Drawing Hands and Pot Odds

[redraw]

I have some confusion over playing draws as it relates to pot odds. Specically in limit HE I find it seldom correct to fold an open end straight draw on the flop, but frequently correct to fold it on the turn...yet my flop call justifcation assumed playing until the RIVER... Does this seem contradictory to people?

For example: $5/10 HE, and our hero is in the BB with 9To. One MP limper, SB calls, and hero knocks the table.

Flop comes K 7 8 rainbow

Hero assumes he has 8 outs to win the hand (count 0 partial outs for a 9 or T). SB bets $5. Pot is now $20, thus offering the hero 4 to 1. Because he is 2.18 against to make his 8-outter by the river, he calls. MP calls as well bringing the pot to $30.

Turn brings a 3. no possible flush draw. Board is K 7 8 3

SB bets $10, so hero is now getting 4 to 1 pot odds, but he is 10.50 to 1 against at this point, so he must...FOLD?

My hang-up is that hero justified the flop call by using 2.18 to 1 (31%) as his hit rate- this is the likelihood of completing the flush with TWO CARDS to come. But when SB makes the prohibitively large $10 turn bet, the hero must fold- so hero did NOT really have two cards to come...only one (the turn, on which he missed)

Am I thinking about this the right way? Thanks for any responses...

[Saint_D]

Provided HE == Hold 'em...

http://www.pokersavvy.com/oddscard.php says 8 outs with 2 cards to come is 2.2:1 and with 1 card it's 4.8:1. Even so, the pot is still not giving you odds to call the turn bet.

If you could predict that the SB would bet $10 into you could take your (bad) implied odds into account on the flop.

However, assuming you don't know what the SB will do, your flop call is correct. Since the SB may well check to you in the next round rather that bet into you. Further, if you have a good read on the player or can put them on a hand, it might still be correct to call based on implied odds for the last round of betting.

What does everyone think of playing your Open Ended Strait Draws like they were really 8 outs with 1 to come on the flop? If you don't improve on the turn, many times you have to bail. I think depends heavily on the texture of the table.

[Demana]

Hero might have been better off 2-betting the flop to buy himself a free turn card, but that is not what you asked /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I'm interested in the answer too because I will use the same calculations to call a flop bet, and then fold on the turn because I don't have the odds to see the river.

btw - I think you have negaitve implied odds because even if you hit the straight on the river, you will not have a big enough pot to justify the call on the turn.

Assuming that both you and the MP limper calls the turn bet, the pot is now $60. If you hit your straight and both pay to see it, the pot now has $90 in it. That is still only 8:1 on your turn call, meaning you shouldn't have called it (it is 8:1 instead of 9:1 because your bet on the river does not count towards the implied odds).

This is a time where knowing your table can come into play. If you think that both opponents would call a raise on the river, then your odds would go up to 10:1 and it _may_ be close enough to make the call. Still dicey since a J may scare a pair of 7s, though a six may make the under straight.

[Dominic]

Okay, I see where you guys are getting confused...you're mistaking the odds of hitting an open-ended straight draw with 2 cards to come (2.2-1) with the odds of hitting your straight on the turn (4.8-1)

You're giving yourself the wrong odds! Unless you absolutely know you're going to see the river card, your odds of hitting your straight are 4.8-1 on the turn AND 4.8-1 on the river. It's only 2.2-1 if you're going to see both cards.

So when you do your pot odds calculations on the flop, you should be doing it only with THE TURN IN MIND. So if you have $30 in the pot, you do not figure, "hey I've got 2-1 to hit my straight by the river, the bet's ony $10, so I should call." No. You've got to say, "It's going to cost me $10 to win $30 on a 5-1 chance of hitting my straight on the turn - I should fold."

Yes, you're approx. 2-1 to hit your straight with 2 cards to come. But if you don't hit it on turn, your odds of hitting your straight are now approx. 5-1.

Don't confuse the two!

Now, I know there are times where you might know your're going to see both cards, or times that you'll raise the flop bet in the hopes of getting a free card on the turn, etc., but if we're dealing with strictly pot-odds, you should almost always be thinking of the next card - and not "with two cards to come."

[Boopotts]

Whuh? With one card to come, your odds are about 5:1 to hit. Assuming you'll get paid off in at least one spot (and maybe with a raise), you can call. Also, there's no law saying your opponent has to be betting a king, so a nine or a ten might do the trick.


As an aside, a better way to play this hand would be to raise the flop. Shutting out the limper isn't a disaster, since the chances are he was going to fold anyway (ragged flop, small pot, etc. etc.). If the turn is a brick you can either check or bet (I'd almost always bet) and then make a determination on the river as to what you ought to do if you miss again. On the balance, however, raising the flop here will show you a greater profit than flat calling when there aren't any players behind you (I know there's 1 player in this case, but you get the idea:).

Re: Pot odds. The dirty little secret about hold 'em is that the concept of pot odds isn't very helpful. A much better idea is to look at your effective odds, which is a way of expressing the relationship between how much it's going to cost you to see your hand through vs. how much you expect to win if you end up dragging the pot. Assuming the player in the blind would pay off a raise if you hit on either the turn or river ( a big if, but let's go with it for now), you stand to win 50$ if you hit your hand. Your net investement, should you just call the turn and river, is going to be 15$. So you're getting 3.3 to 1 if you take the hand to the river. Yeah, sometimes he'll fold if you hit your hand and raise, but then also sometimes you'll hit a nine or ten and it will be good, or you'll be able to bluff the turn or the river, etc etc. On the balance I think you'll see that the 'intangibles' weigh in in your favor; especially since you have position on the lead bettor.

[shadow29]

raise the flop

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
So when you do your pot odds calculations on the flop, you should be doing it only with THE TURN IN MIND.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely, you must take into account the fact that two cards are coming to *some* degree. Consider the following (somewhat extreme) example: I'm playing a small stakes 1/2 game 10 handed. I'm in the big blind with A2s (say hearts are my suit). By some strange twist of fate (several rounds of limp-reraising, for instance), I get roped into seeing the flop for 4 bets. (Or maybe I'm just a horrible pre-flop player.) But more than that, everyone else calls, so there's $40 in the pot on the flop.

Now let's suppose the flop comes K 8 4, rainbow, the 8 is a heart. My only reasonable chance is the backdoor flush draw. The SB checks, I check, UTG bets, and everyone calls. It's up to me to close the action and I'm getting pot odds of 49-1.

Now, let's use the phrase "pot odds theory (POT)" to refer to the science of computing pot odds *on the flop* and using it to make a decision. If POT can only take the turn card into account, then POT tells me to fold. But that's ridiculous. Any "correct" POT has to conclude that calling is the right decision here. So "correct" POT must take the river card into consideration in *some* way. The question is, how?

[Torgen]

On the flop, you have 8/47 = 4.875-to-1 odds to make your straight on the next card. With 4-to-1 pot odds, you should call, since you need only extract a single big bet (=2 small bets) between the turn and river to make up more than the deficit.
On the turn, you have 8/46 = 4.75-to-1 odds to make your straight on the river, and 4-to-1 pot odds again. If you think the SB will bet into you (allowing you to raise), or call your bet on the river if he checks, you definitely have pot odds to call still.

(Edit: beaten to the punch several times over?)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

There has been an awful lot of discussion on pot odds with people throwing out the odds against hitting with 2 cards to come.

The only time that is relevant is when you *know* there will be no more betting during the hand (i.e., one of you is all-in).

In the hand in question, you're only getting 4-1 on the flop, which in and of itself is not enough to continue (you have no overcard outs or back-door flush outs). However, with 2 callers on the flop, hero will probably make up the difference on the turn and river if he hits (implied odds). Raising the flop is better than calling because 1) it may buy him a free look at the river or 2) it may knock out MO and increase the overall possibility of his winning the hand.

Once he misses the turn, he's in a tough spot. If he assumes MP will call, he's slightly +EV, but there's always the chance MP will raise.

By only calling the flop, hero puts himself at a disadvantage. In an unraised pot, the SB could have led out with 99, and now be confident nobody has a K because he wasn't raised. In that case hero would have more outs than he thought, but by passively calling on the flop, he has no real clue where he stands.

By taking the "pot odds with 2 to come" approach, you are looking for reasons to play too passively. Take the more aggressive approach of making the SB prove he has a K. When the blank hits on the turn, if he checks to you, you now may be confident that you have more than 8 outs, and play the river accordingly.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
There has been an awful lot of discussion on pot odds with people throwing out the odds against hitting with 2 cards to come.

The only time that is relevant is when you *know* there will be no more betting during the hand (i.e., one of you is all-in).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I have to contend that this is not true. (At least, I'm not yet convinced of it.) I have to again refer to the example I gave earlier in this thread, involving the backdoor flush draw. If the pot is small, you fold. If the pot is enormous, you "stay in" (i.e. call or raise). How big does the pot have to be to change the theoretically correct decision from fold to "stay in"?

I know the answer to this question depends on many factors, including the "texture of the table" as someone else pointed out. However, the pot odds are obviously a critical factor in determining the proper course of action. So decisions based on pot odds *do* sometimes have to take into account the odds against hitting with 2 cards to come, instead of 1.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Not to nitpick, but all you've done is point out those cases where there are additional outs, or better implied odds. If he has a backdoor flush draw, he has the equivalent about 1.5 additional outs. If the texture of the table is such that several players will chase to the river with worse hands, his implied odds go up.

The point is, that in many cases, you often have more outs than you think, and sometimes immediate pot odds are not the only consideration. The result is the same.

[ComedyLimp]

Jason,

A back door flush is about a 23:1 to hit by the river so its roughly equivalent to 1 out with two to come. If I remember correctly SSHE says says something about adding an extra 1/2 out because it's an easy fold on the turn if your next heart doesn't hit. Hence call the flop bet if have enough odds with 1.5 outs and then fold the turn if you miss or recalcuate for the river if you hit.

In practice this is of more use in adding a backdoor flush to other outs. The situation where you have only a back door draw, have enough pre-flop action to give you enough odds and it gets around to you to make a decision based for one bet is so rare you can problably ignore it.

At least that is my understanding

Edit: What the Klingon said

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to nitpick, but all you've done is point out those cases where there are additional outs, or better implied odds. If he has a backdoor flush draw, he has the equivalent about 1.5 additional outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if we're not all-in, and therefore only allowed to consider the turn card for our odds calculations, then technically there aren't *any* outs. The reason a backdoor flush draw is *equivalent* to 1.5 outs, as ComedyLimp pointed out, comes from computing the odds of the flush coming in by the river.

So if you add 1.5 outs to your other outs on the basis of a backdoor flush draw, and you compare your outs to the pot odds to make your decision, then you're implicitly taking into account the fact that two cards are still to come. This defies the principle that when you're not all-in, you should consider only the turn card in your pot odds calculation. This was exactly my point.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero assumes he has 8 outs to win the hand (count 0 partial outs for a 9 or T). SB bets $5. Pot is now $20, thus offering the hero 4 to 1. Because he is 2.18 against to make his 8-outter by the river, he calls. MP calls as well bringing the pot to $30.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't look at the odds of hitting by the river in this hand(2.2-1) unless you know beforehand you will be going to the river.

[Copernicus]

You can't look at the odds of hitting by the river in this hand(2.2-1) unless you know beforehand you will be going to the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite true. You cant look at the odds of hitting by the river unless you consider the probability that you will have sufficient odds to go to the river AND consider the additional investment and return from the river bets

Said more simply, you need (correctly calculated) implied odds.

[AngryCola]

Somewhere DS and MM's heads are exploding. I have yet to read (perhaps just missed it) anyone mention effective odds.

Lets assume you know your odds of making hand X are 3:1, with 2 cards to come in limit holdem. You also know that if you make your hand it will be the best hand. A bet is made, and at that moment you have the correct pot odds to draw with your "2 cards to come" odds. However, as has been stated, those odds are only real if you intend to see both the turn and the river.

It turns out that in this <vague> example, you may be getting 3:1 to see the turn. Then the bets double. In this pot if you called the 4th street bet you wouldn't be getting 3:1 on that call anymore. Thus making your call on the flop incorrect as well.

So, what to do?

It's just a simple matter of figuring out what amount you have to call on the flop + the turn vs. the pot odds you figure to have once you have called the turn bet. In limit holdem this is almost always possible to determine. If the odds for flop+turn are greater than 3:1 (in this vague example), then you must call both streets or you are making a mistake. Remember to add your opponents likely turn bet into the pot odds for both streets.

See "The Theory of Poker" for a much better explanation and example(s) of effective odds.

I hope I didn't make too many errors, as I'm writing this post half asleep. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[binions]

When SB bets $5 to make the pot $20, how about a raise on cheap street. You make the pot $30, and 3rd player and SB either folds, calls or raises.

At worst, you knock out one player, SB calls, and bets into you on the turn, making the pot $45, and giving you the odds to call a turn bet. At best, SB checks to you on the turn.

Moreover, since sraights have good implied odds, if you hit, you are likely to make money on the river.

[AngryCola]

I agree with the free card strategy, as well as the implied odds aspects. I didn't mention either on my post as I thought it had already been dealt with a bit earlier in the thread.

[Louie Landale]

Your 2-cards-to-go odds are mostly for figuring out if you should raise. If you figure you'll get more than 2.xx callers, then raise.

For calling you should generally take one card at a time. In this case assuming SB has a K, there are 6 cards accounted for leaving 46 in the deck, of which 38 are bad and 8 are good. That's 38:8 or 4.5:1 against. You are getting 4:1 from the pot, not enough pot odds. Never-the-less you should call since you will surely get a couple more bbs from the SB when you make it.

On the turn I figure your odds are 7sb:2sb or 3.5sb to one, for you 4.4:1 shot. If you are SURE to get a river bet then calling is marginal.

To figure the 2-cards calling you'll need to figure the cost differently. There is 3sb in the pot and the SB is going to bet 3sb more (flop and turn), and it costs you 3sb to get to the river, so your are getting 6sb:3sb or 2:1 "pot odds", just short of what you need to call both cards. This is consistent with the above analysis that says don't call on the turn.

- Louie

[HUSKER'66]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely, you must take into account the fact that two cards are coming to *some* degree. Consider the following (somewhat extreme) example: I'm playing a small stakes 1/2 game 10 handed. I'm in the big blind with A2s (say hearts are my suit). By some strange twist of fate (several rounds of limp-reraising, for instance), I get roped into seeing the flop for 4 bets. (Or maybe I'm just a horrible pre-flop player.) But more than that, everyone else calls, so there's $40 in the pot on the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to recheck your math.

2 * 4 * 10 = 80

Am I missing something?

Husker

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
Re: Pot odds. The dirty little secret about hold 'em is that the concept of pot odds isn't very helpful. A much better idea is to look at your effective odds, which is a way of expressing the relationship between how much it's going to cost you to see your hand through vs. how much you expect to win if you end up dragging the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's open the discussion to using effective odds vs. implied odds if pot odds are insufficient. I go with effective odds. If you are going to estimate how big the pot will be at a showdown, then you should factor in your total bets to get to the showdown.

[AntHillMob]

Effective/Implied odds is the technically correct way of deciding whether to call (looking at the odds of making it by the river compared to the extra bets it will cost and the extra bets you may win).

For most purposes, just looking at pot odds for the next card (odds of making the hand with one card, at cost of calling 1 card - not the full river odds or cost) seems to give the same decisions by and large and it's easier to calculate. Obviously it doesn't quite work for backdoors (but the 1.5 outs conversion does the trick) and generally it seems to slightly underestimate some draws. Usually it comes up with the same decision though.

What's definitely wrong is to use the odds of hitting by the river with the cost of just the next card.

Ian