Well, it's time to move from theory to practice, and that in the illustrative example, consider the options of playing a strong flush draw. Screw-on the condition, and in the next, final section, we consider an example of a "leaky" straight draw and summarize.

Example 1: The most powerful flush draw unfavorable position

The Titan Poker, 3/6 Holdem stakes, six players

Preflop: our player is in position under the gun (to the left of the big blind) with pocket 9 ♠ -A ♠.

Our player raises, the player in middle position to announce a 3-bet, the 4th player folds, our player calls.

Flop: (7.33 SB) 8 ♠ -6 ♠ 2♦ (two players) 

Our player ...

 It's almost the best flop to which we could hope for. When in the middle position player 3-bet before the flop, it became clear that - if we exclude the most aggressive and cunning opponents - his hand from the top of its range. Very few 3-bet with a hand weaker than A-J. Of course, the ace we probably could be the best hand - it can be over a pocket pair - but we would not be very comfortable to play a hand, as many of his hand range includes aces with stronger pairs than our . So, we have overcards with "trash" the flop and the best flush draw. How should we proceed?

Let's just define a few things before you move on to the options for action: we are not in a bad situation. If we think that the enemy pocket pair 7-7 or older or hand A-J or more, then our chances of winning the pot is at least only slightly less than 50%. PokerStove program determines the winning probability of 45%. However, no hands (within reasonable limits), which our opponent can announce 3-bet before the flop, and we are currently able to beat. Now consider our options moves.

 

Example 1: Beth

Since our average estimated the bank's share is 45%, bets and raises at this flop will cost us not very expensive. We "lost" only 5 cents of every dollar that we will make in the pot, which is a small price to pay if we can benefit from other factors - such as fraud or bank share, thanks to fold (the proportion of the bank due to the fold comes from a situation where our opponent folds his hand, which had a chance to beat our). However, the flop we do not have a direct share of the bank due to fold. There is not a single hand, with which the enemy would 3-bet before the flop, and then dropped to her in response to donk-bet with "garbage" flop. I know, I know, you should never say "never", but if we talk about the real situation, then our enemy will never give up at a time when such a flop. Of course, it can now be made the call, and the turn to fold, but we can not know anything about it. If he just call on the flop, it may be the use of slow-playing a big pocket pair, after which he plans to announce we raise on the turn. So, if we want to get a share of the bank due to the fold, we have to declare a bet on the flop and the turn - and perhaps even on the river. And although the situation is perfect for us with such a flop (remember, the probability of winning is about 45%), we can not proceed if the turn comes spade. Suddenly, our share of the bank is reduced to 20%, and make big bets becomes expensive.

When out of position due to the bank's share in the fold this hand will not be able to get cheap. To bet was correct, we need to get even some profit to make up for lost 5 cents. What about fraud? Using deception we can get a lot of money, if our opponent made a serious mistake in the subsequent part of the hand, as it will not suspect we flash (when it was). For example, if we open the bidding on this flop, and he decides to use the slow-playing a hand like AA or KK, and then announce we raise on the turn, it will almost always pay dearly to us when our flash composition. This, of course, will be lost 5 cents right here and now.

However, fraud is one problem: the need for it, so we really were so insidious, however we consider ourselves. Consider this case: what hand we assume the enemy, when we decide to use the donk-bet with "trash" the flop when the board there are two spades? In my experience, players behave (almost exclusively) with two types of arms: small / medium pocket pairs and strong draws. If we come under this scheme, I think the opponent with pocket AA / KK will be able to play very well against us. So, if we decide to make bets at this stage with our best flush draw, we should often use such a move and with other hand. Perhaps with hands like A-8, sometimes with a "bluff» K-Q, and so on. None of course can not be fraudulently if it falls under any scheme.

 

Example 1: A check with the intention of subsequently announce a raise

Beth is a "strange" way in the sense that most players tend to check your ad before your opponent raised preflop last. For this reason, I check a bit like a game from the vantage point; opponent (almost always) make a bet, when we declare him a check, and he has to do it, not knowing what course we're going to do. If we declare a check and then check-raise responsible for its continuation bet, it will be a weighty statement. Check-raising said: "Aha! Gotcha! "In a manner which is not able to simply bet, and probably this move suggests that we have an overpair to the board, or that the opponent's hand bit longer, or that we have a strong draw. A check-raise, in my opinion, more misleading than a bet. When faced two strong hands - in this case, and we, and the enemy, announced a raise before the flop, and that talks about this situation - on the flop is often declared a check-raise. If a strong enemy ace, but nothing came on the flop, he might just call our bet. Some players behave ultra-aggressive and 3-bet, even when their AK did not improve, but such people are rare.

However, you need to specify again that our hand is not strong enough, so we can definitely win the hand. If we declare a check-raise - and willingly incur small expenses right away - that we should have a way to make up for this loss in the subsequent part of the distribution. Will we be able to deceive the opponents? Have we estimated the share of the bank due to the fold? Like last time, I do not think we can rely on the bank's share of the estimated fold due to our move was beneficial. Most of the hands that can beat ours, with such a flop reach the showdown, you believe in it or not. You can argue that not all of the players made the call a check-raise on the flop, turn and river only with the AJ, but I can argue in response that the players who declare 3-bet pre-flop with this hand, in most cases, and make . Of course, this happens not always, but we lose a lot of money when the opponent does not fold, or when he is really strong hand, and he will be able to respond to our progress.

In addition, we are in varying degrees, must now open the bids and on the turn. It will cost us dearly whenever the turn card will not be the peak, as with any other card (except, perhaps, an ace or nine), our hand is not the best, and as sometimes on the turn, we will announce a raise, and we have made the call, due to the expectation of sufficient to compile our flush on the river. Of course, we still have the right to declare a check-raise on the flop, and then make a check on the turn, at which there is no spades, but it is a move that should only be used occasionally. If we play our best as a flush draw every time you are in a difficult position, it will be the first and last time, when the enemy will fall into this trap, if he takes notes. However, talking about how to use deception in your game and act variously, it is beyond the scope of this article.

I assume that a check with the intention of subsequently announce the call is not the most profitable way. Then what is?

 

Example 1: A check with the intention of subsequently announce a call

That such a move would make a beginner. He has drawn up a better flush draw on the flop, he realizes that "aha, with the next card I can compose a flash!", And is pleased to announce receipt. This is a cautious move. It is a passive move.

It is a political move.

In today's online games, especially when a small amount of the distribution of the participants, the players rarely throw big hands, as games have become so aggressive that they quite often announced raises and re-raises with a "no" hands that call was a profitable move in any situation one-on-one with the even hand unimproved AK. In the absence of the expected share of the bank due to the fold, and no obvious benefits from hiding our hands and playing it as if we think that we have the best hand, we just announce a call in cases where we can not lose the hand. It is clear that the fold is not acceptable, as we draw to the best hand, and more than enough pot odds as an incentive.

But here's the irony - check / call on the flop with the best possible flush draw is now so rare that it is probably much better to hide your hand, what it can to bet or raise.

 

Example 1: Conclusion

Thus, our findings: Our estimated share of the bank is insufficient to bet and / or raise on the flop was beneficial in itself, therefore, to justify this course you need to find additional advantages. We do not believe that these advantages are enough to bet or raise became more profitable than the most obvious move - check and call.

Sometimes poker is simple. Do not complicate it unnecessarily. 

online poker