Flush or Straight?

Is it just me or does it seem like people tend to hit flushes more than straights? If this is true, then shouldn't flushes be lower than straights in poker? It just seems that when I play online, players are more inclined to chasing a flush rather than a straight.

i dont know the mathmatical ratios to when somebody get something but i would have to agree that i do see more flushes than straigts but i guess somebody had a reason for it but maybe people are defying the odds when they chase a flush and get it

Hand rankings are from five cards dealt to your hand alone. You will be dealt a pat straight more often than a flush.

There are 5,108 ways to make a flush and 10,200 ways to make a straight out of 2,598,960 possible hands (A straight uses a combination of 20 cards, while a flush uses combination of only 13).

The hand rankings are not concerned with how easy the draw is to hit (9 outs for flush, but only 8 outs for straight) AFTER you flop it. So yes, flushes will hit more often than straights, but you don't flop the draw as often in the first place.

Oh, I see, so for post-flop play, you should be more inclined at pursuing a flush rather than the straight but reverse for pre-flop play? Thanks for the quick reply! I've always wondered about this aspect of the game.

Yes, thanks alien. A friend of mine and I have had this argument a few time sin the past, now I have the figures to back up my side of the debate =)

Also in hold'em, suited cards tend to be overvalued, more so than connectors. This means that at showdown it is more likely that you will see a flush than a straight when one is possible.

Don't forget the donks who will play any two suited cards. If a flush hits the board, there's a good chance somebody has it. This is especially true for micro stakes and passive tables. (ie, lots of limping)

Edit: James beat me to it.

Could you define microstakes, I mean up to what level is micro? Also, do passive tables tend to have bigger average pots or smaller? That is, how do you find a passive table on Full Tilt for instance?

can you please explain this whole micro and passive tables to me, i hear people in the forum talk about it all the time but i have no idea what it means

Microstakes is basically you spending a relatively small amount of money to play in a game. I think, after doing some research, this turns out to be up to a level which you think losing your buy-in is insignificant. For example, if you buy into a ring game with $2, which is extremely insignificant in the poker world.

A passive table is when people playing a hand in a table are not betting into each hand or limping a lot to see the flop. They generally play really good hands and tend to not chase draws. They also never bet and tend to call more of other peoples' bets.

What you just described is a tight-passive table. A passive table just means that people are checking and calling instead of betting and raising. They can be calling every hand, as long as they aren't betting. Also, many passive players will chase draws.

well i mean the chances of hitting flushes with 2 suites on the board are greater than that of hitting an open ender or gut shot..

Ohh, I see what you mean. Thanks for clearing that up james. So how would you define a loose-passive table? A table that checks and calls for large bets made by other players?

so after the flop you should chase a flush and a straight after the flop is really not worth chasing?

Huuuge over simplification here. It all depends on pot odds. You have a lower chance of hitting a straight when you flop an open ender, so you will have pot odds to call less often when you have a straight draw.

In general, you will want to chase a flush more often than you want to chase a straight, but as always, pot odds is key.

Yes, if they are playing lots of hands, limping with anything, etc. This describes many lower-stakes games.

On Poker Stars, anything $0.10/$0.25 and below are considered micro-stakes. It's just their grouping: Micro, Low, Medium, High. And a passive table is one with minimal preflop raising. That allows people to see a cheap flop with their suited trash, and once they hit 2 of their suit, there is often no shifting them off that pot.

Actually, if people are playing implied odds correctly, you only want to give them 2:1 or 2.5:1 to call your bet. If you push and overbet the pot, they are getting huge odds with the over which may change an auto-fold to a calling situation.

Somewhere around here is the technical discussion of that... but that's my simple explaination.

It is commonly known that Full tilt is Flush-Heaven and you're more likely to have a Flush than a Straight there.. So just keep that in mind. I've even had a number of occasions where I almost had Royal Flushes more than Straight flushes...

It's just typical Full tilt, but I don't know which Room you play more often?

I understand your point, but mathmatically, it is much harder to get a flush. Once I think about it, I do remember many more straights than flushes, but I understand where you are coming from because many people like to play suited hands.

That's is not the verry true !!! Its a commum error think that a flush is harder tham a strait by math, is true only whem you are counting the fact:
Be deald with 2 cards of same type..
3 cards of same type in the board...

That cenario changes a lot whem you already have been deald with 2 cards of same type and have anothers in the board..

And other thing to notice.. poker isn't just odds, its statistic also!!! I'm a engineering student and know a lot of probability and statistics.. if you have already done de comparsion you understand wath I'm talking about.

I've wondered this too before, it seems like flushes are more likely to hit. I've heard that flushes are worth more because both your cards have to be suited and three suits have to come on the board. You can make a straight with any or your two hole cards.

nah i see more straights than flushes. i feel as if its different live but in general straights are made more than flushes. the rules are fine for right now, there isnt any reason to change and say that straights are better than hitting a flush.

You made that very easy to understand, and have clarified a question that I had. I dont know if I see more flushes, or if there are more straights and they often get BEAT by a flush. Either way, this makes it more clear.

You really don't need a suited hand to get a flush. It's just more of a gamble if you play without it. 1 in the hand, 4 on the table. It has happened before.

nah, that is that true, str8 is more likely to then flushes, cause obv u have 4 suits against 52 cards of any suit that can given into a str8.