Secret Stock Poker Legend For Four Flush Boards

The board with four cards with the same claim is a strange and rare special combination … … and many players are wrong with the results as a result. Some players tighten a lot of time on four rinsing boards, never make Paris without the first or second largest hunt. Other players turn on aggression on four flush boards, which is a strategy that will work well against several players while failing versus someone else.

The best approach is somewhere, and that’s the approach you will learn today. This is what we will discuss:

• How four turn flush must have an impact on your overall strategy
• Four examples of flush: k  ️ j  ️ t  ️ 3  ️
• Bet size on four rounds flush
• Big bet with strong flush
• Small betting straight, two pairs, and set

This is part 3 of Alex “Kanu7” series of new millar strategies! Alex is one of the biggest winners of the money game in Poker. He joined the upswing team to create content that would help you improve your money game skills, including a down payment game course (coming on January 2020).

Want to go back? On element 1 in this position part 2 in position. Part 4 and 5 will be published on this blog (and youtube) on January 3 and January 10.

If you read the last two articles, you will get used to the types of strategic tweaks needed on four rounds of flush. To summarize findings from Alex’s personal breakers:

• On all turns, the average bet frequency we must be around 47%. The bet size used ranges from 25% pot to 200% pot.
• In the four rounds of flush, the average betting frequency we must be slightly lower. The size of the bet used is generally large (75-100% pot) with a few small bets (25-33% pots) mixed.

We can understand why we must make this adjustment by considering the incentives of each hand within our reach.

Individual hand incentives.
… if you miss the last article or just want to refresh. When considering individual hand incentives versus your opponent’s reach, it is very helpful to separate your opponent’s hand into two groups:

• Hands that will continue versus your bet or increase. The better your hand equity is contrary to a sustainable range, the more incentives you submit.
• Hands that will fold versus your bet or increase. The better the equity of your hand against the folding range, the less incentives you have to lift.

Of course, hand equity given to these two groups tends to move together. For example, if you have a hand that has very strong equity versus the fold range (making it less inclined to be examined), hands may also have strong equity versus the range of you. The effect of the latter cancels the effect of the first, which makes your hands more likely to be checked.

Suppose we increase the preflop and our opponents call a big blind. Flop comes k  ️ j  ️ t  ️ and our opponents check our C-bet calls. The turn is 3  ️ and check our opponents again. Let’s consider our incentives to bet if we hold 7  ️. First, how do we do opponents? We have 100% equity because our opponents are impossible to fold flushes, two pairs, or sets. In other words, versus only the range of our opponents folding, we don’t have an incentive to bet with 7  ️. What about call vs opponents? Our equity is actually not as high as absolute hand strength we might suggest. If we are lagging behind higher rinsing, we have 0% equity. Even if we are in front of hands like a set or two couples, there are at least a handful of rivers that make our hands best. We were given an incentive to check with 7  ️ on K  ️ J  versus the second range of continuation and the range of our opponents folding. This is the point: 7  ️ is the best fifth flush and hands that are strong enough relative to our reach, but still not strong enough to bet with value. Therefore, we must have a narrow range of bets.

Our main betting size must be large, but not too big – Pot betting is a fair choice. If we bet too large (2x pot, for example), our opponent’s decision is made too easy – they can easily fold almost all but flush nuts, which they will have relatively often. To quote Alex:

We will have more EV with our strongest hand [including flush nuts] by betting a little smaller in turns and rivers … we will only get a lot of folds on the river when we try to go big size.

So that’s why we don’t see big size. We see something around the pan or maybe sometimes a little bigger. In this [K  ️ J  ️ T  3  Board] Case, it’s a bit less than a pot.

Alex kept talking about the second betting size used by the breaker, especially on our K-High example board: a small bet around 32% of the pot.

Small betting solver (25-33% pot) especially by hand such as sets, two pairs, and straight on some frequencies, as well as some high flush Ace to protect the overall small betting range. Hands that are not watered with incentives for small bets versus the range of folding our opponents because the shovel on the river will fake our hands and produce a split pot. Two couples and sets have several incentives to bet against the continuation range of our opponents too. They actually have equity versus many of our opponents flushes. Bets with two couples and sets also prevent our circuit from being closed when the board pairs on the river. (If we only bet flushes in turn, we will never have a full home or a front thigh when a paired board.) However, there is one thing to understand before using this small size of four rinse planks …

You have to do it less because your opponent’s range contains more flushes. This will usually occur at the bottom board, like 7  ️ 6  ️ 3  2 , because then your opponent can have a higher Best Card K  ️ T  ️or Q  ️ (both of which are not possible at K  ️ J  ️ T  ️ 3  ️).

It doesn’t really matter to emphasize which board we want to put [Often] with this [marginal] hand and on the board we don’t do.

The main things that must be understood here are [concepts while playing]. The fact that it makes sense that we can have this small size and also make sense that we won’t do it. And whether we will depend on the size of failure and exactly how many flushes have both players, and so on.

[You might ultimately want] to make a decision based on how your opponents play. If you think your opponent will play very badly against small size, maybe you want to enter a small size [in your strategy]. If you think your opponent will play well [fight small size] … then you [should not put it in your strategy].

Want to learn how Alex recommends playing small bets on four rinsing rounds? (You know, if one of your opponents read this article.)