Just a bad beat right?

[Ed Miller]

And it is true that unless another player has Axs in your suit, which is very rare, then your hand is ALMOST like having Axs.

This is TOTALLY wrong. I address this specific misconception in my book.

[sublime]

what is the tenative DD for your book?

[Ed Miller]

what is the tenative DD for your book?

Late June

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

Look I like his book. It gave me a very good foundation when I was starting out jumping from a computer program to playing for play money. So I both wonder about the criticism of his book and wish people would be explicit about it, because his were the first guidelines I learned, to the extent they're flawed I may have fundamental flaws deep in my basic assumptions abou the game.

In his defense, the section above is about when you hit very strong hand and not about playing the flush draw, and is actually in response to the complaint of some players that betting and raising won't get out the guy on the flush draw.

He does make it clear in the section on playing when you flop a flush draw that you should bet if checked to, and if you have the requisite number of opponents your only concern should be getting the maximum number of bets in the pot. So I personally never picked up on the implication you've found.

I do find his caveat, that if your flush draw isn't to the nuts, though, that you want to be calling bets and raises and not putting them in yourself too weak...although it does fit into his premium hand philosophy of low limit poker.

Geez, now I sound like an apologist for Lee Jones. Maybe its simply because, although I feel like my game has expanded since when I first started and his book was my guidebook, I'm not bright enough to pick out the problems in it for myself so it makes me feel dumb when people criticize it--particularly when they just criticize it in a general way.

--Zetack

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
This is TOTALLY wrong. I address this specific misconception in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I look forward to that. I'm fairly new to poker so I welcome being told why I'm wrong. I'll keep throwing it out there and you keep telling me why it aint so. Everybody wins. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
It does sound like you understand the principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this sarcasm? I personally do think I understand the concept but if I don't then let me know about it. I can handle the truth.

[Ed Miller]

Is this sarcasm?

No way. I think you understand the principle. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I may be blunt sometimes, but I try not to be snide. I'm really just trying to help.

[StellarWind]

The reason you should avoid 72s is not because the resulting flushes get cracked by bigger flushes. It is because flush potential is almost never enough to pay the bills. Axs needs to scratch and claw its way to +EV by winning hands every way possible. Having Kxs instead hurts you in many ways:

1. Not improving and losing to someone's high card ace.

2. Making a pair of kings and having an overcard ace appear on the board.

3. Making two pair and losing to aces up.

4. You have K5s and make trip fives. You lose to A5.

5. You can't make a wheel.

6. Yeah, losing to an ace-high flush, often with extra flush-suit cards on the board. Somewhat unusual but very expensive.

This list could go on for a while. #2 is by far the worst, but the point is that wherever you go with Kxs, you find aces ripping off your pots. It really adds up. You don't just lose the profits from these pots, you also lose the money you spent playing them, the value bets/raises you don't make because you don't trust your hand, and the winning hands you fold because you don't trust your hand.

The only good thing about Kx vs. Ax is that fewer people play kings. It matters somewhat less that your kicker is no good.

[blackaces13]

Again, excellent points. I'm glad I brought it up because obviously I was placing too much value on suited kings and not thinking it through thoroughly enough.

Thanks for the post, it makes a lot of sense.

[Felipe]

[ QUOTE ]
I generally won't call two in this situation, if I'm him...am I wrong?

Very wrong. If you flop a four flush, you should see the river with it over 95% of the time. Throwing away flush draws will cost you some pretty big money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? I'd think if its capped at the flop, then flush draws should exit stage left!!! Why should I stay if the odds do not justify it? Or am I overlooking the implied odds?

Felipe