Two Aspects of Draw Article

[Al Mirpuri]

There is an article called 'Two Aspects Of Draw' by Ben Frisch in the Internet Magazine. He states that it is 44% to improve a pair with a three card draw, to two pairs or better. Mike Caro gives a comparable table at www.poker1.com that gives it at being 28.71% to make two pairs or better (I say comparable as Frisch does not specify what his pair is whilst Caro has it as being aces). Who is right? Who is wrong? My experience tells me that Frisch is wrong.

We have a thread discussing this article which has been contributed to by Mark Gritter, who has it that Caro is right.

It appears the article is just plain wrong. The other part of the article is question of bluffing in draw which is very basic in its treatment of bluffs. It is a shame to see an article that is not quite what it should be. It is gratifying for a draw player though to see that there is a draw article at all.

[Murakawa]

A few things about this article:

from "Natural Giant Hand" Section

Another reason to make this play with lousy cards is that if you semi-bluff when you have two pair or trips, you are giving up good chances to improve.

I'm not sure what you mean, semi-bluff two pair or trips. You shouldn't have to semi bluff trips. You just bet them. You are giving up good chances to improve, if you stand pat with them? I don't quite understand.


also from that section:

If you are going to get caught bluffing, it is good to get caught with junk cards.

I think I mentioned this in my last article... though it was on a totally different angle of it. In my opinion, depending on your stakes, you don't really have to make this bluff to get called down.

In the caught my giant hand section, you don't really discuss how to defend against this kind of bluff (which is basically to call down with a pair every time if you know you're against a frequent bluffer, because you usually have pot odds to get against a real hand) and you don't talk about when you should choose to do this kind of bluff. If you're a player who never plays flush and straight draws in the first place, this bluff won't work against most players who pay attention, and if they don't pay attention, you won't have to bluff in the first place.

As for the Drew for the Full House section:

I'm not really sure what you mean. What kind of cards are you saying you should do this with? You would play aces up the same way... the best that will happen if you don't have anything is that someone will call down with 2 pair. And when you bet, drew 1 and continuation bet you're representing two pair or trips, not a full house. Either way someone always has the option to call 1 big bet and find out, which is why these bluffs aren't advisable to novice players, in my opinion.


As for the first section, this is something that has been discussed numerous time in the forum itself. Every few months someone asks if they should keep an ace with a small pair (which by the way is a rare situation to be in if you're play tight aggressive draw, almost always happens in the blinds, and even then is rare) and they get the same answer (basically, no, unless you know they have medium-high two-pair). By the way, if someone did raise with 2 pair, which people usually do with 2 pair) when would you call with a small pair and an ace (even in the blinds?)

In general I felt that the first part could have gone deeper and given examples, and that the second part lacks angles (what cards besides junk should I be raising with? and when?)

Either way I'm very glad to see draw getting attention.

[Murakawa]

Sorry, I also assumed you were talking about limit rather than pot limit. This statement led me to believe so :

Generally, you do not have the odds to draw to a straight or flush.

Because in Pot Limit people have, or think they have, implied odds to draw for a come draw, so you probably wouldn't say this. Anyway, the idea of bluffing in Pot Limit with weaker holdings is more plausible, however you'd need to talk a lot more about specific situations where a bluff would get your opponent to fold (where you can't win in a showdown, which is what a bluff is). This is really what I'd like to see more of, specific examples.

Sorry for any confusion.

[Mr.WeakTight]

+I think the math in the article was talking about improving specifically to trips so it was a mistatement to say trips or better. I apologize for the error.

+If someone could address draw in a better manner than I did, and specifically if they could focus on pot limit / no limit, or the finer aspects of bluffing, that would be cool with me. I'm sure Dynasty would love to have such an article. He is also very helpful in the editing process. So if there's someone out there who wants $200 to contribute their expertise to the magazine, can write, and knows draw, they should sit down and write something.