money in on a draw?

[stew77]

I recently have been playing with some local players in a regular cash game. average pot is about $100 or so... almost all of them regard themselves as good players.. i rate 2 out of the 10.
anyways, my question is : ive always thought this was a bad play, but it seems if someone flops 4 to a flush that they think it is golden, and more often than not they call their whole stacks with that draw, is this really a bad play?

also a quick side question for those who wear headphones in a game.... whats the main reason to wear headphones? or is it just something to help you relax while your playing? ive been debating wearing my ipod but i always think i would rather listen to the other players and what they say....

thanks a lot

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]

anyways, my question is : ive always thought this was a bad play, but it seems if someone flops 4 to a flush that they think it is golden, and more often than not they call their whole stacks with that draw, is this really a bad play?


[/ QUOTE ]
If it is the nut flush, and there is enough money in the pot, the play is fine. You need to be getting at least 2-to-1 from the pot at a bare minumum, and that's not really taking into account the times your opponent has a set or two pair (or even TP and catches runner-runner) and fills up to beat your flush.

[elnino12]

All in on a draw is not a bad play if you have a short stack with the nut draw, the pot is huge and there are 2 cards to come on a non-paired board, or if you have a good deal of folding equity. Obviously these are not steadfast rules to live by, but they are some decent recommendations for times when this play is +EV.

[random@cash]

You know the pot odds. I"ve noticed in smaller nl games with a cap to the buy-in (don't know if applies in this game) that loose players are willing to "juice" the table early with the nut flush draw in the hopes of running up some chips.

I listen to my headphones low enough to still hear everything at the table. It helps me to be more patient.

[Cornell Fiji]

This is a play that Doyle preaches about but should only be used in games where people are affected by the sum of money enough not to call a good percent of the time.

Here is an example where the play might be used correctly:

There is $25 in the pot and someone flops a 4 flush on a K high board. UTG bets out $20 and the button raises him all in with a flush draw for $80.

The button will win the $185 pot 37% of the time (45% if he has an overcard with his flush draw) thus meaning that he will lose $24.05 on average when he is called.

Because he is losing $24.05 when called he must think that the villain will fold greater than 53% ($24/$45) of the time to his bet. If this is the case then his folding equity plus his pot equity when called make this a +EV play.

(Doyle said in Super System that people called him a really 'lucky' player but this is just because when he was called he was usually behind but with potential to draw out on his opponent. He made up for this by taking down many smaller pots with his all-in bets on draws)

Another added metagame benefit of this play is that it allows you to move all in and overbet your really big hands because people will just assume that you are on a draw and will call you. This can be very valuable.

-Steve