flush will come in?

(Ok, I reread this and it isn't totally right. If the flush comes in 100% of the time, then you clearly wouldn't want to knock people out. But it turns out that the flush doesn't come in often enough.)

What matters is, "Does check-raising the flop improve our winning chances enough with respect to the pot to compensate for the (slightly) worse action we will get as a result."

In this example, the answer is clearly "yes."

You check-raise for three reasons:

1. To get more money in the pot with your big draw. Not everyone has to fold... and those people who don't fold will be paying double to see the turn.

2. To set up a turn semi-bluff. You'd like to win this large pot without having to make your hand. Your chances of doing that are MUCH better if you check-raise the flop. You are far more likely to win without a showdown against one or two opponents than against three or four. This is also why you should follow up with a turn bet.

3. You clean up your ace and jack outs. You want to be able to win the pot by spiking an ace or jack. You are much more likely to win if you protect your hand now.

You guys are all assuming that the only significant way to win the pot is to make your flush. That is a terrible assumption. You can easily win this pot upwards of 20% of the time without making your flush. The pot is large, and that extra 20% is a lot of money. It more than compensates for the (slightly) less action you might get if you make your flush.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, thanks everyone. I think I've got these flush draws down.

Betting out is DEFINITELY not the better play. Check-raising is. Do not take bad advice from this thread.

This topic is specifically addressed in my book as well.

BTW, what you guys are saying about betting out would probably be true IF THE POT WERE TINY. As with so many other decisions, the size of the pot determines your correct action. I noticed that no one mentioned the size of the pot in his argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm not convinced. Suppose that the best hand as of the flop is K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] which has made top pair. You hold A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Two opponents have missed completely and will fold no matter what. The other two opponents hold J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], and would call one bet on the flop, but not two.

With the JJ and AQs hands involved, your showdown equity in the hand is 39.5%.

http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b...%0AQd+Qh%0D%0A

With those two hands not involved, your showdown equity is 46.3%

http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b...%0AKh+Th%0D%0A

Suppose that both opponents who would call one bet on the flop would fold on the turn. Then, the value of the additional overcalls is 1.0 BB. The pot would have to be at least 14.7 BB at showdown in order for inducing folds from them to be worthwhile. It is not clear that the pot is going to be that large.

Suppose instead that the value of the additional overcalls is 2.0 BB, since one of the opponents will call the turn as well as the flop. Then the pot would have to be at least 29.4 BB at showdown in order inducing folds from them to be worthwhile. The pot is not going to be that large.

Suppose that the opponent who we previously put on AsQs instead has As9s. The raise would then increase your equity in the pot from 44.1% to 46.3%. Assuming that the overcalls are worth 1.0 BB, the pot would need to be more than 45 BB at showdown in order for inducing their fold to be worthwhile.

Check-raising increases your chances to win the pot, but not enough to be worth it, from what I can tell.

The problem, it seems to me, is that while a raise might shut out a hand like AsQs that has outs against your draws, it might also shut out hands like the QQ or JJ that do not impact your equity in any way, shape or form.

Yeah, the scenarios I'm presenting are oversimplyfying things, but defaulting to the line of "when the pot is big, do everything that you can to win it", seems also to be oversimplifying things.