Interesting No Limit Question

[Jedi Flopper]

Fold. Not worth risking chips for a best case scenario split pot.

[Stealthy]

I am surprised at the number of people advocating folding in this position. I can't see how I can roll over and die when I have the best hand and the only realistic hand that can beat me is a possible flush draw! I think I can discount the straight flush here as you have to take your chances! I may well be proved wrong when the man himself posts the correct play, but surely if you give the drawing hand incorrect odds to call then at worst you will be splitting the pot and at best winning it all. Any other senarios seem long shots to me.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
You havent' included a couple of scenarions that while ulikely are entirely possible.

1)J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] is held by the flush draw behind you, and he raises a large ammount that is not all-in. What bet size do you call, and when do you fold?

2) A flush draw also could contain 2 pair, and the river pairs the board.

You seem to assume that if you call and the river either makes a flush or pairs the board, you will have no decisions on the river. This isn't the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Having decisions" is never a bad thing unless you think you'll make the wrong one. I can give you very simple (and likely wrong) strategy that has +EV and deals with all of the situations above, which clearly disproves folding as a possibility. The strategy is call the turn, fold if the flush draw is raising with J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], and fold the river to a diamond or paired board. Since that is +EV, any better decisions at any point will have even greater EV.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're telling me that if a diamond falls, and both you and the first guy check, that your read is so strong that you'd fold to a small 300 chip bet into that much bigger pot? I think you might be forced to call that, in which case, you need to adjust your numbers.

This line of reasoning is erroneous for the same reason that the "What if they raise so little that you have to call?" line is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. You have to figure in your opponent's implied odds and not just his pot odds. If you clearly won't be able to get away from the hand if you're beat, then perhaps you have to take that into consideration.

[6471849653]

.

[Ed Miller]

Not really. You have to figure in your opponent's implied odds and not just his pot odds. If you clearly won't be able to get away from the hand if you're beat, then perhaps you have to take that into consideration.

Yes, jwvdcw, it's totally erroneous. Nate claims that calling is profitable if you fold EVERY TIME a diamond comes no matter what the bet. If that is so, then there is no river bet your opponent can make that will make your turn call unprofitable.

As you would only call a river bet if doing so would be profitable for you, there is no way for your total EV for the hand to go DOWN.

EDIT: It's also the same mistake people make when they claim that offsuit connectors are better than their suited counterparts because you can't get trapped with a smaller flush with an offsuit connector.

[curtains]

I would fold even if the first guy checked, no reason to get involved.

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I put it at 1/9 that the lead bettor has JdXd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky states that this is a "pretty good" player. There are only a few reasons why a good player will bet $200 into a $900 with this type of board. One, he wants a call or two he wants to be raised or three he wants a cheap card because he's on a draw. Since there was action on the flop, the only way to get 900 in the pot early in a tournament, there is no way a good player will figure that his opponents will fold to such a small bet so that is not the reason for his bet. If he has a straight only he would have to be worried about a flush draw so would have to bet enough to make the flush draw incorrect to call. $200 is not enough. Since Sklansky also states that he probably has a straight there is only one straight he can bet this way. ne that also contains the nut flush draw. If that is not his hand then he has 2 pair a set or some other draw looking to buy a cheap card. If not then he is not a good player. Since we assume a straight you must also assume the nit flush draw.

Vince [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[West]

It's a good point that normally it would make no sense for the nut straight to price in flush draws with such a weak bet. And if he had a non lock flush draw along with his straight, he should be betting stronger as well. Same with if he has the J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] but no flush draw. But as you say, if he has the lock flush draw to go with the straight, he would love to price in other flush draws...hmm..

If he didn't have the J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], couldn't he possibly bet it weak because he is afraid of being raised by a freerolling straight with a flush draw? Or is the answer, he should be checking in that case?

Only other thing I'd point out is that the $200 bet gives a set odds to call. At the same time, maybe it's worth the risk of that if there is a chance a lower flush draw will hit and pay him off...and maybe he has the same read "we" do of the late position player.

Let's say for a second that circumstances are indeed such that you should read the initial bettor for the straight and lock flush draw. Clearly you shouldn't raise, move in etc. This would make it a clear call, since without the J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], there is no way the player behind you should raise, and therefore, it is for sure +EV to call.

[GrannyMae]

I won't return until we beat Shana


not acceptable.

you have exactly 18 hours from the time stamp on this post to answer the question.

defy me and things will get ugly fast!