There is a substancial difference between this question and question #12. In this case, there are several reasons why calling is better than going all in:

1) It's a tournament. You have a slight chip lead going into this hand, so if you call and lose the hand you are still 'ok" despite the high blinds. If you go all in and lose you will be severely short stacked, while if you just call you'll only be slightly behind.

2) It's very likely that your opponent has a flush. The way the hand played on the turn, the button could clearly be on the flush draw. When the other player decides to bet anyway, that should tell you that he isn't afraid of a flush.

3) More flushes beat you than you think. This may seem surprising, but based on the play of the hand on the flop, it's LESS likely that your opponent would be drawing to a small flush. What's more likely, is that he flopped a flush draw and an over card, or possibly, a flush draw and a straight draw. The 4 -5 makes a straight flush while the 4-6 you could beat.
So you can beat the 4 -6 and the 7, 8, and 9 high flush draws, but you lose to the J, Q, and K high flush draws. True, there are more flushes that a 10 high could beat, but not after factoring in that your opponent is less likely to call a raise on the flop with 8 -6 for example.

4) You won't get called often enough by a worse hand. Your opponent will fold aces up, and probably a set. He MIGHT call you with a straight, but that is a remote possibility. He will also probably call you with a small flush, but that's no guarantee you either.
He will, however, call you every single time you are beat.


I was involved in this hand, any guesses as to which hand was mine?

U were the player that bet out 250K on the river as a lure bet...Definitely! And u could beat a 10high flush draw...

I bet you were the guy who bet out on the river with a higher flush, so then of course you know that it is likely you would have a high flush, and would fold Aces up or a set. However, if this is poker superstars III, you're talking about, did you watch the first episode. Heads up is no time to be folding two pair or a set. If this were a deep stack tournament like a WSOP event, or the beginning of a WPT final table I would tend to agree with you. But if it's PS III, I would bet 84% of the players who bet out on the river would call an all-in with aces up, a set, or lower flush. You should do a poll at the big game just for fun.

(I'm guessing you lead out with the Q high flush, possibly JQd or 9Qd, as you were hoping your opponent would raise all-in with a weaker flush, or less liekly some other hand you could beat. He went all-in, you called, and won with your kicker )

Whilst correct, your analysis did have a flaw. We had the 4

LOL...i didn't even notice that part. Now it's Obvious DN was not the one holding the Td4d...

Mr. N - I would, honestly, have changed my answer if we didn't have the 4d.

Since the original question said we had 10d4d I ruled out any straight flush possibility for the opponent, limiting him to a non-flush wheel.

I also contend if he's able to fold a 9 high flush then he's also able to fold a J high flush.

I'm guessing DN had Kd9d.

Is it just me, or did DN possibly have a typo in the original question (ie the 4 of diamonds)? If so, changes the answer completely.

Nope, its not even close to changing the answer.

If for example we had the 10-7 there are 19/28 flushes that beat us and with the 10-4 combination there are 18/28

Nowhere near enough change to make a difference.

More-so when you factor in the likelyhood of the villain pushing the flop with 4-5

maybe I should clarfiy - it changes MY answer completely...lol

I am a little confused to your response to #1. I assmued ( I know what happens when you assume) that we were HU with no other players left. Why is it any different whether this is a tournament or a SNG? Obviously if there were other players left at the table an all in call is not the right play.

Isn't our goal, however, once we get heads up (i.e. down to 2 players) to try and end it ASAP?

Understand #2 ,#3 and #4.

I think u were the one leading out the 250K.


Thanks for these. Keep 'em coming.

I had the 10 4 and my opponent had the Q 7

I just called.

I'm still confused, as your analysis of the hand includes hands that contain the 4 of diamonds in them. Maybe it was the analysis that had the typo...

But, to me the overall answer doesn't add up. Far be it for me to argue with you about the overall correct and most prudent play, but I just can't see the reasoning add up through all the streets.
In the quizz you say you opted for a free card on the turn because you were afraid you had kicker problems. In doing so you likely must have thought you could win with a flush. But at that point your opponent had already acted as if he were on a flush draw, likely higher than yours, and because you held the Td he couldn't have you outkicked and be on a flush draw at the same time.
So why not bet to protect (and maybe even take down the hand) on the turn, and then fold to a diamond on the river if he calls, since by checking the turn your hand is such you most likely will have to pay him off no matter what on the river???
Please let me know where my reasoning goes wrong, because understanding a problem like this will probably do wonders for my game...

DN's answer is a little confusing. He said the button had acted as if on a draw, which is us (with the 10-4). The BB (opponent) has not acted in a way that suggests too much.

DN was explaining it from a '3rd level of thinking' point of view. ie What do we think our opponent thinks we have. We have made it apparent that we are likely on the flush draw and therefore his river bet shows confidence that he can beat most flushes

Well, yes and no.
It sems to me we are looking at this problem from the button's point of view. According to point two and according to Daniel's reasoning the button figured BB could have a flush when he bet out on the river. No word so far whether the button (Daniel) also could have put the BB on a flush draw either on the turn or already on the flop.
But in point three, still reasoning from the button's point of view, he (Daniel) is contemplating the possibility for the BB be on a flush draw already by the turn...
I am not arguing the play, I just try to understand the reasoning. Maybe it is best to check the turn even though you, at least to some degree, put your opponent on the same flush draw as you are on yourself. If so, there is a profound learning experience in this hand that I want to get at...

Whilst there might have been indications on the flop and turn, we are not confident that the BB is likely to be on the flush draw until he bets the river.

Point 3 is a 'hindsight' statement.. ie Given the river bet and looking back to the action on the flop.

What he is doing is taking the river bet and saying that the BB is representing the flush. Is his play up to this point consistent with a flush draw?

It is and it's an added bonus that the flop play indicates that it would be likely that it was a stronger flush draw (as he might have mucked a 9 high for example)

On the turn, DN doesn't have enough information to put the BB on a flush draw or else he would have bet it. Given this his check is reasonably standard, because if he gets check-raised he would be faced with a very difficult decision in a significant pot

Well anyway I still learned a lot from that particular hand. As someone once said about no-limit tourneys, "nevermind protecting your hand, protect your stack." I guess this is one of those plays an amateur (me) would have come close going broke protecting my hand on the turn, while a pro (guess who) can live to play another hand by protecting his stack. Excuse me while I go think about that one by myself for a while...

I don't see why you checked behind on the turn.
You're narrowing the range of your hand for your opponent's benefit.
If you get c/r'ed it's a relatively easy laydown.