Flush Draw Check, Bet, or Check/ Raise

[ QUOTE ]
Fold this preflop: you shouldn't be playing weak suited aces from this position.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I would probably fold that hand pre-flop unless it was a LPP type of table.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I would fold preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Some thoughts on the first two cards:

First, limping with small pocket pairs and A2s is fine in most micro limit games in any position.

[/ QUOTE ] --Gregatron >>> Here

[ QUOTE ]
I might make the charts a little differently today if I were doing them over.

[/ QUOTE ] --Ed Miller >>> Here

[ QUOTE ]
I own chart players!

[/ QUOTE ] --Anonymous B&M Player

[ QUOTE ]
In general, do not spend too much time contemplating specific preflop plays...... Instead, use that time to improve your postflop play. After you learn to play decently preflop, most of your additional winnings will come from exploiting your opponents' postflop mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]--Ed Miller, et al. <u>Small Stakes Hold'em</u> p. 77

Anyone want to hear a long-winded (probably incorrect) technical discussion of why I generally fold KQ off but call with A9 through A7 suited in early position?? [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

@ Milagro, Pokerstars is not as loose as Party is. This is not such a loose game as the list that ED Miller would be talking about. Limping with A7s UTG in a 10 man game on a significantly tight / stronger game than party is incorrect.

I would however tell you that bet / calling is a far better line.

A) MP1 is more likely to call your bet.
B) Bet / Calling will build a bigger pot, it also allows you bet out a flush and perhaps getting a call / overcall again due to the potsize.

Check / Calling also has its merits as sometimes (not often) it may get checked through and you have infinite odds to hit your flush.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps incorrectly, but I initially view anyone who sits down and posts before the blinds come to them as a weaker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually posting in the cutoff position has slightly positive expectation per hand for the first 7 hands (-1.5SB/10 per hand versus -1.0SB/7 per hand) over waiting for the blinds. Also if you are a winning player then your real hourly rate increases if you are in the game sooner. There is also the additional benefit of having a lot of players see you as "weak". [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
@ Milagro, Pokerstars is not as loose as Party is. This is not such a loose game as the list that ED Miller would be talking about. Limping with A7s UTG in a 10 man game on a significantly tight / stronger game than party is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party isn't as loose as the loose chart wants. Further, I think you're severely over-estimating the skill of the 'Stars 1/2 player. Doesn't matter, though. A7s is right on the bubble, and whether you think it'll be raised immediately after you preflop is more important than the number of players you think you're going to get.

Preflop is ghey, anywah.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps incorrectly, but I initially view anyone who sits down and posts before the blinds come to them as a weaker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually posting in the cutoff position has slightly positive expectation per hand for the first 7 hands (-1.5SB/10 per hand versus -1.0SB/7 per hand) over waiting for the blinds. Also if you are a winning player then your real hourly rate increases if you are in the game sooner. There is also the additional benefit of having a lot of players see you as "weak". [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with this line of thinking as you are also "buying" position instead of waiting to be OOP. Without any reads, you get to check or even raise "any 2" in position.

Semi-bluffing is delicious here [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[DCWildcat]

Like Milagro said, debating this PF call is pointless. It's fine. Bet/call and check/call are both fine...why C/R this?
Fwiw, I favor bet/call

At the table check/raising never entered my mind. The choice was check/call or bet/call. I gave serious thought to betting but was afraid of paying of a raise by MP3 in a (even if slightly) -EV situation. So I checked with the intention of calling a continuation bet from MP3.

[Agthorr]

With a flush-draw, you need two callers for a bet to be +EV. Even then, it's only very slightly +EV (1.9:1 to hit the flush by the river) so any play where there's a good chance someone will fold is -EV.

If you check-raise, there's a good chance that MP1 will fold, leaving you with one-caller. That's definitely -EV since you'd be paying 2 bets at 1:1 and you need to be getting 2:1.

If you bet out, there's some chance MP1 will call and then MP3 raises. That's your best case, and it's only slightly +EV. There's also a chance MP1 will fold and MP3 will call, which is -EV, and there's a chance MP1 will fold and MP3 will raise, which is very -EV.

I'd check-call. This also makes it easier for you to check-raise later if you do hit your hand.

At a loose table this is fine to limp; at a tight one it's a muck. At stars, I would muck without knowing otherwise, but limping is not bad.

With this big pot I am going to check raise, hoping to fold A10, AJ, and increase my chances of winning if no one has a showdownable hand.

If I am three bet or called in two places I am check calling the turn unless it improves me with an ace or a flush. If I am called in 1 place, I am betting turn and river unimproved.

Using this logic getting them both to fold would bet terrible.

If they both call, you're +EV with the flush draw. If one folds, you've likely bought outs to your A possible even the 7 if you fold out 88 TT Q9 etc

It's a raised pot, driving a player out is not -EV.

BET!