Re: Doyle Brunson is wrong about straights and free cards
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the Ace observation is true, but not very useful. It's misleading in the sense you mention, a better statement is a straight possibility is 100% certain with an unpaired flop unless the flop is 2, 7, Q; 2, 7, K; 2, 8, K; or 3, 8, K.
Sure an A guarantees a straight possibility, but so does 4, 5, 6, 9, T or J. And even if flop consists only of 2, 3, 7, 8, Q and K, there's a 75% chance of a straight possiblity.
It's not a bad pedagogical point for getting people to think about how many straight possibilities there are, and how dangerous free cards can be. But it's a bad point in that it can misleading about the situation without an Ace.
As a practical matter, you don't worry too much about straights that require someone to hold 63 and hit an inside card on the turn. You worry a lot more if the flop contains JT because KQ is a hand that will likely see the flop, and an open-ended high straight is a likely draw.
[/ QUOTE ]
the reason he talked about the ace thing is because he was talking about why he doesnt ever slowplay a set of aces
|