39 replies to this topic

[DanielNegreanu]

Many Texas Hold 'em experts believe you shouldn't put all your money in on a drawing hand.While that's true in many cases, it doesn't apply to monster draws. A monster draw is one in which you have 14 outs or more -- 14 or more cards that will improve your hand after the flop. Let's say, for example, that you put your opponent on pocket aces or pocket kings. You, on the other hand, hold 6h-7h, and the flop comes 3h-8h-9s. To improve to the best hand, you could hit one of the nine remaining hearts to make a flush, or six other cards -- 10s or 5s -- to fill the straight. Don't include the 10h or 5h because they've already been counted in the flush category. That would certainly be considered a monster draw! You'd have 15 outs with two cards still to come.In fact, it would make your hand the best hand. Obviously, your seven-high doesn't beat A-A, but your hand will win more often than the aces will; your monster draw will improve to the best hand a little more than 56 percent of the time.As a rule, 13 outs after the flop makes you very close to 50-50. Fourteen outs makes you a small favorite, and, as I mentioned before, 15 outs makes you a decent favorite over your opponent. So, in knowing this, let's now consider how to play these types of hands after the flop.Betting on drawing hands after the flop is often called semi-bluffing, but it isn't exactly bluffing when your drawing hand is statistically the best hand, is it?A semi-bluff gives you two ways of winning the pot: Your bet forces everyone to fold; or, your opponent calls your bet, and you fill your drawing hand. Therein lies the real power of the monster draw.By playing these hands aggressively you either force your opponent into submission or get all of your money in as a slight favorite. Either outcome is good for you, but having your opponent fold to your aggressive bet produces a slightly better result in the long run. Playing monster draws in this manner will also help add deception to your game; opponents will have a much more difficult time putting you on a hand.Let me illustrate. Suppose I've raised before the flop with A-A, and the flop comes 9h-3h-6s. Normally, this is an excellent flop for a big pair, as the only real threat, at this point, is someone holding a set (three 9s, three 6s, or three 3s). However, if someone is in fact holding a set, my chances of winning the pot would be slim to none. I'd have only a 9 percent chance of hitting one of the two remaining aces to win the hand. So what should I do if an extremely tight player goes all-in against me on a flop like that?Well, I'd probably fold my aces. That would be the right play.If, however, I were playing against a loose opponent who aggressively pushes on big draws, I'd be more likely to call his bet. While it's easy for me to put a tight player on a set and fold, it's trickier to face a loose player who raises my pocket bullets. That's an important lesson. You want that loose and deceptive image for yourself. That way, when you do flop a set, opponents will likely give you action, thinking that maybe you've raised with a drawing hand. Also, it's important that you make your aggressive bet on the flop -- don't wait for the turn.Here's why: Your odds to win the hand with only one card to come decrease dramatically. A hand with 15 outs after the flop is a 56 percent favorite, but if you don't improve on the turn, that number drops all the way down to 34 percent.That percentage is so low, that, if your opponent makes a large bet on the turn, he could shut you out of the hand -- something he couldn't do to you on the flop.(If you liked this piece, send a letter or e-mail to your local newspaper and tell them you want Daniel Negreanu's poker column in your paper)

[167-169]

Are these writeups also of what to expect in the upcoming book this year?

[silvap]

Well i realy like these advices, thanks daniel. Helpfull stuff.

[Actuary]

uh...ty.reading this makes me think there really isn't much difference betwen the top pros and the top strategy posters here.that's encouraging

[iggymcfly]

Or it means that DN writes a lot of his articles for noobs. I think that's probably a more likely conclusion.

[cjpaskert2]

iggymcfly, on Monday, August 28th, 2006, 7:28 AM, said:

Or it means that DN writes a lot of his articles for noobs. I think that's probably a more likely conclusion.

..which is exactly what us "noobs" need.

[Actuary]

iggymcfly, on Monday, August 28th, 2006, 3:28 AM, said:

Or it means that DN writes a lot of his articles for noobs. I think that's probably a more likely conclusion.

Really?Man, I was about to quit my job and go on the Tour!sorry, i'll go away....

[simo_8ball]

Main thing is, in strat forum, you look at the hand, analyse it, apply ranges, work out equities, etc. and get to the correct move over time. The top pros can figure the best move a lot faster and can do it at the table. If we could all take 2 hours over every decision I'm sure many of the regulars in the strat forum would be extremely successful tournament pros.It's far easier to make perfect decisions when you are out of the heat of the moment.

[TheIceman71]

I do not know if you read the comments that procede your posts, Daniel, but if you do, my question is this: is your advice on calling an all-in bet with a monster draw the same as the advice you give for pushing all-in with a monster draw?

[Acid_Knight]

TheIceman71, on Saturday, September 30th, 2006, 10:11 PM, said:

I do not know if you read the comments that procede your posts, Daniel, but if you do, my question is this: is your advice on calling an all-in bet with a monster draw the same as the advice you give for pushing all-in with a monster draw?

The lesson that is being taught is that monster draws are big hands and can be played accordingly. While it is almost certainly better to get your money in first so that you have fold equity, I would say that you should be mostly calling with those huge draws as well.Think about it. Usually there are a couple of raises back and forth after the flop if you have a big draw and your opponent has an overpair. Let's say that you both started the hand with $1000 and each put in $50 preflop. You flop a huge draw and your opponent has a big overpair. You lead out for 75$, he raises you to $175 and you reraise to $400. He now goes all in. Do you call? Of course you do, the pot is now at about $1400 and you only have $600 left. you're getting 7-3 on your money when you're probably an even money favorite to win the pot, if not a small favorite.Note that if the better orders were reversed, and it was you putting in the 4th bet, then a good player would probably lay down aces, giving you credit for a set or 2 pair. That's the strength of putting your chips in first. If you have to call a huge bet, the odds are probably with you and it's time to get in there, gamble a little bit, and hope your 7 high improves to beat his aces.

[mrdannyg]

YOU HEAR THAT PAUL WASICKA

[Acid_Knight]

mrdannyg, on Monday, October 2nd, 2006, 9:04 PM, said:

YOU HEAR THAT PAUL WASICKA

I hope you're just poking fun there. There was almost no way that Wasicka should've called in that pot. Yes, he had a huge draw, but the thing is that he's not heads up. If Binger had a big pair and Gold had the flush draw, then Wasicka was screwed. Also, moving up 2 million dollars by folding one huge draw is not an opportunity that most people get. He also hadn't invested many chips in the pot to that point, so there was little reason for him to risk his tournament on a hand where he had invested so little.Also, playing monster draws so aggressively is MUCH more effective in cash games. If you don't hit, no big deal. Rebuy.Wasicka made the right fold in that hand.

[Actuary]

Acid_Knight, on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006, 6:38 AM, said:

I hope you're just poking fun there. There was almost no way that Wasicka should've called in that pot.

Then why get in the pot?lol.Big thread on this already.Calling was his best chance to win the tourney vs the range of hands you can put the other guys on..not just the worst case scenarioshe already had 4MM, at that point 2MM more vs a chaqnce for 8 MM more and the bracelet. Once you have 4 MM, 2 MM more is less significant than the first 2MMCertainly no guarantee Binger loses the hand. No gaurantee Paul gets 2ndPaul way over estimated his Heads UP chances with Jamie. He really needed to gamble on the pot to have a decent chance to comeback and win

[Acid_Knight]

I'm sure there were lots of threads on the hand. I think that it's one of those things where it can really go either way.If he called, there was a very real danger of being shown a flush draw larger than his, as well as a hand, like top pair, that he was drawing thin against.Can you really criticize too much either way though?If he calls and wins, he has a lot of chips and actually has a MUCH better shot at winning the tourney. However by folding, he's assuming that Binger will call and run the risk of being eliminated. If Binger is eliminated on the hand, he moves up just shy of $2,000,000 just by not entering the pot. That's a huge incentive to fold the massive draw. It's also a very rare opportunity.If he called and made the draw, few people would've criticized the play. If he call, Binger folded, and he lost, I'm sure he'd never hear the end of it. The same thing would've happened if he called and missed the draw.It was definitely an interesting hand. I really think that all things considered, there wasn't a definite right or wrong move there. You're 100% right that he would've had a much much more realistic shot to win the thing if he called and won."he already had 4MM, at that point 2MM more vs a chaqnce for 8 MM more and the bracelet. Once you have 4 MM, 2 MM more is less significant than the first 2MM"That is a basic thing from economics called Marginal Benefit. I think that in this case though, that extra 2 million means A LOT to you. It's not like he already had like 40 milllion locked up. He can increase his winnings be 50% by simply not getting involved. While your point is valid, I disagree that the next 2 million is less significant than the first 2.

[Actuary]

to me 4 MM is huge.And 2 MM more is less of a factor at that point than going for the Bracelet.I could live 80 yrs on 4 MM even after taxesAt 5% 2.4MM yields: 120k / yr.And, to clarify, Paul's best chance to win was by Calling.Without even saying he won or not.Obviously, it's true if he wins.But even given the risk of busting, calling gives him the best chance to win.Yes, Jamie could have a higer FD.We're against a range of hands, not the worst case scenarioAnd Binger could also win and we're still in jeopardy of 3rd

[mrdannyg]

Acid_Knight, on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006, 4:48 PM, said:

That is a basic thing from economics called Marginal Benefit. I think that in this case though, that extra 2 million means A LOT to you. It's not like he already had like 40 milllion locked up. He can increase his winnings be 50% by simply not getting involved. While your point is valid, I disagree that the next 2 million is less significant than the first 2.

we've discussed this at length, so i won't hijack it here.i can only suggest that his marginal benefit in this spot is relatively small. the reason being another basic economics turn, diminishing marginal returns.he already had several million locked up. another two million is not THAT important when you consider he could win several more and the bracelet. if we were discussing a fold that guaranteed him two million instead of nothing, then i could easily understand folding pretty much anything.

[Acid_Knight]

That's the thing about diminishing marginal returns and marginal benefits - they differ from one person to another.I agree that 2 million more on top of 4 already won isn't as big as 2 million vs nothing, but it's also not like he had tens of millions locked up or anything.Also, I know the comment I made about Wasicka looking good or bad based on results doesn't matter, becuase he can't know what the cards are. I'm just saying that against the range of hands that TWO opponents might hold, even an OESFD can find itself with many fewer outs than it would like. Against one opponent, you're never in trouble. Against two, things change a little.

[ThaKid]

That's a decent piece of advice there daniel, cheers mayne

[NEtwowilldo]

Wasicka has written more than one article on that hand explaining his thought process. Basically he put Gold on a higher flush draw. ESPN.com and bluffmagazine.com

[pokerguy33]

So Daniel, I always hear that "Tight is right" Which in your opinion is better. Having a tight table image, or a loose table image. I think in the AA hand with all low cards on the table with a loose image your getting action here, but with a tight image I doubt you get any action at all. Just your thoughts?