<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0"
xmlns:rawvoice="https://blubrry.com/developer/rawvoice-rss/"

	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Nut Flush Draws Are Good Bluff-Catchers	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/04/nut-flush-draws-are-good-bluff-catchers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/04/nut-flush-draws-are-good-bluff-catchers/</link>
	<description>Weekly poker podcast hosted by Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis featuring interviews with famous and behind-the-scenes figures from the poker world as well as an in-depth poker strategy segment.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:11:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: foucault		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/04/nut-flush-draws-are-good-bluff-catchers/#comment-4577</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foucault]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5321#comment-4577</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/04/nut-flush-draws-are-good-bluff-catchers/#comment-4568&quot;&gt;Chris M&lt;/a&gt;.

Yeah, pair + draw is definitely most likely. Maybe like AK with a club?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/04/nut-flush-draws-are-good-bluff-catchers/#comment-4568">Chris M</a>.</p>
<p>Yeah, pair + draw is definitely most likely. Maybe like AK with a club?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Chris M		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/04/nut-flush-draws-are-good-bluff-catchers/#comment-4568</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris M]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:41:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5321#comment-4568</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[is there any hand you are calling turn with that does fold this river as played?

JJc, TTc I guess come to mind.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>is there any hand you are calling turn with that does fold this river as played?</p>
<p>JJc, TTc I guess come to mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: foucault		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/04/nut-flush-draws-are-good-bluff-catchers/#comment-4567</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foucault]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:36:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5321#comment-4567</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/04/nut-flush-draws-are-good-bluff-catchers/#comment-4563&quot;&gt;EndlessChase&lt;/a&gt;.

Hi Chase,

It&#039;s a very good question, nothing to apologize for. I was a competitive debater; I can handle a little disagreement ;-). Besides, I ought to have explained myself, I was just being lazy.

You&#039;re right that betting the flop will win you the pot more often, and that is how I would play most flush draws. It&#039;s a fine way to play even this hand, but I think the nut flush draw is good enough that it doesn&#039;t necessarily have to be turned into a bluff. Check-calling the flop actually shows more strength than betting, which as you correctly predict is going to get floated a lot. At the same time, no one expects you to have a flush draw when you do it. So I think he&#039;s not going to barrel me &lt;em&gt;unless&lt;/em&gt; the flush comes in, which of course is what I want.

Lastly, if I happen to play a hand like AQ this way, I&#039;ll be a little less likely to get barreled off of it when the flush comes in, since I do have some flushes in my range.

Hope that helps, and please keep commenting and asking questions- it&#039;ll help you improve, and I enjoy getting feedback!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/04/nut-flush-draws-are-good-bluff-catchers/#comment-4563">EndlessChase</a>.</p>
<p>Hi Chase,</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a very good question, nothing to apologize for. I was a competitive debater; I can handle a little disagreement ;-). Besides, I ought to have explained myself, I was just being lazy.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re right that betting the flop will win you the pot more often, and that is how I would play most flush draws. It&#8217;s a fine way to play even this hand, but I think the nut flush draw is good enough that it doesn&#8217;t necessarily have to be turned into a bluff. Check-calling the flop actually shows more strength than betting, which as you correctly predict is going to get floated a lot. At the same time, no one expects you to have a flush draw when you do it. So I think he&#8217;s not going to barrel me <em>unless</em> the flush comes in, which of course is what I want.</p>
<p>Lastly, if I happen to play a hand like AQ this way, I&#8217;ll be a little less likely to get barreled off of it when the flush comes in, since I do have some flushes in my range.</p>
<p>Hope that helps, and please keep commenting and asking questions- it&#8217;ll help you improve, and I enjoy getting feedback!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: EndlessChase		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/04/nut-flush-draws-are-good-bluff-catchers/#comment-4563</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EndlessChase]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:57:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5321#comment-4563</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi Andrew,

I&#039;m still pretty green in poker, and was wondering if you could explain the thought process post-flop? With a 3-bet showing strength, and flopping a pretty strong hand, I would c-bet. I appreciate that given his calling range and the flop texture it&#039;s more than likely he&#039;ll float, but it seems a check-call gives you a lot less chance of winning the pot if you don&#039;t make the flush. Obviously I&#039;m a very low level poker player so not criticising by any stretch of the imagination, it&#039;s hard to put tone in text, I&#039;m curious and trying to learn, so thought I&#039;d ask to try and understand.

Thanks, hope you&#039;re well.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Andrew,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m still pretty green in poker, and was wondering if you could explain the thought process post-flop? With a 3-bet showing strength, and flopping a pretty strong hand, I would c-bet. I appreciate that given his calling range and the flop texture it&#8217;s more than likely he&#8217;ll float, but it seems a check-call gives you a lot less chance of winning the pot if you don&#8217;t make the flush. Obviously I&#8217;m a very low level poker player so not criticising by any stretch of the imagination, it&#8217;s hard to put tone in text, I&#8217;m curious and trying to learn, so thought I&#8217;d ask to try and understand.</p>
<p>Thanks, hope you&#8217;re well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
