hum... I respectfully disagree ...

Depends on str8 but taking 765 with two suited

All-in : need to be deep.

Likely callers ( all limps)

56 (two pair),
45
76
78
88,99,
77,66,55 (trips)

Weaker likely calls
Flush draw.
Twit slow playing high pp.

Nut str8 only goes one way from flop -you need all the money in at that point. A bit like you need as much money in preflop with AA (it loses value down the streets). You're about 60/30 favourite against all these callers.

This isn't a blind play its a "likely caller" play....what is key is the driving hands you are ahead of... and your inability to improve.

Pot size is bad because if implied odds +pot commitment

Translates to other str8s OK...

DN is clearly a fish.....

I don't have III yet, but didn't you read the first one?

In the 1st chapter or so, he discusses how a hand should be described. Give us the situation in full. I'm not familiar with it. You don't need to copy text, nor is it encouraged.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but Harrington clearly explains his reasoning.

DN, if I recall correctly (the book is at home, but I've also seen this one on TV), was the initial PF raiser, and called a reraise by Sammy Farha on the button (as did another player in between SF & DN). SF likes to reraise in position as it gives him several ways to win the hand (PF, CB on the flop, flop a big hand, etc.) . . .

On the flop, DN is OOP, and with 2 aggressive players left to act (including the PF reraiser)and a nice pot building, Dan Harrington advocates check/calling here as a way to build the pot. Also, because SF is well known to reraise with less than stellar holdings (in this example he reraises with 92s), if DN bets, the only hands that SF will call with are big hands. So we want to give SF (and the other aggressive player) enough rope to hang themselves with by allowing them to lead out and us to call. There's no reason to believe that our opponents, who are likely on big unpaired cards, are going to call our bet here.

DH's rationale is that nut straights don't come around very often, so we really want to milk this one.

Here's a good way to start thinking about making bets in these types of situation (IMO):

1. Ask yourself what types of opponent(s) you're up against.
2. Ask yourself what they're likely holding given the PF action.
3. Ask yourself, if I bet, what hands can call my bet.
4. Ask yourself, if I check, what hands will bet into me.

Answers:
1. So we're up against 2 aggressive players. One of which is the PF reraiser on the button. We're OOP to both players.
2. Given the PF action, I'm putting SF on a big pair (TT+) or unpaired overcards (AT+). I'm putting the other player on a medium or small pair, or unpaired AK-AT.
3. The hands that can call my bet are the overpairs (88+), and sets. If the MP player folds, SF may call with AK. But all other hands are likely folding and I'm not going to get any $ out of them.
4. If I check, MP or SF will very likely take a stab at this pot regardless of their holdings. In fact, given 2 aggressive players, we might see MP bet and SF raise!!! At the very worst, SF will almost certainly bet this hand in position regardless of his holding if he sees 2 checks.

So I think DH's analysis is a very good one, and illustrates the point of always using a verbalized thought process (don't go on gut, ask yourself questions out loud in your head and go through a deliberative process).

There is a long running debate on 2+2 about whether one makes more $ betting into a PF raiser or check/raising or calling. If it were a single aggressive opponent and I had a more vulnerable hand, I would likely bet out most of the time, and check raise about 1 out of 4 times (every time the hand is suited).

The genius of Sam Farha was first introduced to us at the 2003 WSOP and Harrington analyzed his full house early in HoHI. Farha's betting any lo card here. That's why I love being the aggressor with lo cards in position. Chances are that I'm up against hi cards conterfeiting each other and I can take the pot on flops like this.

If I'm DN, I might check/call because it's expected of DN to check/call the flop and check/raise the turn. This is his M.O. And Sammy's betting this flop.

But the 2 spades warrants a probe bet from DN. This can rope Farha into a healthy that DN can come over the top and take a nice pot thanks to Farha's raise. Of course, we're assuming that this lo flop has hit Sammy in some way. If it hasn't and Sammy's playing an Ace-wheel suited with no spades, you're taking nothing but the flop because he'll assume that Niegro's hit the flop.

I would take my chances on Sammy having an Ace-mid suited with the lo cards in my hand and on the board and probe bet to induce a good raise. He's probably paired that mid-card and he'll call with overs. The times he has a pair or a good draw will induce the raise to push against and this makes a probe bet a good move, IMO. I don't know the pot/stack size and I'm assuming that this is a tournament. 1/3 of the pot is good here or whatever Niegro normally leads into Sammy with.

I don't think I've seen this hand. I can't recall it at all.

It's from the 2005 WSOP. A 5s hits the river, pairing and flushing the board. DN checks, SF bets him all in, and DN lays the hand down (amazing laydown).

SF had the flush, of course, but as DH says in his book, "I wouldn't have laid down the nut straight here". Particulalry given SF's ability to bluff at the flush and FH card.

But that's why DN is one of the best in the world.

As for the analysis, I think the PF reraise should erase any notion that the 2 spades give SF any type of Flush draw (of course I'm wrong here, but it's tough to put SF on 92s - that's the beauty of his play). If we just imagine that he reraises with AK-AT (s or o), and any pair 66+, that's a lot of unsuited hands. Even if he has a suited hand, it's really only 3:1 that the spades hit him. So I think we have to discount the flush draw.

Besides, we know Sammy is aggressive, and he'll likely bet the FD to build a pot nobody can get away from when he hits, or simply take down the pot now on a hand that may never get there.

Also, I think we've got to take into account DN's style, which is significantly more effective as his Q vs. the table goes up. DN is known for taking some chances early in order to build a nice stack, and given the sheer size of the field, I'd do it as well. It's much easier to keep building when you're at least double the table Q.

Originally Posted by Beavis68

if you are always trying to protect from flush draws, you are going to be losing value.

this isnt a PP MTT, this was a professional match, you dont get chances to take big pots all that often. VS two opponents in a raised pots, the odds of somenoe have two suited cards that match the board goes down.

Beav, with the exception of the "all in as fast as possible" you and I are agreeing far too often (I see our posts sailed past each other in cyberspace).

IMO, in a live tourney, players play significantly tighter and make better (better than online) decisions because there is more time involved and they physically have to put chips in the pot. Also, if they bust out, that's it for the day unless they go to the cash tables. So I don't think I'd protect a nut straight from a board with a FD in a pot that was raised PF. I'd either be betting for value, or check/calling or raising for value.

Of course, if this is a PP MTT, what do you think I do????

"ALL YOU CAN EAT, BABY!!"

Originally Posted by Beavis68

if you are always trying to protect from flush draws, you are going to be losing value.

this isnt a PP MTT, this was a professional match, you dont get chances to take big pots all that often. VS two opponents in a raised pots, the odds of somenoe have two suited cards that match the board goes down.

And your analysis is?

I'm not being an asshole. I just don't know who you're addressing and which point because Jason and I have differing yet similar points.