First this article is disjointed and difficult to read. It sloughs over most of the points it tries to make, and it makes some patently inaccurate claims.

First of all, no it doesn't. You could get 3bet and have to fold. Second of all this isn't an advantage over call-call since if you call the turn you absolutely get to see the river.

Well, we've already spent 2 bets (and could end up spending more). Two bets is the maximum we have to pay with the call-call line. If you're in position in a heads-up pot and your only goal is to showdown the hand as cheaply as possible, you should never be raising the turn or the river.


This is of course true, although these two things factor in to almost any strategy you choose to employ.

So does that mean we should employ the FSDR against "strong" players or we shouldn't? "Strong" isn't nearly a complete enough description to properly analyze whether an opponent will be susceptible to the free showdown raise.



The author seems to be recommending a raise when he says

First of all, we're not seeing the river card for free, we're paying 1 more big bet than necessary to see the river card. But my main point is that he then goes on to say

A 'typical aggressive' opponent in a 150/300 6-max game is very likely going to be capable of 3bet bluffing or semi-bluffing the turn in a blind vs. CO pot.


Moving on..

It's disingenuous of the author to call the price to get to showdown $600 instead of 2 big bets. What's more it's extraordinarily unlikely for any good player in those short handed high-stakes online games to fold top pair in a blind vs. CO pot.



Most of the article is chaotic, incomplete, and filled with patently bad advice and misinformation. In my opinion this article should not have been published.

Hi There,

Thanks for the constructive comments......if a little over the top. First of all please dont make the error of thinking that everything that I am saying here is gospel. How can it be, we are dealing with generics and not specifics in many cases.

Firstly some of the points that you refer to as innacurate are not innacurate at all. It is more than probable against certain types of players that a turn raise will almost guarantee you the river but it also means as you rightly say that you can be three bet.

If you twist this around, why would ANYONE claim that a turn raise always guaranteed seeing the river and never being three bet......this just does not make sense and no half decent player would make such a silly "guarantee".

Also, I cannot comprehend your critiscism of me saying $600 and not two big bets when it is clearly the same thing and one of personal taste as anyone who is playing 150-300 already knows that $600 is 2BB.....this I find trivial.

You are attempting IMO to insert specific lines of play devised within your own imagination to fit in with an article that isnt written for that purpose.

One of the reasons that I rarely become involved in hand discussions on forums is that you can never really bottom the answers thoroughly and this is certainly the case in a 1500 word article. So what I would say is that try to view the articles through slightly different eyes and for the record, I certainly dont mind critiscism


Carl Sampson

I completely agree with goofball.

In that hand example, you seem to say that freeshowdown raising is better than calling down. I think it's much better to calldown, and by reading the article i don't see any advantage the FSDR has over calling down.

For the record, I dont disagree with him either. All I am disagreeing with is his interpretation of the article which could have been worded better in some areas and that I would agree with.

WHy not just try it?

Seriously, when you are three bet on the turn, and you dont have enough outs, then dump the hand.

If you dont improve, check it down, if you improve, then bet the river

Also, when you play like this, you get payed off more in future when you have a set/etc, and then have the pleasure of four betting.

Havent played limit in a loooooong time, but remember that this is really really goot advice, particularly in 6max.

Is there any player at a shorthanded limit 300/600 table that are "dealing with generics" in this sense? This is my main concern with both this and other articles by same author. Why claiming we have something to say about the highest limit games out there when we actually just are discussing some default plays that regulars do a lot? Its like the article is written for small stakes players that should be impressed by the fact that we are talking about high stake.

If u read Bryces article about "good poker" in 2+2 magazine u will see that generic advice got very little to do with playing good poker.

And why does every article ends with telling us which pokersite is sponsoring the author?

If Sampson is a winning player at these limits I am 100% sure he isnt thinking about poker in the way that he writes about it.

I dont see how 2+2 can publish this.

All authors are permitted a banner or link at the end of their article.

Dynasty,

How was the decision made to publish an article of such poor quality?

Wow, cant get how such a common thought is getting so much negative feedback.

Another thing for the knockers to consider is that, in poker, if there are two situations that will lead to similar results, then you are almost always better off doing the more aggressive, rather than the passive approach.

Thus, raising (in attempt) to get a free showdown is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling twidce

Easy, have a detailed look at my original post.

False. Your argument assumes raising in attempt to get a 'free' showdown will always lead to similar results as calling twice. It won't.

I've also thought about the free showdown raise and it's place in online limit hold'em. There are some spots where it may be useful and these are not covered in the article. Three criteria are needed to make a free showdown raise:

1) You can fold to a 3-bet.
2) You might get a hand to fold incorrectly.
3) If he's on a draw he won't bluff bet the river that often.

I don't think any of these are met by the example hand provided. Most people just use 3 as a reason to make the free showdown raise, but in my experience with limit hold'em most people will bet the river with busted draws.

Please stop putting up articles by this guy. This month was even worse:

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/i...it-hold-em.php

lol phil. you are just scared that the deaner is giving away all of the high stakes super secrets to success. dont hate on this guy for educating the masses with some expert advice.

I agree with you guys this article wasn't very helpful and some parts outright inaccurate.

Sorry Vic. I'm just pissed off that The Dean is the only one preventing me from realising my dream of being England's top LHE player.

Apparantly he's got a book out now:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Winning-Cash...ef=pd_sim_b_71