SSH Overcard Outs?

[chson]

Are overcards worth .5 outs or 1 out each? The examples in the book seem to vary between the two for no apparent reason.

[Ed Miller]

Are overcards worth .5 outs or 1 out each? The examples in the book seem to vary between the two for no apparent reason.

How many do you think they should be worth? Can it change from hand to hand?

[chson]

[ QUOTE ]
Are overcards worth .5 outs or 1 out each? The examples in the book seem to vary between the two for no apparent reason.

How many do you think they should be worth? Can it change from hand to hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Ed.

I personally always count overcards as 1 full out each. The only exception is if one or two of the overcard outs gives someone a possible flush. If that's the case, I do not count those particular overcards as outs so a 6 outter becomes a 4.

[Ed Miller]

I personally always count overcards as 1 full out each.

Do your overcards win 100% of the time when you make a pair on the turn?

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Do your overcards win 100% of the time when you make a pair on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately they do not for me.

Ed, this is a good specific example of how your book has helped my play. Instead of just thinking whether or not a particular out is "clean", I also think whether making top pair will be good enough and discount accordingly. Of course, you need to look for possible hidden outs as well, as you discuss thoroughly.

Thanks again.

Colgin

[Joe Tall]

You have KJs and the flop is T96r, how you feel about your overcards?

You have KJs and the flop is T62r, how about now?

Welcome to the forum,
Joe Tall

[chson]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally always count overcards as 1 full out each.

Do your overcards win 100% of the time when you make a pair on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is ever 100% and I see your point; however, my original question is why some examples have overcards counted as full outs and in others they're not. I don't have the book on me right now so I can't cite the specific examples but there are quite a few.

[chson]

[ QUOTE ]
You have KJs and the flop is T96r, how you feel about your overcards?

You have KJs and the flop is T62r, how about now?

Welcome to the forum,
Joe Tall

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Joe.

1) I would have 3-4 outs (counting the K and J as .5 each) so that's most likely a fold.

2) I have 6-7 outs (counting K and J as 1 each) and that's most likely a raise.

I'll reread some parts of the book tonight but I remember an example similar to your 2nd question that counted the overcard outs as .5 each.

[Ed Miller]

Nothing is ever 100% and I see your point; however, my original question is why some examples have overcards counted as full outs and in others they're not. I don't have the book on me right now so I can't cite the specific examples but there are quite a few.

Ah.. I've figured out your confusion. I should have anticipated a problem here.

In the book I distinguish between an "out" and an "out to top pair or better." In the former case, I mean an "out to win" which you should discount for the probability that that card will, in fact, win.

In the latter case, an "out to top pair or better," I'm really just counting the number of cards that make a hand of at least top pair. So I might say, "I have 14 outs to top pair or better." I really just mean, "There are 14 cards that give me top pair or better."

But if I were to count outs TO WIN, I'd discount the overcard outs accordingly (depending on the board, number of opponents, etc., I might make them worth 0.5 outs each).

I shouldn't have used the word "out" in both places. "Card" is more appropriate for the second case.

[Rah]

I wouldn't like it either way, since a calling player likely has JT.

[chson]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is ever 100% and I see your point; however, my original question is why some examples have overcards counted as full outs and in others they're not. I don't have the book on me right now so I can't cite the specific examples but there are quite a few.

Ah.. I've figured out your confusion. I should have anticipated a problem here.

In the book I distinguish between an "out" and an "out to top pair or better." In the former case, I mean an "out to win" which you should discount for the probability that that card will, in fact, win.

In the latter case, an "out to top pair or better," I'm really just counting the number of cards that make a hand of at least top pair. So I might say, "I have 14 outs to top pair or better." I really just mean, "There are 14 cards that give me top pair or better."

But if I were to count outs TO WIN, I'd discount the overcard outs accordingly (depending on the board, number of opponents, etc., I might make them worth 0.5 outs each).

I shouldn't have used the word "out" in both places. "Card" is more appropriate for the second case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. Thanks for the clarification Ed.

[sthief09]

I didn't know the fact that you put out a book meant that you have to think for people, too.

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]
You have KJs and the flop is T96r, how you feel about your overcards?

You have KJs and the flop is T62r, how about now?


[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiousity, how many outs do you have in both of these cases, assuming there's a backdoor flush? I've not gotten SSH yet, but:

Hand 1 (T96): Gutshot is 4, overcards I'd give 1 total (JT, QJ, T9, and KT are all likely betable holdings, and I'm losing outs to KQ and AJ, both of whom may call), and 2 for the backdoor flush. Total: 7.
Hand 2 (T62): 3 for the overcards (AJ, JT, and KT are all likely) and 2 for the backdoor flush. Total: 5

But I must be severly discounting something, because I'm pretty sure it makes sense to take one off in hand 2. I have two explanations for this:

1) The latter hand has only two "enemy" hands (KT, JT) that will likely bet it. Anything else that bets it gives me clean overcard outs. In that case, I'm discounting the overcards way too much, and should consider it a 5. (I'm not discounting the overcards in the other hand too much, because of the wider range of betable holdings.) That would increase the outs to 7.
2) I'm not counting the runner-runner straight. That would add what, one out?

[bisonbison]

Out of curiousity, how many outs do you have in both of these cases, assuming there's a backdoor flush?

You have a range of outs. A range. A range of outs. You have outs, but they travel in ranges.

a pack of wolves.
a mob of kangaroos.
a range of outs.

And they are so sneaky that it is nearly impossible to ever count them precisely in the wild.

[The Armchair]

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as outs cannot travel. And I'm certain that roos travel in "bops." Just ask any roobopper.

[bisonbison]

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as outs cannot travel.

Of course they can travel. When the turn card comes up and you find that your outs have disappeared, how do you think they left? No one has taken them, they departed on their own.

And I'm certain that roos travel in "bops." Just ask any roobopper.

This is either inspired gibberish, or some kind of crypto-aussie knowledge that is not shared with normal, not-descended-from-convicts-type folk.

[The Armchair]

Inspired gibberish, as I am not an Aussie. But you should look up the word "bop" in a Brit-slang dictionary, as "roobopper" is a better slur than "not-descended-from-convicts-type folk." Easier to say, too.

[Nemesis]

would that be people who "lie" with kangaroos?

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiousity, how many outs do you have in both of these cases, assuming there's a backdoor flush?

You have a range of outs. A range. A range of outs. You have outs, but they travel in ranges.

a pack of wolves.
a mob of kangaroos.
a range of outs.

And they are so sneaky that it is nearly impossible to ever count them precisely in the wild.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.tvbarn.com/2002/images/dvsfox0.jpg

"It's a murder, honey. A group of crows is called a murder."

-Homer

[rjc199]

outs are like electrons. You know the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? If you were to know the number of outs precisely you could never know how to play them, and vice versa. Outs x implied odds <= Planck's constant

[Evan]

Why would you never know how to play them?

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you never know how to play them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I suck?

[cnfuzzd]

you have obviously not read the new 2+2 book, "Poker in an Indeterminent Reality: Why Schroedinger's Cat Never Draws to the Inside Straight"

or, you need to read more posts to understand that the humor around here is like a eighty six year old prostitute: dry and overused.

peace

john nickle

its not everyday i get to post about octagenarians and wishing nuclear death on the whole world. I feel good about my kharma now.