Just a bad beat right?

[chief444]

I agree.

Your betting is correct as is his calling. His calling being correct does NOT mean you should not bet. That was the original question that started this whole "charging the draw" portion of the thread. I've never read any book that recommends otherwise and the quote from that book listed is certainly not what I would consider bad information.

[jedi]

Okay, let me try to summarize Majorkong's essay in my own words. (Feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted this).

When you have a made hand vs. a flush draw, you're not betting to charge the flush draws. You're betting to put more money in the pot with the best of it. The flush draw is also putting more money in the pot with the 2nd best of it and both of you are making money off of the people with weaker hands and weaker draws (bottom pair or weaker flush draw for example). Either way, both of you have the most equity in the pot, followed by the other players who will be paying one of you off.

[blackaces13]

Jedi,

As I see it that's it, you nailed it. But now let me let the cat out of the bag and say that WLLHE says this too. If people misinterpret it and think that book is telling you to make the flush draw fold or make the flush draw incorrect in calling then that is the reader's fault. The book simply does not list those as reasons to bet or raise against a likely draw.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Jedi,

As I see it that's it, you nailed it. But now let me let the cat out of the bag and say that WLLHE says this too. If people misinterpret it and think that book is telling you to make the flush draw fold or make the flush draw incorrect in calling then that is the reader's fault. The book simply does not list those as reasons to bet or raise against a likely draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a follow up. The original poster played the hand correctly, but NOT for the reasons he thought. He played the hand correctly because he was getting his money in with the best of it, but not because he was "charging the flush draw." This sounds like an example where you can play a hand correctly for the completely wrong reasons, right?

As with many of us here, I think we're trying to understand the reasons behind certain moves that should or shouldn't be made, not just to learn the moves themselves.

[chief444]

True. There are times (with enough opponents) when the nut flush draw will even be a favorite to take the pot in the end. I agree completely with Majorkong's logic (as always) but also agree with blackaces that the information in the book in question is not incorrect but the interpretation often is. I do agree though that "charging the flush draw" isn't the best terminology and this seems to be confusing to many. It's actually ok to look at it that way sometimes but with that terminology many people can't seem to understand that both the best hand at the moment and the nut flush draw want as much money going in as possible with enough callers. I think we're all saying the same thing but just wording it differently. Hopefully someone has benefitted from this. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
The original poster played the hand correctly, but NOT for the reasons he thought. He played the hand correctly because he was getting his money in with the best of it, but not because he was "charging the flush draw."

[/ QUOTE ]

He played the hand well because he was charging everyone else in the hand with lessor draws and lessor hands. Also, even though the Flush draw was benefitting from the bets going in on the flop as well. On the turn the flush draw is not benefitting as much from additional bets anymore because his odds of hitting are lower now than they were on the flop. On the turn hero really is charging the flush draw because the Flush draw would rather have the turn checked. Sometimes you really can "charge a flush draw", especially on the turn with 2 opponents. Here he's not getting the 4:1 he needs in bets on the turn, hes getting only 2:1. So as I see it, on the turn the flush draw is being slightly "charged".

[Ed Miller]

Oh, wait, he says: "A player who calls your bets or raises when he has flopped four to a flush is not making a mistake. However, if you check and let him draw at his flush for free you are giving him infinite odds on his draw...which is far better for him than your charging him a bet for his draw." WLLHE p. 86-87 (italics in original, bold added).

This passage is wrong because it implies that someone who flops a flush draw on the button should check if it is checked to him. That is usually not the case.

If he had said that about a GUTSHOT draw, or BOTTOM PAIR, then I wouldn't argue. But when he says it about a flush draw, he has it wrong.

[Ed Miller]

Yeah, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence IMO. Hence the bum wrap I think that line gets.

Actually, that whole passage is wrong. He's saying that someone who flopped a flush draw should call all bets, but be glad if no bets go in on the flop. That's just totally wrong. It's not partially wrong, and I'm not nit-picking. It is, at its core, incorrect.

[Ed Miller]

He played the hand well because he was charging everyone else in the hand with lessor draws and lessor hands. Also, even though the Flush draw was benefitting from the bets going in on the flop as well. On the turn the flush draw is not benefitting as much from additional bets anymore because his odds of hitting are lower now than they were on the flop. On the turn hero really is charging the flush draw because the Flush draw would rather have the turn checked. Sometimes you really can "charge a flush draw", especially on the turn with 2 opponents. Here he's not getting the 4:1 he needs in bets on the turn, hes getting only 2:1. So as I see it, on the turn the flush draw is being slightly "charged".

It does sound like you understand the principle.

[Ed Miller]

Perhaps Ed's saying the book is just generally lousy, not specifically in respect to flush draws.

I am not saying that. WLLH is a great book for people that are just starting to play poker seriously. It will take a rank beginner and improve his winrate (or reduce his lossrate, rather) dramatically. I recommend the book.

But just because I recommend the book does not mean that I endorse all of the advice. There are some specific strategic suggestions that are flat out wrong, and there is also some fuzzy thinking. One example is what he says about flush draws. He seems to get it right in some places, but wrong in others.

IMO, it is particularly bad to be fuzzy about this sort of thing in a book aimed specifically at low-limit games. Ideas about pot equity and betting draws for value mean most when the game is loose. There are also other spots in the book where he gets advice wrong that is particularly wrong for low-limit games (i.e., the advice would be bad for mid-limit, but it is even worse for low-limit). Most of the numerous places that he recommends that you check the turn with a weak made hand fall under this category.

Lee Jones seems like a good guy, and his book is a great one that has helped countless people. But the best advice in that book is his most basic advice. When he tries to get more advanced, he gets it wrong frequently.