high stakes poker - flopping flushes & sets???

[ukpoker 0]

I'd really like to hear Daniels thoughts on why it is he 'pumped' up the pot on the two hands he blogged about re: flush & set!In the first instance it appears that having made the 2nd nut flush on the flop he proceeded to go over the top of Barry for another $110,000 after Barry had bet $10,000 on the flop itself.This might be a lame argument but for Barry to CALL that bet he would to have had one of two hands...1) the Ace of Clubs 2) A set. With two cards to come Barrys call was indeed more justified as the number of outs he had were multiplied by a factor of 2 given that the turn & river card were still to come. Would it not have been better to bet out for the extra $110,000 AFTER the turn card (which was not a club) thereby nulyfying any 'extra' advantage Barry might have had before this card apperared. He may not have called in this spot!The same agument goes for when Dan flopped a set of 3's on the all diamond flop. Again by just 'calling' Sammy's initial bet gives Dan a must better chance of getting Sammy off the hand once the turn card had landed (non-diamond)! A bet of $100,000 AFTER the turn card, by Dan, would more than likely give Daniel the pot.What does everyone else think??

[gamblingmonkey 0]

You're obviously missing the point. In case one - 2nd nut flush - BG needs approx. 2-1 pot odds to make his call correct on the flop. By putting him in on the flop DN is not offering him this (there's ~35K in there and its 100K to call). Thus BG is making a mistake to call (in terms of the fundemental theorum of poker). In fact he's making a horrendous error considering DN's holding, but to be fair to BG he doesn't know his overcards aren't live. If you bet that much on the flop the only error might be that your opponent does NOT call and you miss out on some value bets when he's drawing next to dead. You seem to say he'll only call with sets or nut flush draws. So what? You want them to call. Your approach here seems to be to wait to the turn and see of it's blank before lumping it in. How daft is that? If the turn is blank then he'll probably not want to call with the bare ace. Then you lose out on getting your money in with a considerable advantage. Not good poker if you ask me. In case 2 - bottom set on an all diamond board you have a slightly better point but you're still way off the mark. If you don't put your opponent on a flush you MUST make him pay for the privelage of trying to make it. Again if you overbet the pot a lone opponent isn't getting odds to draw so a call is a mistake. This is not a bad situation. And if you've misjudged it and he's lucky enough to have flopped the flush then your odds on filling up aren't dire - you have outs. Somewhere in the region of 2-1 you fill up. I agree that playing like this is rather 'swingy' and you are exposing yourself to maxiumum losses should you get unlucky, but that shouldn't matter to you. If you are bothered by the swings you should move down to lower stakes. Advocating the 'wait-for-the-blank-turn-before-lumping-it-in' policy is 'safe' but not exactly optimal strategy. If you hold what you believe to be the best hand and you think your opponents will make a bad call then stick it in. This is not a tourney you know. Is this Mark Strahan? I certainly wouldn't reccomend buying your book if you have failed to grasp these issues. I'm not trying to be rude here, you often post some very sensible things and i'm a bit shocked you have resorted to this... The gambling monkey.

[blueodum 0]

It's actually not a tourney - it's a cash game (the players come and go).But the monkey is right in all other respects.

[gamblingmonkey 0]

My apologies, I was supposed to write 'This is NOT a tourney' in the above post. My arguments do not apply as completely if it were so that was a pretty bad typo. Thanks for pointing it out... The Gambling Monkey Can you edit posts so i can correct the error? Ah... i see... the small button labelled 'edit' does the trick. Typo now corrected.

[gamblingmonkey 0]

You must also consider that in some cases a big bet on the flop can trap your opponents into calling for all their chips drawing almost dead. For example in the Kc-9c hand. A big bet gets the money in against hands like Qc-Tc or 4c-5c, one of which is drawing dead and the other very slim. Or what if your opponent has Qc-7x? He might feel that you are trying to protect your hand and call thinking he has many outs when in fact he is dead to runner-runner. With hands like Qc-7 or 4c5c, or many other strong cards like KK/QQ etc... a fourth club on the turn, whilst not a bad card for you (you are still winning), kills the action and you don't get paid fully. The only hand you have to be worried about is Ac-Xc, but in that case you've been cold-decked and it's gonna be pricey for you. But you can't run around being scared of the nut flush every time you flop the second nut flush or else you end up playing tight-weak and being steam-rollered. Just a further thought, The Gambling Monkey.

[ukpoker 0]

Surely the point of the game, in any given hand, is to win the hand you're playing using whatever means are appropriate to you.I appreciate what you're saying here in respect of the 'odds to call' statement but where do you draw the line?In both instances if Daniel had raised for $10M and I had $1M in front of me...do I , as the person with the nut flush draw, call in both instances before the turn card is dealt?I believe the answer is yes on both counts. Why? Because the $1M is the amount I'm prepared to lose in a single 'pull up' and if you give me a 6/4 shot to 'double up' I'm going to take it more often than not.Move that statement on so that the turn card is delivered and its a blank and you NOW raise me $10M do I NOW call? In my experience NO! I'm now not prepared to shoot my load with a 3/1 chance of hitting! Your statements relative to the argument are valid but you're missing my point that Daniel is giving me good odds to call ANY bet with a lower amount of chips than him (true in both cases here).If Daniel had $1M and bet the lot and it cost me $1M to call and I had it in front of me I'd consider otherwise but gambling my 'lower amount of $' against his monster bets on a 6/4 shot is a no-brainer!

[gamblingmonkey 0]

Forgive me if my stats are slightly inaccurate... Preflop: 10K to go, 2 runners + 2 blinds = ~21K in pot On Flop: BG bets 10K, 31K in pot. DN raises 100K (the ammount BG has in front of him), t0tal bet 110K. Now there is 141K in the pot and its 100K for BG to call. BG wins 28.74 % of the time (i ran it) but lets call it 33% to make the mental arithmatic easy (and he thinks he has 9 outs not 7 from his point of view). BG calls 9 times. He wins 3. So he loses 6x100K = 600K and wins 141Kx3= ~420K. He seems to lose ~180K every 9 times he plays this hand, or put another way, He's giving DN 20K every time he calls. That ain't good poker. Yep, you can gamble your initial pull up all you like in this spot. That's up to you. But its a bad gamble and you'd be welcome to make it any time you please against me and i'm sure DN welcomed the call with the bare ace. Cash games are not about taking these kinds of gamble because 'you have a good chance of winning and its only my first pull up'. You make this play a lot and you lose out in the long run. It's a bad bet. I appreciate that BG doesn't know he's in such a bad spot. He might think in the best case scenario he's got a flush draw and overs giving him a coin flip. Then he can take the bet any time he feels like gladly. He's betting 100K to win 140K on a 50-50 (ish) proposition. Juicy profits will ensue. And your right, from BG's POV maybe he thinks DN is trying to run over him with a $1m stack and you are correct to say that from BG's POV he might be right in taking a shot. But nothing changes the cold facts that once the hole cards are revealed its a terrible bet. Getting back to your original question: The fact that BG does not realise what bad shape he is in makes the big bet on the flop even more attractive if you ask me. It probably did convince him he had more outs than he really had. Maybe he thought he had 9 clubs and 3 aces to hit, or perhaps 3 aces, 3 jacks and 8 clubs. It does not necessarily look like a bad bet to call from BG's POV which is why it is a clever bet from Mr. Negreanu. I'm sure that BG is a smart player and i'm reasonably certain that he'd pass if he knew the situation (having done the math). [Although having read his book he seems to be of the philosophy that you have to give action in order to get it, perhaps he would be willing to sacrifice the 20K as it were in order to get better action in the future]. If that is you Mark, i'm extremely dissapointed in your assesment of this situation. I would have expected better from you, especially as you claim to teach people how to play an write books etc... I can see what you mean that the bet looks like it's 'worth a punt'. But it isn't. This is what separates the good from the not-so-good; the ability to realise that the nut flush draw isn't always the solid proposition it appears. You need more than 1.4:1 to call with it. In a tourney the situation is different as other factors are involved, but in cash games it should always come down to the cold hard math of the situation (in combination with your read, of course) I'm off to write a book on how to play now... (just needling you ) The gambling monkey. And please, this betting on the turn nonsense. You know better than that. Yes, you are far less likely to call on the turn than on the flop. I agree completely, but that is irrelevant. Mr. Negreanu WANTS A CALL. He's a big favorite in the pot. He's in the business of getting all the money in, not in trying to force his opponent out. Indeed, if you can see a blank turn and miraculously convince your opponent to lump it all in, then you are forcing him into making a much more catastrophic error. But as you say, your opponent is much less likely to call on the turn so maybe you should try and make him commit on the flop. YOU WANT HIM TO CALL. If you can't afford to lose 100K then you shouldn't be playing in that game. You talk as if you are scared of losing the pot (for whatever stakes). You cannot play poker scared or else you will, inevitably, lose. That's the irony of it all. In poker you get many very knowlegable players who do all that they can NOT TO LOSE and all they accomplish is ensuring their own demise. You must play poker to win, NOT not to lose.

[ukpoker 0]

Monkey chops...you state "You must play poker to win, NOT not to lose.".My point is that waiting for the turn card to fall gives the person with the 'supposed best hand' the BETTER CHANCE to WIN as there is now a BETTER chance that his opponent WONT call a 3/1 shot to see the river card!Therefore you'll WIN MORE by betting AFTER the turn card as you're not giving your opponent in ANY WAY reasonable odds to call!If you offered me a bet - your money versus my money that I could spin the roulette wheel TWICE. If it landed in section 25-36 EITHER time I'd win all your money I'd rip your arm off.Now give me the same option with only ONE spin!! I'll pass thanks!Wake up man!!

[Whatever 1]

you can't run around being scared of the nut flush every time you flop the second nut flush or else you end up playing tight-weak and being steam-rollered.

:idea:

[silvergoose 0]

Monkey chops...you state "You must play poker to win, NOT not to lose.".My point is that waiting for the turn card to fall gives the person with the 'supposed best hand' the BETTER CHANCE to WIN as there is now a BETTER chance that his opponent WONT call a 3/1 shot to see the river card!Therefore you'll WIN MORE by betting AFTER the turn card as you're not giving your opponent in ANY WAY reasonable odds to call!If you offered me a bet - your money versus my money that I could spin the roulette wheel TWICE. If it landed in section 25-36 EITHER time I'd win all your money I'd rip your arm off.Now give me the same option with only ONE spin!! I'll pass thanks!Wake up man!!

To win MONEY, not to win POTS. If you read SS/2, Mike Caro notes in one of his points that winning pots is irrelevant. You want to put your money in with the best odds, and then you'll win. If you want to win pots, you can go all in every time blind, and you'll win lots of pots. You'll lose lots of money, but so what, you're winning pots.

[gamblingmonkey 0]

Your roulette analogy doesn't apply here. I'm not really one for the wheel but i'm presuming you are offerring me even money on a 2-1 shot being run twice. That's not a smart bet for me to take, i agree fully. With the flush draw in question the situation is totally different. Firstly even with the full 9 outs to the nut flush you are 2-1 to make your hand BY THE RIVER. You aren't running a 2-1 shot twice. You are being offered 1.4:1 to run a 2-1 shot once (or alternatively 1.4:1 to run an ~4-1 shot twice). That's a bet i want to take. It'd be me cleaning you out after a while. Now i totally agree that its better for you to get your money in on a blank turn, you become an even greater favorite. Your opponent is making a greater mistake by calling AND its far less swingy for you and your bankroll. BUT. And its a really important but. Your opponent isn't dumb. In this case its BG and he probably knows a thing or two about holdem. Like, for example, calling 100K at 1.4:1 on the turn with nothing but the nut flush draw is stupid. He won't call you when you shove it in on the turn. And, because you have a +ve expectation if he calls you at any point before he makes his hand, you DESPARATELY WANT HIM TO PUT AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE INTO THIS POT. This is much more likely to happen on the flop. I agree its much 'safer' to wait for a blank turn and call on the flop. But say you just call on the flop. 21/2 or so times out of ten a club hits the turn. Now what do you do? Tricky. Does he have the ace or not. You could do your bollocks if you're not careful. The board pairs a few times too. Hmmm.... what to do. But, presuming this doesn't happen, about 70% of the time you can safely lump it in and win 30K. Fair enough, not a bad way of going about things and its certainly profitable. After all you do hold the second nuts and your opponent has no pair, not easy to lose money in that spot. I can see what you are saying and i agree to some extent on your 'safe' philosophy. But are you seriously telling me that you would call on the flop with the AcJ if you could see your opponent had Kc9c? It's a negative EV play. The math shows it. And if you switch the situation around... if you can see your opponent has the bare ace when you have the made flush are you seriously telling me you want him to fold? This is a cash game, not a tourney. If he gets there, so what? By back in and encourage him to do the same. If that hand comes up every game then you'll be rich very quickly. Earning about $20K every 3-4 minutes! If its a tourney then if you go broke you're on the rail and i see the argument for 'playing safe' (its not what i'd do, but i see the argument). I'm not saying playing it your way is wrong at all. I see your point. I just think it's better in the long term sticking it in on the flop. And its pretty damn tough to get him to put in the extra 100K on the turn when he's in real bad shape. And you might be giving him the illusion of reasonable odds on the flop, but they're not reasonable at all, 1.4:1 when he's only 29% to win. It looks close but you've got a fair edge here. He needs over 2-1. If you add up all the 'safe' 30K's you win on the turn and take away the lossses when he makes the flush (you're not folding to reasonable bets) does it work out better in the long term? The gambling monkey

[pokerplayer24 0]

What awful plays by barry and Farha in those pots. For greenstein to call that bet at best he is even money. At worst he is something like 25% to win. Just an awful call. Same with farhas move to raise all in when DN had already pot committed himself and Farha wasn't even drawing to the nut flush. Just amazes me that world class players would ever make those plays.

[Eight_Tabler 0]

The only way I'd ever play this hand the way ukpoker is suggesting ("safe") is if it were a tourney, and we were approaching the bubble or a very large increase in payout; and only if my opponent had more chips than me or enough to cripple me. Otherwise, I completely agree with gambling monkey. Why play it "safe" and miss an opportunity to win 20K extra (probably a little more) on average in the long run? If you just call the flop bet and succeed in pushing him out on the turn when a blank hits, then a profitable opportunity was missed. If you have a relatively large bankroll (like DN) then you can deal with the swings that come with making this play. Otherwise, you shouldn't be playing these limits.

[srblan 0]

In cash games, adequately bankrolled players play to maximize small advantages. In this case, the point was to maximize a large advantage. I am not sure why Farha or BG decided to make these calls. As an outsider, they seem like crazy gambles to me. Barry must have decided that Daniel either had a flush or nothing and figured that he didn't really want to be bluffed in front of the cameras (this is pure speculation, apologies if I am off base). In Farha's case, I really have no clue what he could have put Daniel on that he was in good shape against. If Daniel was semi-bluffing with a big diamond, Farha was in terrible shape. If he had a flush, bad shape. If he had a set, again, pretty terrible shape. I don't see how he found a call here except that he has a ton of gamble by nature. It's possible that he thought his overcards were still live, and that with the flush draw that gave him enough outs to continue. I just can't see how he did it.As far as Daniel's plays, I'd have played it the same way hoping to get the calls that he did. That's generally the way that I'd play a flopped flush against someone who has shown strength preflop. The logic is simple: they'll either call with a draw, or fold a hand that didn't have much of a chance, but that could have taken the pot from me if another flush card appeared. You maximize the chances that you'll get your big hand paid off, avoid having the pot taken from you if a bluffing situation appears, and you'll give your opponent the best chance to make a mistake (which is how you make money).

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

As far as Daniel's plays, I'd have played it the same way hoping to get the calls that he did.

Thats exactly what i was thinking. Daniel made the right play on both hands, he made them pay for their draws, and more times than not DN takes down two huge pots. It just happened he lost both, that doesn't mean he played them incorrectly, it just means he got unlucky.

[blueodum 0]

Surely the point of the game, in any given hand, is to win the hand you're playing using whatever means are appropriate to you.No. It is to maximize your expected winnings, or minimize your expected losses. That's in cash games. In tournaments, there are a few other factors to consider.

[GWCGWC 83]

MONKEY WINS

[blueodum 0]

Suppose you do wait for the turn and the spade falls. What does DN do? This becomes an incredibly tough decision, one where he can easily make a mistake (by either folding or putting all the money in).Conversely, BG has a much easier decision after the turn - either a spade falls and he's got a lock; or it doesn't and he calls if he's getting 5 to 1 from the pot, folds if he doesn't.The point of poker is to force, whenever possible, your opponents to make difficult decisions.The way DN played it is basically the only sensible way you can play it - I think BG would have played it the same way if he had DN's hand.

[chubby74 0]

Daniel, I was wondering how Barry Greenstein was in this game when he spoke at the University of Illinois tonight. I heard from someone who went to see Greenstein speak that Greenstein says he has been in Champaign for a week. Just curious.

[ukpoker 0]

I appreciate that all the support on this subject is for Mr Monkey and I CAN see his, and others, point of view here!Barrys call, with the Ac and $110,000, is probably more an indication of his inability to value the $110,000 as anything more than a 5c coin. I suppose after playing high stakes poker year in & year out your indifference to money becomes more and more apparent.I'd probably call the bet upto $1000...after that I'm choking!Sammys call with the Qd on an all-diamond flop indicates, to me, that he's a born gambler and, in this instance, he got the luck required. I suppose if you can 'pull up' another $100k just like that then who cares anyway.My opinion with these 'stupid money' games ($100k+ buy ins) is that the people playing them have no values anyway. Daniel has now admitted to being down $447k in two days of play. I'm sorry but if you keep on doing your brains like this every week then it'd be simpler to set fire to the lot while you still have it to set fire to!At least it'd keep you warm and cozy for a few minutes!

[gamblingmonkey 0]

I can see your POV here too ukpoker. In the first hand BG's call here is not a terrible play at all. He's a bit unlucky to find himself in bad shape, there are a lot of hands that he is getting good odds on his money to beat and in the worst case scenario (which he has run into) he still knows he has a minimum of 7 good outs to the nuts. He's made a good call as long as DN hasn't got a made flush or a set, and i imagine DN can make this play in many circumstances where he has neither of these holdings. I still prefer the way DN played this compared to flat calling on the flop and betting out on the turn. Personally i may have simply check-raised without sticking it all in on the flop. I can still bet enough to make BG make a bad call on the flop (and if he pushes all-in in response then its a simple call). Then on the blank turn you can bet out and force a fold. This seems to accomplish both getting more value out of the best hand and reducing the risk of allowing him to see both the turn and the river. The trouble being the money may not quite be deep enough to do this. If you check-raise the flop there'll be 40K in the pot after your call of BG's bet and you need to raise at least another 30. This will leave 70K in the pot and BG with 70K behind, thus you can offer him 2-1 on the turn when you bet out first to act. He won't call this on the turn. The calculation you need to make here is working out whether this play makes more money in the long run than getting it all in on the flop. It's complicated, but close in my estimation, and playing it this way opens you up to making some tough decisions on the turn when a scary card turns up. If you believe you can make good decisions on the turn then this may be the way to play it, if not stick it all in on the flop and take the decision off of yourself and put it on the opponent. Tou may also find that if you raise another 30K on the flop he just comes back over the top anyway and you are forced to get it all in. I can see what you are saying about the money means nothing and players who don't care and want to gamble will call you every time. That's OK, it doesn't change the fact that the call on the flop is a bad call if your opponent does this. Its a call that makes you money if you already hold the flush. I'm sure this being a TV extraveganza that there would have been an 'on their backs' situation on the flop here (despite the fact its a cash game) - it makes things much more dramatic. How much do you wish to bet DN's reflex reaction to seeing the bare ace would be something along the lines of 'keep calling - YBA!' He certainly wouldn't have been offering to run it twice. Having read Ace On the River it would appear that BG's philosophy is very much that you have to give action in order to get action. You are probably correct therefore in assuming that he's never passing the bare ace here. I still don't understand why his calling worries you. You are ahead. It doesn't matter if the call is for 1c, $1, $100 or $100K. Its still a call you welcome. Hell yes it has the potential to dent your stack, but that's the game. If you are frightened of losing money you shouldn't be playing in the first place. As someone wisely pointed out, its not the number of pots you win that's importent, its the amount you walk off with at the end of the day. You shouldn't be trying to take this pot down, you should be trying to extract maximum value from the hand. Go ahead, keep on getting all your money in with the bare ace versus my made flush or two pair versus my made straight, YBA my friend, Y. B. A. The gambling monkey.

[blueodum 0]

ukpoker,I think you are missing the point. While they are playing, the money isn't money - it's chips.What matters to them is making the right decisions. I don't think BG was particularly happy with his call, even though he won the hand.As the cliche goes - it's just one long poker session, so who is up or down after a given day is not much more than trivia.

[ukpoker 0]

As the cliche goes - it's just one long poker session, so who is up or down after a given day is not much more than trivia.

I quite agree although doing close to half a mill in greenbacks in less than 48 hours sure is a kick in the goolies nomatter which way you want to say it!Here endeth the discussion!

[Stackraider 0]

Ubpoker. For some reason you are doubleing the math in this situation. We know there are 6 clubs gone so there are 7 left out of 45 unknown cards. This gives BG a 15.56% chance of hitting club on turn and (if he does not hit it on the turn) a 15.91% chance to hit on river. This is a total of 31.47% chance of flushing before the turn. For some reason you think he has a 6 to 4 chance and that is incorrect. BG would tell you himself that if he knew his only outs were clubs he made a bad call. DN was trying to get value for his situation. He welcomed the call because the odds were in his favor. The same was true for when DN flopped the straight with 2 diamonds on the board. I believe he welcomed Sammy to call that bet also. It just did not work out this time. If you play poker for a living, you do not make decisions in the short term. There is such a small margin for error that you have to make the right decision every time. The reason BG and Sammy made this calls is because they did not read DN correctly. If they had, I guarantee they would have folded.I hope you can make the correction in your math so you don't lose your bankroll.

[Sonicpb 0]

Ubpoker. For some reason you are doubleing the math in this situation. We know there are 6 clubs gone so there are 7 left out of 45 unknown cards. This gives BG a 15.56% chance of hitting club on turn and (if he does not hit it on the turn) a 15.91% chance to hit on river. This is a total of 31.47% chance of flushing before the turn. For some reason you think he has a 6 to 4 chance and that is incorrect. I hope you can make the correction in your math so you don't lose your bankroll.

How are you correcting some one on math when you just added the draw on the turn to the draw on the river and said the sum was the total chance to hit by the river? Have you ever read any book that mentioned odds or taken a stat class? In statistics this is called a series since the actions of the first outcome affect the second outcome. To get a fairly accurate method you calculate out the chance of hitting on the turn. Calculate out the chance of hitting on the river. Then take the chance of missing on the turn, multiply it by the chance of mission on the river. Take that number and subtract if from a 100% leaving you the chance to hit your draw by the river. I haven't looked at the hand, but if you are correct that he had 7 outs and 45 cards were unknown before the turn, then the numbers would run like this:Chance of hitting the turn: (7/45) = 15.56%Chance of missing the turn: 100% - 15.56 % = 84.44%Chance of hittin the river: (7/44) = 15.91%Chance of missing the river: 100% - 15.91% = 84.09%Now for the real math:100% -[(84.44%)*(84.09%)] = 28.99%28.99% (give or take some minor rounding) is the chance of hitting a 7 outer with 45 unknown cards with 2 pulls. YOU DON'T ADD THEM!To say something familar, "I hope you can make the correction in your math so you don't lose your bankroll."