Flush draw paradox

[Pirc Defense]

If I am against three or more opponents and I have an A-high flush draw (two of my suit on the board on the flop), then I am content to raise indefinitely on the flop as I have the pot equity to do so.

On the other hand, my opponents might have read that they must bet if they have a bettable hand, so as not to give me a free card. They must "charge" me for my draw.

How are these two positions reconciled?

[Jezebel]

Do a seach for Ed Miller's post on "Charging the flush draws" if you can't find it there, I believe it is included in the "Favorite 2+2 threads" located in the Texas Holdem Forum. Ed gives a very clear answer to your question.

[1800GAMBLER]

They aren't charging you. The best hand is making money on every dollar that goes in (i.e. he has an overlay) as are you, while the two other players are losing money per dollar.

[elindauer]

The player with the best hand and the flush draw are charging the player with the second best hand.

Good luck.
Eric

[elysium]

hi pirc

since one of the reasons for reraising would be to increase the implied odds of your hand, and that you are strong enough to betout on the turn if checked to, your opponents wouldn't necessarily consider stopping the free-card anyway. there isn't going to be one under any circumstance.

with that in mind, 2 pair and higher should betout, even if that opponent thinks that he will need to improve to beat you as often as he has the current lead. his bet will be made on the basis of pot odds and driving out the MP. the issue therefore centers not on the possibility of a freecard sliding off, but rather the liklihood of the MP raising the EP. for example; if the EP betout on the flop and the MP raises, you should not reraise even though you have the odds to do so. firstly, the EP may do that for you. secondly, the MP will too likely cut your odds down on the turn more often than if the action is bet and call to you on the flop. so the real issue here is whether or not you are involved in a flop raising war after a bet and call to you. if you are, then reraising is correct. from the perspective of the EP on the turn, if the MP called the flop, then he should betout with a reasonably strong made hand, and check-call or check-fold everything else. if the MP raised the flop, then he should check everything except very strong hands unless he reraised at some point during the flop. all of his other hands should be checked. whether he check-calls, folds, or raises would then depend upon how things developed.

as far as the MP goes, whether he raises or calls if bet into is pretty much decided by whether or not he got in a reraise at some point during the raising war on the flop. whether he checks if checked to depends upon the strength of his hand, so if he bets, you must call. if he checks, you must bet, even if you suspect that the EP will check-raise. the check to the MP by the EP puts the MP to the test more so than does a bet into him. just remember that if you betout, the EP will almost always call. why then betout? because you need to driveout that MP A better kicker in this thing. you want those possible 2 extra outs, and you want the option to raise the river if bet into on the river. you may not use that option mind you, but that's not the issue. you just want it. there can be no reconciliation in this type hand. this is a hand that you must win at every cost. you must sacrifice your chips in order to save your cards. you must win. your opponents therefore must lose. their loss must be total utter, without reconciliation. you must ruin them.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
How are these two positions reconciled?

[/ QUOTE ]

By the other players in the pot. Once they drop and its HU against the strongest made hand and you with the big draw then stop raising. If you get infinite action from 2 or more opponents then the weakest of the made hands are paying both of you.

Unless of course sonmeone has a set in which case you may be getting "charged" for real, even against 2 opponents.

[astroglide]

if you have multiple opponents willing to raise INDEFINITELY they are idiots or have sets. As7s vs KhKd vs any two on a Ks9s2d flop gives you less than 25% pot equity.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
since one of the reasons for reraising would be to increase the implied odds of your hand

[/ QUOTE ]

how does reraising increase implied odds?

[elysium]

hi stox

yeah whew....i just reread my post. this starbucks coffee is really has a kick to it.

what was the question? oh, why the increase on the implied odds. well,....i'm am in the middle of a good bowl of oatmeal right now....no, no not starbucks. for crying out loud stox. how are you going to make it back out to your car carrying both coffee and oatmeal? it be a big mess.

quaker near a sink. people would be tracking in like snow if it was starbucks.

gray goo.

implied odds.

the reason your implied odds increase even though your pot odds may not necessarily increase with the raise or reraise, is because you are taking action by raising suggesting that the implied odds are not a factor when in fact they may be a considerable factor that you must handle delicately at the time that the implied odds actually weigh in. true, the pot odds may not improve with the raise. however, they might. no one on the face of the earth can say for certain whether the pot odds improve or worsen upon raising. we don't know. what is known is that by raising the implied odds go up because by playing it as though you do not care about the pot odds, your opponent will not consider the fact that one of the reasons you may be playing it like you are those times you raise or reraise is for the improvement of your implied odds. this is not to say that you should ever raise to get more money into the pot in order to improve your odds. that distinction must be made very clear here. that is never a reason for raising. but when you are playing for a strategic advantage in the hand it can become costly. therefore you must calculate every measure by which you can cut that cost, and one way of doing it is to factor in the improvement of your implied odds. and of course i agree that the overall reduction of the cost of playing to win is minimal when factoring in only the improvement of the implied odds. it's minimal stox. but like my grandmother used to say when i would ask her for first a quarter and then a dime, she'd say, 'a dime here and a dime there, pretty soon you have a dollar.'. she didn't realize it but that just inspired me to continue asking for dimes because, i'd reason, pretty soon i'd have a dollar. she always gave us 2 dollars on christmas though.

in a 20-40, i suppose this advice is worth perhaps a dime. it adds up. come next succos you'll be rolling in it.

[Pirc Defense]

Thanks for the replies, the links and the advice. Elysium, you outdid yourself, man.