Oh my god, FullTilt tips from the pros is the worst advice ever.

[ansky451]

I don't know if you guys read the weekly email news letter things that fulltilt sends out. Sometimes they are mildly insightful, other times they are useless. But this week was oh so special... Dated october 17th.

Some "pro" named Perry Friedman writes as follows:

"You are in the big blind with Ts-8s against a player who smooth-called pre-flop. The flop comes K-X-X with two spades. What do you do?

You would like to make your flush, and you don't want to pay too much to get there. Instinctively, you think checking is the best way to get a free card, and you're right. In fact, checking is the only way to get a free card, but it may not give you the best opportunity to make your hand, nor will it pay you maximum value when you make the flush.

Suppose you opponent bets the pot. Now you're getting 2-1 to call for a 4-1 chance of making your hand. You don't even get to see the turn card. You've been priced out.

What happens if you lead out with a small bet? If you're against a player who likes to slow play or a player who will bluff you out with a big bet, a small bet gives you the best chance of seeing the turn.

How small is a small bet? Try betting between 1/3 and 1/4 of the pot. If there is $300 in the pot and you bet $100, you are now getting the right price to make your flush. If you bet $75, you are now getting better than pot odds, and this doesn't account for your implied odds, which take into account the amount of money your opponent will bet or call on the turn and river. If you make your flush on the turn, and your opponent is willing to call your $400 bet, you are getting implied odds of $300 (current pot size on the flop) + $400 (expected amount your opponent will call on the turn) = $700 to $100 (your bet on the flop), or
7-1. "

I can't remember the last time a donk bet like this wasnt raised by any player. His comment about the implied odds makes no sense. Why are we assuming the player will call bets when the flush hits? If he is, that means he probably has a hand, like top pair, in which case he will definitely raise you on the flop anyway. Not to mention he doesn't take into account the possibility of being raised at all, which is what almost always happens when you donkbet into a PF raiser. If the player is likely to make a pot sized C-bet with any 2, then what makes this guy think he wont raise a donk bet with the same 2 cards? I think this is a very stupid way of thinking of the situation. And not to mention, in the scenario he mentioned, the player smoothcalled, and I think we are assuming its a heads up pot since he mentioned no other players entering the pot. So lets say blinds are 25/50. The limp preflop is 50, the sb and your bb is 75, so 125 in the pot. How can you possibly bet 1/4th of the pot? The minimum bet is 50, so thats already 2/5ths, and his advice is actually impossible to follow.

Oh but it gets better...

"In a tournament, this type of drawing strategy can become a riskier and less profitable play, especially early on. Because you start with a limited number of chips in tournament play, your odds need to be closer to 5-1 or even 6-1 before you should consider risking them on a draw, and potentially leaving yourself short stacked."

So apparently pot odds don't apply in tournaments. This advice makes no sense at all. Since when have you ever gotten 6-1 on a draw? Say the blinds are 25/50, your opponent raises to 150, you call in the bb. There is 325 in the pot. If you want to get 6-1 on your draw you have to bet like 65 into the pot of 325, which is basically a min-bet. I can think of no worse a play to make. Your opponent would have to be incredibly passive for this to work. And if hes that passive, why not just check, because he probably will check behind anyway. Not to mention we are talking about limped pots, and you can't bet 1/4th or 1/5th of the pot if its less than the min-bet. This advice made me want to puke. This is practically advising you to play with your cards face up. Perry Friedman, shame on you.

Please respond, I want this bumped many times.

[fnurt]

There are often donk bets that are left unraised by other donks. I know it's macho to post that "I raise every time I sense weakness, ALWAYS!!!" but not everybody plays like that.

I certainly don't go around advising people to make donk bets, but this is hardly the worst poker advice of all time.

[CardSharpCook]

Look, do you want to learn to play like the Pros or not??? This might even be too obvious to go in Betgo's guide, but hey, it is supposed to be for beginners, so I'd recommend to Betgo to possibly add this in.

Lets see, he has been to WSOP final tables and you haven't. Now who's advice should we take.

[cferejohn]

Their inability to figure out that they are recommending an impossible strategy is ok, but I think the weak lead can be ok if you do it alot. Note that you must also do it when you flop a big hand so a min-bet from you sets off some alarm bells. I remember Negraneu wrote an article (in Cardplayer I think) in defense of the weak lead, but the point of the article was that it was most effective if: a) you play alot of hands and b) you make this lead with both draws and big hands.

Making a weak lead every time you want to see a cheap card is going to be picked up on pretty quickly by a good player.

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see, he has been to WSOP final tables and you haven't. Now who's advice should we take.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a non-starter of an argument. Robert Varkoni has been the winner of the WSOP. I promise there are 100 posters here who are better tournament players than him.

[CardSharpCook]

"Hi! I've been reged on this site for 7 months. For my second post in that time, I'd just like to say, "YOU'RE AN IDIOT!" Thanks! That's all."

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
Their inability to figure out that they are recommending an impossible strategy is ok, but I think the weak lead can be ok if you do it alot. Note that you must also do it when you flop a big hand so a min-bet from you sets off some alarm bells. I remember Negraneu wrote an article (in Cardplayer I think) in defense of the weak lead, but the point of the article was that it was most effective if: a) you play alot of hands and b) you make this lead with both draws and big hands.

Making a weak lead every time you want to see a cheap card is going to be picked up on pretty quickly by a good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice analysis.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see, he has been to WSOP final tables and you haven't. Now who's advice should we take.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a tool. Did you address any actual poker content referred to? No.

Suppose Erick Lindgren came and said he was wrong. We should listen to him obviously since he's even better than Friedman. Oh wait, but what if Negreanu came afterwards and said that Friedman was right? Oh we should listen to him because hes better than all of them. Do you see the point im trying to get at?

I never attacked Friedmans poker skills, I attacked his advice, which is horrible. Just being a better player than someone does make you right automatically in a dispute.

People on this forum trash TJ Cloutiers book all the time because it gives horrible advice that TJ himself doesn't even follow. Is it because we all think we are better players than him? I'm sure no one does.

OH! And nevermind the fact that part of the advice he advocates is IMPOSSIBLE to follow, because you can't bet less than the minimum.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see, he has been to WSOP final tables and you haven't. Now who's advice should we take.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then Danny Nguyen must be the end all be all of tournament advice huh?