Flopped Straight on 3 Flush Flop

[kagame]

A self-perpetuating urban legend...

Happens to also be in one of my fav movies

--------------------------------------------
The popular etymology of the expression or its urban legend may have received a boost in the following quote from Del Martin of the National Organization for Women:

"In America, early settlers held European attitudes towards women. Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However, certain restrictions did exist and the general trend in the young states was toward declaring wife-beating illegal. For instance, the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband 'the right to whip his wife provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb' -- a rule of thumb, so to speak"

—Del Martin, Battered Wives Volcano Press, 1976, page 31.

Regardless of whether Martin's analysis of old English common-law doctrines, or even her facts, are accurate, there is no evidence that she suggested this usage was the origin of the expression under consideration. However the legend persists. For example:

"Until the 19th Century, there was a charming little rule of thumb that applied to family life. A man was allowed to beat his wife as long as the stick he used was no wider than a thumb."

—Ellen Goodman, Washington Post, April 19, 1983.

"In state courts across the country, wife beating was legal until 1890. There was a rule of thumb, by which courts had stated a man might beat his wife with a switch no thicker than his thumb."

—Chicago Tribune, March 18, 1990.

This explanation for the origin of the term is also featured in the opening of the 1999 movie The Boondock Saints.

Wikipedia
--------------------------------------------------------

[kagame]

On the real topic of this thread, people seem to be advocating play the straight very passively/weak tight. Yet the same posters would advocate playing a set much stronger since it isnt "drawing dead". They might also suggest playing a medium flush hard because you dont want to let a lone big heart catch up.

There is flawed reasoning behind these positions, thinking about having a made 5 card hand in general, it is ALWAYS possible to be behind unless youre holding the nuts, and simply to try to not put your money in without the nuts is simply incorrect play. Yes, you might be beat here, yes you might be beat with a medium flush, yes you might be beat with top set. However, you play your hand for value regardless of this possibility as your hand rates to be good a large percentage of the time and there is profit in that situation. WIthout a read on a player being supernit tight, or excessive action, something like two all ins, you can not fold this hand and be correct in doing so.

If anyone has anything to add besides "we might be beat by a flush"...

[superchoatie]

Push the chips in. You have the nut straight, there's no real evidence anyone has a made flush, and it's certainly possible that the blind would fold something like 64 of hearts. My guess is that one guy has Ah and you can't let him draw for free.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
Rule of Thumb? That's interesting, but he flopped a straight. If you let people see free cards in that situation, then you need to reevaluate your game. I'm making a new rule of thumb. "If you flop the nut straight on a flushed flop, and the turn doesn't make a 4 flush or a pair board, GET YOUR MONEY IN," - rule of thumb #10,876,569

[/ QUOTE ]

Have fun getting broke.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]

Push the chips in. You have the nut straight, there's no real evidence anyone has a made flush, and it's certainly possible that the blind would fold something like 64 of hearts. My guess is that one guy has Ah and you can't let him draw for free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the stack sizes. Pushing is more than twice the pot. I don't think it's going to fold out a flush, but it certainly will fold out anything else, say, that you beat.

[HoldenFoldem]

Here's another perspective: from Super System; page 580
" Hold'em Longshots:
"If you hold suited cards , a flush will flop .84% of the time ; the odds against it are 118:1"
Extrapolating, with 2 callers, your odds of someone having flopped the flush are 1/118 + 1/118 = 2/118 = 1/59.
Looks like a pretty good bet to me. Comments??

[superchoatie]

That is not how the math works.

You have 3 of one suit visible on the flop. Now you have to figure out what the odds of either of those guys having 2 of that suit. ~=2*((10/49)*(9/48))= about 15%

About 6.5 to 1.

The reason you can't use those numbers you propose is that a significant part of the "longshot" is getting 3 suited cards of your suit to fall when you have 2 suited cards out of the deck.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another perspective: from Super System; page 580
" Hold'em Longshots:
"If you hold suited cards , a flush will flop .84% of the time ; the odds against it are 118:1"
Extrapolating, with 2 callers, your odds of someone having flopped the flush are 1/118 + 1/118 = 2/118 = 1/59.
Looks like a pretty good bet to me. Comments??

[/ QUOTE ]

Once two people show interest on the flop, the odds of one of them having the flush go way up. Sure, most of the time on this hand no one has a flush, but then they will tend to fold the flop.

Just like the odds of someone having a set on any individual hand are low, but they go way up when that person limps in, calls a preflop raise, then check/raises an innocuous flop.

[HoldenFoldem]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not how the math works.

You have 3 of one suit visible on the flop. Now you have to figure out what the odds of either of those guys having 2 of that suit. ~=2*((10/49)*(9/48))= about 15%

About 6.5 to 1.

The reason you can't use those numbers you propose is that a significant part of the "longshot" is getting 3 suited cards of your suit to fall when you have 2 suited cards out of the deck.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since the down cards are dealt first, the math would go 2*((13/52*12/51))=11.75%
Super system p579 "basic data" states" you willhold suited cards before the flop 23.5% of the time or 3.5 :1. Defining the specific suit (1/4 of 23.5%) * 2 players =11.75% (confirming the above math.) I thought about the first post & flopping the flush, and it didn't seem right . Your post confirms that. I went back to SS for more info as above. comments??
Is our hero still a 7:1 favorite??? I really don't know, but there must be some seriously qualified math types in this forum somewhere who can educate us on this point.

[Poker879]

OK, here is th correct math. It doesn't matter which cards are dealt first. The bottom line is (at the flop, i'm doing the calculations), you have seen 5 cards, yours and the 3 on the flop, 3 of which are of of one suit. Therefore the odds of one person having suited cards are (13-3)/(52-5) * (13-4)*(52-6) = 4.16%. But there are two players, so the odds of at least one of them having the flush is 1 - (1-0.0416)*(1-0.0416) or approximately 2*4.16% = 8.15%.
So assuming no other info there is an 8.15% someone has a flush, nothing to scoff at, but not that high either.

But people play suited cards more often, so the fact that they saw the flop increases the chances of suited cards, and more importantly not one, but both players stuck around for the turn, this drastically increases the chances that at least one of them has the flush.

The SB hasn't acted yet, just call and wait for him to act. If he check-raises a bet and a call and the BB calls, you can be fairly certain at least one of them has a flush.