flopping a set on flush board

Once both players call the PSB on the flop I would check the turn here. As played when villain check-raise shoves his range is basically a flush, when he jams the pot is 7.90 and 2.70 to call meaning we are getting nearly 3:1 but against a flush we only have about 20% equity so I guess we fold.

I would have bet 2/3 on flop once called 2 ways I’m trying to pot control to the river and see what develops while being IP.

Probability of flopping flush is more like 0,05%.
After your big bets (probably too big, but I dont know your oponents) you have to pay 2,7 to 12,3 pot. With set you have 22,7% against flushes only, so you tell me if its a call.

Originally posted by mjez1
This is probably a bit fishy question. I'm sorry. But is this a spew or cooler? I wanted to get my stack into pot since flop. If I know correctly probability of flopping flush is 5% so very unlikely. That's why I wanted to put my stack into the pot as fast as possible but the villain was even more aggressive. Should it stop me?

If you hold suited cards, then there are 11 cards of that suit left in the deck.
There are 165 3-card combinations of 11 cards.
There are 19,600 3-Card flops possible -- you hold two cards, so the 19,600 figure is the number of 3-Card combinations in 50 cards.
So there is a 0.8% chance that you flop a flush -- or 117.8:1

If you hold no flush blockers, then to calculate the probability of one other player flopping a flush, you need to multiply the above number times the probability that one of the other players in the hand holds two of that particular suit. That calculation is a bit above my pay grade.[1]

But since it is much less than one, the resulting probability that an opponent hit a flush is considerably lower that the 0.8% mentioned.
However, when they are betting strongly, you can assume that they have at least a flush draw.

[1] I'll tackle that in the thread https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=516165 when I get motivated

Oh, I was pretty much wrong. Thank you for correcting my mistake.

I was checking the 'What are the odds? the thread' but it's still too much of math for me.

I would like to find a passion for this type of math.

Bets are too big here. Flop i agree with 2/3 sizing. If we get check raised it could be too big to call if you bet pot an they 3x it.
After getting called by 2 players it's worrying and you need to exercise pot control. You do not want to play for stacks here. You don't have the nuts. Just think of what type of pot your hand wants to play for on each street. When there's 2 opponents we cannot commit on a monotone board. We cannot even commit heads up let alone with 2 players.

So the thing to draw is pot control here. If one player folds on the turn, and one calls, you could consider going for value on the river of 1/2 max if the flush or straight don't hit. (this is only if you 2/3 flop+turn.).

I think there is bit of misconceptions in this one. Flopping flush is indeed rare but once flop has come monotone and we are multiway it's quite a decent chance that someone has it. People are more likely to play suited combinations even in micro stake after all.

So bit smaller as default on flop and turn I would be happy to check as we really don't want to face x-r. Once we make another big bet and get call and raise stack off is marginally better with chance of BB calling and improving our pot odds. Well perhaps rake make fold still better. Anyway we should not be in this situation.

I dont undestand reasons behind checking turn. Being afraid of x/r is not enough, cause this way you should never bet. And on turn we have pot odds even if BB dont call.
And rake on ps nl5 is same as nl50, so wouldnt be worried about that too much.

I would bet flop, bet turn. Enough to get value, but you don´t want to be commited to much. Just value bet and pray for fullhouse. River is XC/XF/X. Sizing on flop and turn I would go 50-60% pot. You want your hand to be still foldable.

But in the end you are in situation where you need to put 2,7 to 12,3 pot against noname guy.

I mean sometimes they can semi-bluff you with just diamond ace. He raised from UTG, so still he can have diamond ace only with some pair or only high 2nd card. So speaking just for myself, I would probably call that all in. But more important is not to get in such situation.

Would be costy, but not cutting my whole stack

We dont have the nuts, and we want to control the potsize against 2 players, Betting smaller on flop makes sense also what hands do we bet pot on flop against 2 players ? probably not that much. I doubt Hero would potsize bet on flop against 2 players with toppair on a flushboard.

Originally posted by ghaleon
I think there is bit of misconceptions in this one. Flopping flush is indeed rare but once flop has come monotone and we are multiway it's quite a decent chance that someone has it. People are more likely to play suited combinations even in micro stake after all.

So bit smaller as default on flop and turn I would be happy to check as we really don't want to face x-r. Once we make another big bet and get call and raise stack off is marginally better with chance of BB calling and improving our pot odds. Well perhaps rake make fold still better. Anyway we should not be in this situation.

I agree with that.

Originally posted by sandraardnas
I dont undestand reasons behind checking turn. Being afraid of x/r is not enough, cause this way you should never bet. And on turn we have pot odds even if BB dont call.
And rake on ps nl5 is same as nl50, so wouldnt be worried about that too much.

NL5 has the highest rake i believe. NL 50 its 9,5 bb/100 somewhat and on NL 5 its around 12bb+/100 on stars i believe.

The reason for checkbehind turn would be Pot control, also we dont want to fold our equity here against a x/r where we can still realize it on the river even against a flush when we improve to a fullhouse.

NL5 has the highest rake i believe. NL 50 its 9,5 bb/100 somewhat and on NL 5 its around 12bb+/100 on stars i believe.

https://www.primedope.com/online-poker-rake-comparison-rake-calculator/

According to this site ps nl5 has almost exactly same rake as nl50.

The reason for checkbehind turn would be Pot control, also we dont want to fold our equity here against a x/r where we can still realize it on the river even against a flush when we improve to a fullhouse.

Yeah, but why "pot control" here? Solely because of fear of x/r? That doesnt make sense since, as I said, in that case we should never bet.

Idk about this site, in my database the rake i mentioned is from large sample, so it should be accurate, unless holdemmanger 3 isnt calculating it correctly which i dont think. If you want to believe that site, thats absolut fine by me. And maybe that site is right 9 bb -> 12 bbs arent that much different.

No its ofcourse not just because of the fear of a x/r. I dont know if i want to write 500 words here to explain that view of why checking back sometimes 3 of a kind on a flushboard in a multiway pot makes sense. I think there are many reasons for that.

I only asked and you just said its check because its check, so what I mean it is as instructive as saying nothing. And maybe at high stakes it is a check, but at nl5, where oponents (regs too) may call here twice with many silly hands and will not raise at a high enough frequencies I dont see a reason why not bet with second set.