SSHE Book Club Discussion - Part Three: Postflop Concepts (1st Half)

[MEbenhoe]

Alright we're finally into Postflop Concepts, the part that really makes this book as valuable as it is. The sections from the first half that we'll be discussing in this one are:

Counting Outs
Finding Hidden Outs
Evaluating the Flop: Made Hands
Evaluating the Flop: Drawing Hands

The counting outs section is very valuable. In loose low limit games it can especially hurt you if you don't know how to count your outs properly. Being able to identify partial outs, backdoor draws, redraws, and hidden outs is a big part of being a complete poker player. Also, I think the section on outs shows how valuable of a skill hand-reading is. For many of these concepts you need to be able to put your opponent(s) on a potential range of hands, so that you are able to properly determine where you are in the hand and what type of outs you have.

So we're on way time to kick up your thoughts, questions, whatever you've got to say.

[cwsiggy]

How much does everyone discount their flush outs if it's two to a flush on the flop and there are 4-5 people seeing it? 6-7 outs instead of 9?? more if there is paint on the board??? The reason I ask is I assume there are others looking for their flush draws. I do realize that when calculating the math, if you can't see the cards, then you assume 9 left but still......

[Luv2DriveTT]

You do not have to discount your flush outs in this scenario. You still have 9 unseen cards that will help your hand out of 47 unseen cards, there is not enough information to assume that any of these cards are being held by another low limit player. They could be going after a different draw altogether, or perhaps already have a high pair and they wish to play it safely (which SSHE teaches us is a big mistake that many low limit players make), or perhaps they are already holding two cards of the same suit, its impossible to know.

BUT I have been pondering a similar yet more advanced situation recently. The following comes from a hand posted by Shadow29 in the microlimits forum. I was hoping for a greater responce, but alas it never got one.

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with K/images/graemlins/spade.gif, K/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, <font color="666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, CO calls, Button calls, SB calls, BB calls, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: (12 SB) 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(6 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, UTG+1 folds, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, CO calls, Button folds, SB calls, BB calls.

Turn: (8 BB) A/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(4 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">BB raises</font>, Hero ??

[/ QUOTE ]

How many outs do you think Hero has in this situation? Should this be a scenario where it is wise to discount flush card outs? Does Hero have the odds to call? I think Hero does not, what do you think? Ed???? Are you listening???

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
You do not have to discount your flush outs in [the multiway pot] scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, to an extent. One very clear teaching of the book is that you discount outs when you're not sure the hand they'll make you will win the pot. If you're drawing to any flush there's a chance you may make the flush and not win the pot. Your flush card may pair the board, or if your draw is not to the nuts then someone else may be drawing to a higher flush. Neither of these considerations warrants a huge discount in hold 'em.* In the first case, sets are fairly rare, as are successful 4-out draws with two pair, so your flush retains a lot of value. In the second case, you already hold two flush cards so if three come out on the board, that leaves only 8 to be distributed among opponents' hands or left in the stub. While it obviously happens that two players draw at the same flush, it's not terribly frequent.

I'll defer to more experienced players for a better number, but in say a 4- or 5-way pot I'd probably count 8.5 outs to the flush if your draw is to the nuts (presumably two river cards would both pair the board and make your flush, so call them 0.75 outs each) and 8 for a non-nut flush.

But the original question was whether to count these differently with more opponents in the pot. I think it's obvious why more players in the pot means less chance your flush holds up, and hence fewer effective outs.

But i'm eager to hear other opinions.

---
*In Omaha, each of these considerations would dramatically discount the value of your "tainted outs". Flushes rarely win on a paired board in low-limit multiway pots. If you're drawing to a non-nut flush, it's quite likely that the nut flush is out there. But we're not discussing an Omaha book so i mention this only by way of contrast.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[/ QUOTE ]I'll defer to more experienced players for a better number, but in say a 4- or 5-way pot I'd probably count 8.5 outs to the flush if your draw is to the nuts

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of counting outs in this example is to IMPROVE your hand, not to improve to the nut hand (although thats what we all hope for of course!). With 4 cards of the same suit showing there are 9 cards unaccounted for. Essentially your reccomendation is to remove 1/2 card? I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your rational, and there is no relevent example that I recall of discounting flush draws in SSHE that helps your argument.

Any others care to comment? This thread is a bit bare considering the number of people who have purchased SSHE.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[AKQJ10]

Suffice it to say, you and i took much different interpretations of how SSH treats counting outs.

My understanding is that in all cases, you want to count "equivalent outs", that is, the number of cards that will improve your hand weighted by the probability that your accordingly improved hand will win the pot. That's not the way all or even most authors treat out-counting, but if i understood SSH that's how Miller, Sklansky, and Malmuth treat it.

If you hold

/images/graemlins/club.gifK /images/graemlins/club.gifQ

on a board of

/images/graemlins/club.gifA /images/graemlins/club.gif4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif9

then you're drawing at a nut flush. The /images/graemlins/club.gif2, 3, 5, 6, 8, ten, and J will make you the nut flush and win the pot. That's 7.0 effective outs.

The /images/graemlins/club.gif7 and /images/graemlins/club.gif9 will make your flush and pair the board. The number of effective outs associated with these two cards is entirely dependent on how likely you judge it that a full house is out against you. My estimate of 0.75 outs each may be low, but they're not worth the full 1.0, at least not if i'm remotely understanding the material in the book on counting outs.

In fairness the authors acknowledge that you can't calculate a full weighted average each time at the table. This example is very straightforward; you know you have 9 cards that improve you and a remote chance of a full house, hence just less than 9 effective outs. In most pots that's plenty of information because you're usually getting better than 8.5/46 to stay in.

I guess time will tell whether i'm the only one who inferred this material on counting outs, and therefore whether i'm adding something to SSH that isn't there. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[cwsiggy]

Then again - would any of us really fold if we calculated using the discount method 8 flush outs instead of nine and the pot was only laying us 7.9 or less to 1???? I can see how one might seriously cheat onesself out of a possible pot only because one incorrectly put a suit in someone's hand at the turn

[AKQJ10]

Fair point, but the problem there is the inaccuracy of the estimate, not the quality of the decision based on the estimate.

Don't misunderstand me, i'm not arguing for folding small flushes getting 8.5 to 1! Carson (and others I'm sure) makes the point i restated above, that if you have two suited cards and three more are on the board, chances are great that no one else has two more, let alone a higher one than both yours.

[cwsiggy]

Actually - the original question was about 2 on the board not three- with lots of people in. If you have already made your flush, then you only have to worry about being outkicked if you don't have the nuts.

I'm suprised discounting possible suits in other's hands wasn't really addressed considering they did address partial outs. Maybe, in loose games, you just can't assume someone else also has two to the same flush in the hole very often and others probably wouldn't stay involved in a pot with only backdoor flush unless combined with other hands to put them on.

[Luv2DriveTT]

I'd like to add that the only reason to discount in the scenario I posted above is because you may be drawing dead. You cannot remove cards from the deck, but you can discount your outs to account for possibility that improving your hand may still be drawing dead.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
if you have two suited cards and three more are on the board, chances are great that no one else has two more, let alone a higher one than both yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the probablity is low. However that does not mean this cannot happen. The suited cards are randomly distrubuted through the deck. It is completly possible, however unprobable, that 4 opponents also hold two cards of the same suit completing a flush.

As a wise friend told me while discussing this topic, "you cannot remove cards from the deck", it would interfere with the law of averages when determing your probability to improve your hand to a flush. However we CAN discount outs to accomodate the possibility that if Hero hits his draw, he will still loose to a bigger hand.

But since there is little chance in the scenario that the origional poster asked about that the Hero can be drawing dead to a hand that beats it, there is no need to discount 9 outs. It is impossible to determine with the incomplete information we have been provided if the "magic cards" are held by one or more of your opponents, hence they should not be discounted.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

Good post AKQJ10, however you did not factor in that we do not have enough information to assume that pairing the board in the scenario you posted would reduce the value of the hand if the paired card is a /images/graemlins/club.gif.

A good example can be found on page 99 of the the book. I don't think it applies unless we have evidence that one of your opponents is trying to improve to a full house.

Q /images/graemlins/spade.gifJ /images/graemlins/spade.gif - you hold

9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif2 /images/graemlins/club.gif - the board

How many outs do you have to improve your hand? There are 4 tens that will improve the hand, but 3 of them fill give you the nuts, while the 4th might give someone a flush. You also have 6 more outs to a possible winner (the 3 Queens and the 3 Jacks).

So lets recap.

3 outs - Guarenteed winner
7 outs - possible winner. It is also possible that Hero may be drawing dead.

In the scenario as shown I would discount the 6 pairing outs to 1 out per card, and the T /images/graemlins/heart.gif would be discounted to .5 outs. This would therefore give the Hero 5.5 outs to improve to the winning hand.

On a related note, the only chapter that left me wanting more was Finding Hidden Outs. The hidden outs exercises were fantastic, but I would have liked them applied in a real world scenario where we cannot see our opponents pocket cards. For those of you who hvae not yet read TOP, what Ed is essentially showing us in practical use is David Sklansky's theorum of poker.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

PS: I hope I did a good job of explaining myself... this was tougher than I expected! Oh, and as usual... ignore my spelling. Someday Spellcheck will be added to Internet Explorer, until that time you must all suffer.

[twankerr]

I can't ever see discounting flush draw outs enough to make a difference in wether a call enough or not. The only true problem is when the board pairs, and you have to have a feel for that situation, based on the action, wether or not the board pairing will create someones full house.

The board pairing on the turn is, of course, much more problematic than the board pairing on the river because someone with trips will now have outs against you.

My largest problem on the flop is considering a strong hand that has a re-draw to the non-nuts.

arty Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with J/images/graemlins/club.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="666666">4 folds</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="666666">1 fold</font>, CO calls, Button calls, SB calls, BB calls.

Flop: (10 SB) Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(5 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, CO folds, Button calls, SB calls, BB calls.

How strong of a hand do I have? I just don't see how I can play this hand aggressively (despite the fact that I did) and come out profitable.

[darvon]

Let me first state that I think SSH is a great book and I am very pleased at my purchase. Let me also state where I am in my poker development. I hadn’t really played any poker before seeing the WSOP on ESPN last fall. I new the general concepts and had played some type of poker maybe a half dozen times in my life. Almost a complete Newbie. ESPN hooked me and I started down the path in Jan 2004. I am a light/hobby player, playing about 5-10 hours in the winter weeks and hardly at all in the summer, as I live in Michigan and we make use of summer when we have it.

I have about 7500 hands in PT. I read WLLH then ITH then skimmed a few parts of a few others, then SSH. I have a reasonable math background.

As best as I can tell, I am probably in the low part of the spectrum on experience and expertise as far as the target market for SSH. My learning, like most, goes in layers. I am in the black in my BB/hr, but that’s mostly from fixing my pre-flop mistakes. Most times I know what to do pre-flop, but can be uncertain at times in post-flop. I have been at this level for long enough that I am ready to put in the study to upgrade my post-flop play.

I am not competent enough at this time to have an intelligent comment on the accuracy of the advice given in the book. To me, it feels like Ed is right on the button for optimal play at my levels, Party .5/1, which are loose passive. However, I am having continual problems assimilating the info. Perhaps it is because I am actually not sufficiently advanced to use this book. I need some guidance.


Ed talks about ways to analyze a hand/situation in order to make betting decisions. He first starts with Pot Odds and Counting Outs. These are simple and like good first level tools have made several simplifying assumptions.

Pot Odds/Counting Outs assume:

1) My out card will give me a win 100% of the time.
2) The amount I will win with this decision is the current amount of the pot.
3) The amount of my bet that I am deciding on is simply one bet if I call now (or 2 if I raise or cold call).


Ed shows how to calculate Pot Odds and outs. The math is simple and straightforward.

He then, like all good disciplines, upgrades our technique by removing some of the simplifying assumptions and using more sophisticated analysis techniques.

Implied Odds, Reverse Implied Odds, Partial Outs, Backdoor Outs, Hidden Outs. These are all sophistications of the basic Pot Odds/Count Outs technique for making FOLD/CALL/RAISE/BET decisions.

Ed gives some description of these, but does not go into how to calculate Implied or Reverse Implied Odds. He gives some examples of Partial Outs and Backdoor outs. These may span the useful situations, but I am unsure.

These are either methods trying to figure out what is the probability of winning the hand, given the information currently available, or methods to make a decision given that probability.

However, I don’t know how to do this and other than Pot Odds, Ed doesn’t give me the methodology to do it. He defines the terms, and gives examples, but not methods. Is it because SSH-users are assumed to know those methods? I simply don’t know. I DO know that I don’t know how to calculate my winning probability and SSH assumes I do, sort of.

If SSH assumes I know how to calc (or estimate – I am not a stickler, close is good enough for me) the probabilities of winning, why does it seem to go thru partial explanations of such things as Partial Outs? A backdoor flush is about 1.5 outs. OK. Let me make a chart. Outs that make sets or trips count 1. What’s the out to top pair worth? 1/3? 1/2? Unsure. I understand that one may simple be satisfied with some estimates, indeed I would be. But knowing only an estimate is different than being totally unsure.

Again, if I am already supposed to know this from other sources, that’s OK. I can buy an additional book. But SSH needs to make it clear to me and other readers if SSH is trying to teach me to count outs or simply alluding to the technique.

I find these issues throughout the book. On pg 186 you have Ah Ac with a flop of 9c 7c 3s. Ed talks about what he recommends to do in this situation. He states he would expect to win about 50% of the time. Where did this number come from? Counting Outs would give me the 2 A outs and 1.5 for the backdoor flush. That’s about 14%. How I am supposed to know its 50%? He shows in a footnote that this number is reasonable by example opponent hands. I am sure it is reasonable, actually I am sure it is correct, but how am I supposed to calculate/estimate it? His whole approach for this example is grounded in Pot Equity, but to calc/est Pot Equity I have to know the probability of winning. I am totally lost.

There are other areas. In multiple areas Ed breaks down the scenario into MONSTER, VERY STRONG, STRONG, MARGINAL, POOR. This leads me to assume that we will learn to categorize scenarios and then execute the techniques recommended for each type of hand. In Post-Flop:Made Hands, as in many sections, Ed has copy dealing with a dozen-ish examples. This can be used to give a methodology by simply having a dozen examples. If this is what is intended then a chart would be much easier to teach from and more than a dozen examples would make things much easier. But again, am I missing something? Does SSH expect me to know how to break hands up into 5ish categories and SSH is just putting their labels on the 5 groups for easy discussion? Again, I don’t know if SSH is trying to teach me or just alluding to something I should already know.

Another example where SSH alludes to something that I don’t know how to do is in the Post Flop: Made Hands section.

With MONSTER hands the chart on pg 114 recommends to build the pot. VERY STRONG says to protect. STRONG says rarely fold and protect. MARGINAL says either bet/raise or fold, depending. POOR says generally fold.

OK. I understand generally fold. I even understand bet/raise or fold, depending. But whats the difference between “rarely fold and protect” and just “protect”. Actually Ed does me a great service by having a chapter on protecting, because I was very vague on what to do when protecting. And what is the difference in a loose passive game between “build the pot” and “protect” I truly don’t know.

Again, this feels like SSH is expecting me to already know this, except for the PROTECT section. I could really use some examples of the diff between BUILD and PROTECT in loose passive.

All in all, the strategies in SSH are intriguing to me. They will significantly change my style and seem optimal to me. In that regard, I seem to be the type of player that SSH is directed towards. But I am confused throughout the book as to whether SSH is trying to teach me methods or just allude to methods that I should already know. If they are trying to teach me, some sections work great, some could use some enhancement for readers like me and some don’t even seem to make the attempt, which leads to my confusion.

[Cerril]

For the most part you don't have to discount your outs unless you can actively put them in other peoples hands, or if you think that your flush might not be best.

Past a certain point you've got a guaranteed call anyway, so there isn't much need to worry about whether you've got 9 outs or 12. When you should worry is when the flop is something like 4s8sJh and you're holding 2s3s and it's raised and reraised behind you with additional callers. In situations where you're vulnerable to redraws or drawing to a second best hand (you suspect you're up against 2pair, a set, or a better flush draw) - depending on the likelihood you can probably devalue your flush draw by half or more, depending on the action, number of callers, and tendencies. Once your flush draw gives you the odds of a gutshot or worse and it's up to you to call two more bets with a possible cap, you may not have odds to continue.

A better example though is the situation where you have something like the T of the suit with a three flush flopping eight high. You have to discount flush outs because there's a very real chance you're behind even if you make your hand, moreso than needing to be up against another two card flush. In those cases I'll tend to discount my flush outs by half, more if there was a lot of betting preflop and a lot of betting on the flop.

[Cerril]

My primary comment here is that I feel his treament of equity is a little slim. Pot odds let you figure out where to call or fold, equity is where betting and raising come in, which is really the main source of profit for a good TA-A. The coverage of it in the concepts situation is pretty clear, but I would have been a lot happier if it had continued into the hand evaluation section and kept the terminology.

It would have been pretty reasonable to assign equity ranges to hand groupings and postflop typings (Very Strong, Strong, etc.) and to try to get players thinking in terms of equity as well as pot odds.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
but does not go into how to calculate Implied or Reverse Implied Odds. He gives some examples of Partial Outs and Backdoor outs. These may span the useful situations, but I am unsure.

These are either methods trying to figure out what is the probability of winning the hand, given the information currently available, or methods to make a decision given that probability.

However, I don’t know how to do this and other than Pot Odds, Ed doesn’t give me the methodology to do it. He defines the terms, and gives examples, but not methods. Is it because SSH-users are assumed to know those methods? I simply don’t know. I DO know that I don’t know how to calculate my winning probability and SSH assumes I do, sort of.


[/ QUOTE ]
Theory of Poker

[ QUOTE ]
I find these issues throughout the book. On pg 186 you have Ah Ac with a flop of 9c 7c 3s. Ed talks about what he recommends to do in this situation. He states he would expect to win about 50% of the time. Where did this number come from? Counting Outs would give me the 2 A outs and 1.5 for the backdoor flush. That’s about 14%. How I am supposed to know its 50%? He shows in a footnote that this number is reasonable by example opponent hands. I am sure it is reasonable, actually I am sure it is correct, but how am I supposed to calculate/estimate it? His whole approach for this example is grounded in Pot Equity, but to calc/est Pot Equity I have to know the probability of winning. I am totally lost.


[/ QUOTE ]
What hands are you losing to that would have called you here pre-flop? Not many.


[ QUOTE ]
All in all, the strategies in SSH are intriguing to me. They will significantly change my style and seem optimal to me. In that regard, I seem to be the type of player that SSH is directed towards. But I am confused throughout the book as to whether SSH is trying to teach me methods or just allude to methods that I should already know. If they are trying to teach me, some sections work great, some could use some enhancement for readers like me and some don’t even seem to make the attempt, which leads to my confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a beginners book by any means. I would recommend you read TOP and WLLH or ITH first and then migrate to SSH.

[johnnybeef]

this is an obvious fold situation. you are likely dominated in this pot considering that the only redraws you have would be a king or a spade. drawing to trips with a flush and an overcard on the board is a losing play, enough said on that subject. the other card that you can catch to improve your hand is a spade. given a bet and a raise, there is a better than average chance that the ace of spades is out ther. furthermore, if the ace of spades does hit giving you the nut flush, there is a good chance that someone raised with two pair on the turn, giving them a boat on the river. there are just far too many hands that can beat yours and the pot just isn't big enough in this situation to forgoe all of those possibilities.

johnny

[Etric]

In general I think this is a poor hand. You have a pocket pair much higher than middle pair and a one card flush draw to the non-nut flush. If a diamond comes, anyone holding A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif or K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif beats you. If you miss your draw, any made flush or Q beats you. If someone has the A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif or K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and another has a Q you are drawing almost dead. It reminds me of a hand in SSH on p136 (A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif J /images/graemlins/spade.gif with a board of K /images/graemlins/spade.gif 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif), but your hand is worse because you have fewer outs and more overcards can come to your pair. It also reminds me of the hand just underneath that as well (9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, board is A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif).

In your example, you are up against the button and 2 blind defenders. I would have bet, as your opponents are playing weakly and the pot is large and short handed.

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]

I find these issues throughout the book. On pg 186 you have Ah Ac with a flop of 9c 7c 3s. Ed talks about what he recommends to do in this situation. He states he would expect to win about 50% of the time. Where did this number come from? Counting Outs would give me the 2 A outs and 1.5 for the backdoor flush. That’s about 14%. How I am supposed to know its 50%? He shows in a footnote that this number is reasonable by example opponent hands. I am sure it is reasonable, actually I am sure it is correct, but how am I supposed to calculate/estimate it? His whole approach for this example is grounded in Pot Equity, but to calc/est Pot Equity I have to know the probability of winning. I am totally lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
The probability of improving your hand and winning the pot are not the same thing. They are only the same when you are sure that you're not ahead currently. With aces on a board like this, there is a very good chance you are ahead currently, and about a 50% chance you'll be by the river.

And when you asked how much to discount top pair outs; Ed didn't give a number because, when discounting outs to any sort of hand, it varies depending on the situation. For example, if you have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif on a board of 9
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifT /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, with 4 players still in the pot, your queen outs are very dubious, particularly the Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, which shouldn't be given any out value at all. On the other hand, your A /images/graemlins/spade.gifQ /images/graemlins/spade.gif on a board of 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif6 /images/graemlins/spade.gif, you can probably give your queens each a full out.

[johnnybeef]

TT,

great post explaining the discounted outs section. it is my belief that the section on hidden outs is somewhat of an fyi section (i.e. heres what a hidden out is yada yada). in the text, mr. miller describes how hidden outs can be calculated into a weighted average giving you a palpable way to account for hidden outs. in my opinion this is impractical, as calculating a weighted average is a somewhat lengthy calculation (especially when done mentally). i think the thing you need to take away from this section is that every once in a while there is a possibility that your opponent may be counterfeited. because of this it is sometimes correct to call when your odds to improve are slightly less than those the pot is offering you. (in fact i just went back and reread the section and ed states on pg 110 something very similar to what i wrote above.)

good luck everyone,
johnny

[darvon]

OK. I understand that I should read TOP. It's on order. I have read WLLH and ITH and sections of others.

And I appreciate that people are trying to explain some nuances of Counting Outs.

But I would like to hear some opinions on my basic question. Let me restate it and focus it on Counting Outs.

Is SSH attempting to teach me Counting Outs or is it assuming I know how to Count Outs and is only discussing nuances of it?

[mistrpug]

[ QUOTE ]
Is SSH attempting to teach me Counting Outs or is it assuming I know how to Count Outs and is only discussing nuances of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what is there to know other than the "nuances of it"? I mean, the basic way to count out is "Nine cards make my flush. I have 9 outs." What else is there to know?

Ed teaches you to think more along the lines of: "It's not a very high flush, so maybe I'll discount my 9 flush outs to 8, and I have an overcard that might be good, I'll count that as another 1.5. Add my backdoor straight(1.5) and I have about 11 outs..."

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]

Ed teaches you to think more along the lines of: "It's not a very high flush, so maybe I'll discount my 9 flush outs to 8, and I have an overcard that might be good, I'll count that as another 1.5. Add my backdoor straight(1.5) and I have about 11 outs..."

[/ QUOTE ]

That right there is the golden part of counting outs that most of us never practiced before.

[darvon]

What there is to know is a couple of things.

You use "Counting Outs" as a quick and easy method of estimating the probability of your hand (or an opponents) winning.

Basic question 1: When is Counting Outs going to be close enough to be useful and when is it not? What method do I use when it is not?

Basic question 2: People use the phrase "Counting Outs is the way of estimating the probability of improving your hand". While that is exactly accurate, it is not useful. When you figure to call/fold with pot odds or pot equity et al you are comparing the expected values of the pot (or betting cycle) to the amount of the call or bet, thus you need the probability of winning, not improving. So we make the simplifying assumption that for cases not covered in Q1, improving=winning. Is this correct?

Basic Question 3: When you flop no pair, is Counting Outs still germaine?

Basic Question 4: When you have Pocket Pairs is Counting Outs still germaine?

Those are the types of questions that where I am still unsure of the answer.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Basic question 1: When is Counting Outs going to be close enough to be useful and when is it not? What method do I use when it is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's ever just plain useless, but the cases you mention below are cases where it's probably more trouble than it's worth. If you flop a strong hand then you're more interested in whether to built a pot or protect your hand, and how to protect your hand, than you are in counting the number of cards that will retain your advantage.

[ QUOTE ]
Basic question 2: People use the phrase "Counting Outs is the way of estimating the probability of improving your hand". While that is exactly accurate, it is not useful. When you figure to call/fold with pot odds or pot equity et al you are comparing the expected values of the pot (or betting cycle) to the amount of the call or bet, thus you need the probability of winning, not improving. So we make the simplifying assumption that for cases not covered in Q1, improving=winning. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nononononono.... a thousand times no. This may be where some of the confusion is arising. In every other poker book I've read about figuring pot odds, this simplifying assumption is made, or the whole topic is glossed over. But emphatically the point that the SSH authors are making is that improving your hand does NOT equate to winning the pot, and that you're far more concerned with the latter. That's the whole point of the discussion above about discounting outs -- those cards that improve your hand, but only stand a 50% chance of winning you the pot, should be counted as only half as valuable as those cards that improve you to the unbeatable nuts.

[ QUOTE ]

Basic Question 3: When you flop no pair, is Counting Outs still germaine?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely! A two-overcard hand has six outs to top pair, but those 6 need to be discounted drastically because top pair is such a precarious hand. Of course how much you discount them depends on several factors -- the level of coordination of the flop, the betting, your knowledge of your opponents, etc. We can debate just how much to discount certain hands.

[ QUOTE ]

Basic Question 4: When you have Pocket Pairs is Counting Outs still germaine?


[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly, but in the case of small pocket pairs that don't flop a set, you have two outs to improve, even before discounting for the possibility that a set may not win. Unless you can expect the pot to pay you off at 22 to 1, it's not even worth doing the math.

In the case of large pocket pairs, you're estimating your probability of winning, which involves pot odds but not really out-counting. If overcards to your pair flop, your probability of winning may be small. However, suppose you hold JJ, the flop is Q-high, and an opponent bets into you. If you estimate that there's a 25% chance your opponent would bet with less than top pair, and the pot's offering you good enough odds you might want to stay in. That said, the pot would have to offer you MUCH better than 3 to 1 because you can anticipate having to call double-sized turn and river bets. If you figure you'll have to call a total of at least 5 more small bets (one small + two big), you want the pot to contain more than 10 small bets in the example I gave (because your opponent will put in 5 more as well, giving you 15 to 5 pot odds by the river).

Anyway, i invite others to critique that example but my point is it's not usually a matter of outs because the 1/23 probability that the next card will make your set is so small.

One case with a pocket pair where outs do matter is when you flop a set but think a straight or flush is out against you. In that case you have seven outs to a full house or quads on the turn and ten on the river. If your set is low you might want to discount those somewhat for the possibility of an opponents' higher full house. If you have the top set then you need only to consider the possibility of quads or a straight flush, which of course are both pretty remote.

Hope this helps. I'm certainly not an authority on Ed's book, but i've read and studied it, and i think i have a pretty good idea about these concepts. Of course criticism of my understanding is most welcome.

[MEbenhoe]

This hand is a hand I played at 4/8 at Canterbury a couple months ago. I feel its a good hand for demonstration purposes.

Hero is on the button with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif in a 9 handed game. UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB completes, BB checks.

6 players see a flop of J /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

SB checks, BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call.

Hero has how many outs?

Hero should... fold, call, or raise?

Part 2 to follow as soon as a consensus answer is reached on this one.

[BAS]

I'd count 1.5 outs for the runner runner nut flush.
The 2 5's should be good for 2 more.
Someone could have AJ or A8, so I would discount the 3 potential A's to 1.5 outs.

I'd count 5 outs, and I'd raise.
Maybe you knock out the blinds with something like A8, and potentially you get a free card on the turn.

-Brent

[darvon]

First of all, thank you for responding.

And let me try to focus my questions. Although I might want to discuss it, what I am looking for is a TEXT that will give me a methodology that will answer these questions. I raised it as I wondered if SSH was trying to be that text or not.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basic question 1: When is Counting Outs going to be close enough to be useful and when is it not? What method do I use when it is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's ever just plain useless, but the cases you mention below are cases where it's probably more trouble than it's worth. If you flop a strong hand then you're more interested in whether to built a pot or protect your hand, and how to protect your hand, than you are in counting the number of cards that will retain your advantage.


[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds reasonable. I would like to see a text which discusses it in depth.


[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Basic question 2: People use the phrase "Counting Outs is the way of estimating the probability of improving your hand". While that is exactly accurate, it is not useful. When you figure to call/fold with pot odds or pot equity et al you are comparing the expected values of the pot (or betting cycle) to the amount of the call or bet, thus you need the probability of winning, not improving. So we make the simplifying assumption that for cases not covered in Q1, improving=winning. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nononononono.... a thousand times no. This may be where some of the confusion is arising. In every other poker book I've read about figuring pot odds, this simplifying assumption is made, or the whole topic is glossed over. But emphatically the point that the SSH authors are making is that improving your hand does NOT equate to winning the pot, and that you're far more concerned with the latter. That's the whole point of the discussion above about discounting outs -- those cards that improve your hand, but only stand a 50% chance of winning you the pot, should be counted as only half as valuable as those cards that improve you to the unbeatable nuts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanx again. I are correct but I have poorly stated my question. Assuming that an improved hand is a winning hand is the assumption of "Level 1" Counting Outs. "Level 2" and above use more sophisticated techniques like discounting to get a good estimate in situations where Level 1 breaks down. But the goal of Level 1 and Level 2 is to give me the probability of winning, so that I may multiply that probability by the size of the pot (or betting round) to allow me to compare it to the size of a bet to make my decision. The questions are when to shift from Level 1 to Level 2 to Level 3 etc.. and whento abandon Counting Outs altogether.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Basic Question 3: When you flop no pair, is Counting Outs still germaine?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely! A two-overcard hand has six outs to top pair, but those 6 need to be discounted drastically because top pair is such a precarious hand. Of course how much you discount them depends on several factors -- the level of coordination of the flop, the betting, your knowledge of your opponents, etc. We can debate just how much to discount certain hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I understand from reading various texts, but what I haven't found is THAT discussion in a text. Where are they?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Basic Question 4: When you have Pocket Pairs is Counting Outs still germaine?


[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly, but in the case of small pocket pairs that don't flop a set, you have two outs to improve, even before discounting for the possibility that a set may not win. Unless you can expect the pot to pay you off at 22 to 1, it's not even worth doing the math.

In the case of large pocket pairs, you're estimating your probability of winning, which involves pot odds but not really out-counting. If overcards to your pair flop, your probability of winning may be small. However, suppose you hold JJ, the flop is Q-high, and an opponent bets into you. If you estimate that there's a 25% chance your opponent would bet with less than top pair, and the pot's offering you good enough odds you might want to stay in. That said, the pot would have to offer you MUCH better than 3 to 1 because you can anticipate having to call double-sized turn and river bets. If you figure you'll have to call a total of at least 5 more small bets (one small + two big), you want the pot to contain more than 10 small bets in the example I gave (because your opponent will put in 5 more as well, giving you 15 to 5 pot odds by the river).

Anyway, i invite others to critique that example but my point is it's not usually a matter of outs because the 1/23 probability that the next card will make your set is so small.

One case with a pocket pair where outs do matter is when you flop a set but think a straight or flush is out against you. In that case you have seven outs to a full house or quads on the turn and ten on the river. If your set is low you might want to discount those somewhat for the possibility of an opponents' higher full house. If you have the top set then you need only to consider the possibility of quads or a straight flush, which of course are both pretty remote.

Hope this helps. I'm certainly not an authority on Ed's book, but i've read and studied it, and i think i have a pretty good idea about these concepts. Of course criticism of my understanding is most welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no criticism of your understanding. It matches and exceeds my understanding. What I am having trouble finding is a text with a methodology on when to use/modify/abandon Counting Outs in enough depth to apply to all of the hands I see.

[darvon]

Thank you. That is an excellent demo.

You ask "How many outs do you count?" I will answer that but let me ask a different question. "How many outs does SSH count?"

SSH teaches hidden outs but the amount of possible hands of the raiser and 2 callers is daunting. Opponents could have gutshot, or open-ended or one pair with Ace kicker or one pair with non-Ace kicker or two pair or very remotely a set or a backdoor flush no pair
.

gutshot is too small, ignor it.
OESD is 1.5 outs you have no outs to beat it. It will occur 3* 4/47 * 4/46 or 1/47 of the time
pair with Ace kicker will occur...

STOP! My time just ran out at Party and it folded my hand. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

RATS!

Well if I don't have the time to do all the combos for Hidden Outs, I find no method in SSH that will help here.

So let me go back and just discount some outs.

The two 5s give me trips which will probably hold. 2 outs.

3 Aces will give me two pair, if someone is holding an Ace and a board, then I won't be happy. I have 3 people who probably have a pair, I estimate that all 3 won't hold an A about 3/4 of the time. call it about 2 outs.

I have 4 outs. about 8.5% chance, 13 SB in the pot....call.

[darvon]

To start a new fork.

I find the Hidden Out Examples non-useful. I cannot imagine a scenario in which I know what my opponents hand is to that degree with the boards of the examples.

[Luv2DriveTT]

Lets briefly discuss the ability to determine pot odds in a live game.

I reccomend ignoring the pot size, instead try count the number of bets placed into the pot. This is easily done on all streets (although its not important on 5th street for obvious reasons). This way you don't have to get involved in more complicated math while you are also counting your outs, and comparing your remaining outs to the odds the pot has layed to you.

A) If Hero is on the button, and 5 players call the big blind, then what odds is the pot laying to you?

B) If Hero is on the button, 5 players call the big blind, Hero calls, the small blind raises, the big blind folds, and all the limpers call, then what odds is the pot laying to you?

C) If UTG raises, then everybody folds to CO who 3-bets, what odds is the pot laying to you?

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

Then you missed the point of the chapter. Hidden outs are clearly defined by the Fundimental Theorum of Poker (read Sklansky's Theory of Poker.... and excelent work!), Ed's method of explaining the concept helps the reader to understand how an opponents holdings can counterfit, or enhance your hand. Since Hold'em is a game of incomplete information, it is the player's role to try to "fill in the blanks" based on the probabilities of improving the players hand, while taking into account the possible holdings of your opponents. I thought it was one of the best chapters in the the book however I wish there were some blind examples as well.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
This hand is a hand I played at 4/8 at Canterbury a couple months ago. I feel its a good hand for demonstration purposes.

Hero is on the button with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif in a 9 handed game. UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB completes, BB checks.

6 players see a flop of J /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

SB checks, BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call.

Hero has how many outs?

Hero should... fold, call, or raise?

Part 2 to follow as soon as a consensus answer is reached on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not discounting your aces gives me 6.5 (3 A's, 2 5's, BDFD) outs. Since discounting my aces down to 1 out still gives me the odds to call (4 outs, 11 sb in the pot), I should at least call. The issue is whether I should raise or not. A raise might knock SB or BB out, but they might fold anyway. None of the other three are going to fold to the raise, and with three of them I'm unlikely to get a free card.

In this situation I don't think it matters whether I discount my outs from 6.5 ==&gt; 5 or 4 or not. I call.

[darvon]

Whoops! forgot the bdfd for 1.5

Call it 5.5 still call.

[fred22]

[ QUOTE ]

Hero is on the button with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif in a 9 handed game. UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB completes, BB checks.

6 players see a flop of J /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

SB checks, BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call.

Hero has how many outs?

Hero should... fold, call, or raise?

Part 2 to follow as soon as a consensus answer is reached on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I read SSHE - I Call
After I read SSHE - I Raise

[darvon]

Another goof.

I forgot to mult by 2 cards, cause we are on the flop. So it's 22%. Pot Equity is 2.8 SB. Edge is -.03SB but may raise if the blinds call.

I would now RAISE.

[AKQJ10]

Keep in mind that you're discounting your aces not for top pair only, but for top-and-bottom pair since you already have the 5s. Maybe you factored that in but it seemed like 33% was a pretty severe discount for two pair.

It's still appropriate to discount them of course. And also if you do make aces up on the turn another ace would have hidden outs against you by the board pairing the J or 8. This would be a good reason to raise to knock out other aces.

[BUD]

this is an excellent discussion, many of you seem to have this figured out! being a slow learner ,at times, i am wondering if anyone knows of a way to practice this and focus on it repetitiously. there must be workbook or software somewhere. second would using an odds calculator develop a strong feel for this? Or have all of you developed a method yourselves. i tend to be more right brained and do not follow you mathematicians so well, so to be able to figure these things on the fly i would need to spenda lot of time on it with some systematic method.
thanx
bud

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that you're discounting your aces not for top pair only, but for top-and-bottom pair since you already have the 5s. Maybe you factored that in but it seemed like 33% was a pretty severe discount for two pair.

It's still appropriate to discount them of course. And also if you do make aces up on the turn another ace would have hidden outs against you by the board pairing the J or 8. This would be a good reason to raise to knock out other aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that even if you don't discount them at all, I can't find a raise here. None of the three callers are going to fold. The SB and BB are the only possible victims for a positional raise, and they haven't shown that they'll call even one bet. I can't raise for value because there are only 11 bets in the pot and taking the best case scenario, I have 6.5 outs and need ~6:1 to call. I might raise for a free card, but at least three people are going to have to check to me to make that happen, and mho is that it's not a particularly good spot to try the free card play.

Since even assuming I've got 6.5 outs, I can't clean up outs, am not going to be able to limit the field, am unlikely to get a free card, and cannot raise for value, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to raise here.

And since even if, on a most pessimistic assessment, I have only 4.5 outs (the 5s and the BDFD), I can call getting 11:1, I don't think that this is a tough spot. A raise doesn't accomplish anything, and it's an easy call.

It'll get a lot tougher on the turn if I don't hit one of my outs, but I think that it's easy on the flop.

[BUD]

i'll take a stab at this. a) 6.5-1 b) 15-1 c) i did not quite understand your explanation what is CO?
let me know where iam screwed up
thanx
bud

[MEbenhoe]

Parappa had the best answer for part 1. The 2 5s and the BDFD give you 3.5 outs. Not discounting the As at all would leave you with 6.5 outs. My personal preference would be to discount these slightly and make it 6 outs total. This leaves you needing close to 8:1 to call. You are getting 9:1 in immediate odds with the possibility of 1 or both of the blinds coming along as well. Because of this a call is the right move here. The reason you wouldn't raise, is first of all you don't have enough of a pot equity edge that raising here is +EV. Also, this isn't a good spot to try for a free card play. Your draw is a weak draw and with so many opponents hanging around you're likely to get bet into on the turn. This leaves you in a tough position if a blank hits on the turn.

So moving on with this hand I chose to call in this spot. So back to the hand at play:

Hero is on the button with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif in a 9 handed game. UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB completes, BB checks.

6 players see a flop of J /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

SB checks, BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call, Hero calls, SB folds, and BB calls.

5 players see a turn of 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call.

Again, hero has how many outs here?

Hero should fold, call, or raise?

[MEbenhoe]

A) 6.5:1
B) 14:1
C) 2.16:1

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero is on the button with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif in a 9 handed game. UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB completes, BB checks.

6 players see a flop of J /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

SB checks, BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call, Hero calls, SB folds, and BB calls.

5 players see a turn of 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call.

Again, hero has how many outs here?

Hero should fold, call, or raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Outs--7 to the nuts (the diamonds that don't pair the board), 2 to the nut flush with the board paired, the two 5s, and the 3 aces. That's a most-optimistic 14 outs. I don't want to discounting the 2 board-pairing diamonds very much ,as no one's showing any aggression but MP1, so if there's a set out there, he's got it. Same goes for the 5s. I think these 4 cards are worth at least 3 outs. Let's discount the 3 aces to say 2.5 to account for the chance that someone has an ace bigger than ours (meaning they can be ahead of us if they have an 8 and have 2 outs to beat our pair of 5s, and also to cover the possibility that MP1 has AJ.) or that MP1 has a hand that'll beat aces and fives or even three 5s.

So, I get 7+3(board-pairing diamonds and 5s)+2=around 12 outs, max 14ish.

Action: with 8.5 BB in the pot, we are no worse than 2.8:1 to make our draw. There are already three callers on the turn, so we can raise for value.

[Etric]

8 outs to the nut flush + the J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif which pairs the board (which I feel is inconsequential), 2 5s, and an overcard to the board 1.5 = 12.5. Raise for value with your flush draw + bottom pair.

[BradleyT]

Only 1 diamond pairs the board - I wouldn't discount pairing the board by a full out though.
Only 2 5's left in the deck not 3.

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
Only 1 diamond pairs the board

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yes. Quite. Ignored that my 5 was a diamond (of course).

[darvon]

&gt; I can't raise for value because there are only 11 bets in the pot and taking the best case scenario, I have 6.5 outs and need ~6:1 to call.

I count 9 bets. Since this is the flop, won't 6.5 outs mean you need about 4:1 to call?

[Luv2DriveTT]

CO - Cutoff (one before the button). UTG is Under The Gun. SB is Small Blind, BB is Big Bling. There is also MP - middle position. These are all standard notations here at the 2+2 forums. Spend some time in the micro limits forum, you will learn LOTS!

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
A) If Hero is on the button, and 5 players call the big blind, then what odds is the pot laying to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an easy one to get us started. 5 players plus the big blind all have one bet each, and the small blind (1/2 a bet). This makes a total of 6.5 bets to your one bet to call. Therefore the pot odds are 6.5:1


[ QUOTE ]
B) If Hero is on the button, 5 players call the big blind, Hero calls, the small blind raises, the big blind folds, and all the limpers call, then what odds is the pot laying to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

In this scenario once Hero limped in we gave the small blind 6 to .5 odds (same as 12:1 odds). Once the small blind raises we no longer consider the Hero's limped bet as it is already invested into the overall pot. This makes a total of 14 bets to your one bet to call the raise. Therefore the pot odds are 14:1


[ QUOTE ]
C) If UTG raises, then everybody folds to CO who 3-bets, what odds is the pot laying to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This one is a bit tricky. There is a total of 6.5 bets in the pot by the time it gets to the Hero, who needs to call 3 bets to continue. This makes a total of 6.5 bets to your three bets to call the raise. Therefore the pot odds are 6.5:3, which is rounded down to 2.16:1 - horrible odds unless you have a nearly perfect pre-flop hand.


I hope this little exercise helped someone /images/graemlins/blush.gif


TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[As Zehn]

I figure hero has at least 11 outs; 2 5's, 8 diamonds other than J, and discounting the Aces to 1 out. This would make it 3.1 to 1 odds to make our hand vs pot odds of 4.25 to one without the other two opponents calling. We have pot equity of 24% which equates to at least 2.04 bets.

Hero should raise.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
&gt; I can't raise for value because there are only 11 bets in the pot and taking the best case scenario, I have 6.5 outs and need ~6:1 to call.

I count 9 bets. Since this is the flop, won't 6.5 outs mean you need about 4:1 to call?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your problem is you keep taking your odds as the odds of hitting on the turn or river. You only want to take your odds of hitting on the turn.

[darvon]

OK. I have 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif and Q /images/graemlins/club.gif at EP3. $.5/$1 at Party.

UTG calls. EP2 raises. I call. MPs and LPs fold. SB calls. BB calls. UTG calls.

Flop 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/heart.gif

SB and BB check. UTG checks. EP2 bets.

How many outs and what do I do?

[mistrpug]

[ QUOTE ]
OK. I have 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif and Q /images/graemlins/club.gif at EP3. $.5/$1 at Party.

UTG calls. EP2 raises. I call. MPs and LPs fold. SB calls. BB calls.

Flop 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/heart.gif

SB and BB check. UTG checks. EP2 bets.

How many outs and what do I do?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Should have folded preflop. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
2. You might actually be ahead here (AK, AQ) so you have to take that into acount.

The only way you can assume you're behind is if you put the preflop raiser on a big pocket pair. In that case, 2 7's, 3 Q's are both good, discounted slightly since you could get beat if the board pairs and for the possibility of him having JJ. I'd call it 4. Your backdoor flush is worth 1.5. I'd say if you assume you're behind, call it 5.5 outs. Again though, you might be ahead.

Without a read (raiser having a very low PFR), this is an easy raise. You have perfect relative position and you can force the other players to pay two bets to pay. The pot is already large so you need to protect your hand.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
OK. I have 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif and Q /images/graemlins/club.gif at EP3. $.5/$1 at Party.

UTG calls. EP2 raises. I call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a real hand you played? If so you've got some serious problems. NEVER cold call a raise with Q7. You should muck this hand if UTG and the raiser had both folded.

[MEbenhoe]

Hero is on the button with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif in a 9 handed game. UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB completes, BB checks.

6 players see a flop of J /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

SB checks, BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call, Hero calls, SB folds, and BB calls.

5 players see a turn of 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call, Hero Raises, BB folds, MP1, MP3, and CO all call.

River comes a sweet sweet Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

MP1 bets, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero Raises, MP1 3bets, MP3 folds, CO folds, Hero 4 bets, MP1 calls.

MP1 shows QJ and I promptly get blasted for the way I played the entire hand by that guy and I hear other comments at the table of how lucky I got with that runner runner flush. Just goes to show the average player you'll run into at a card club has no clue about how to analyze a hand. Thats ok my almost $200 pot comforted me well.

[AKQJ10]

Guess they don't understand the concept that more than one weak draw can add up to a strong draw. Oh well, their loss.

[mistrpug]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero is on the button with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif in a 9 handed game. UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB completes, BB checks.

6 players see a flop of J /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

SB checks, BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call, Hero calls, SB folds, and BB calls.

5 players see a turn of 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call, Hero Raises, BB folds, MP1, MP3, and CO all call.

River comes a sweet sweet Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

MP1 bets, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero Raises, MP1 3bets, MP3 folds, CO folds, Hero 4 bets, MP1 calls.

MP1 shows QJ and I promptly get blasted for the way I played the entire hand by that guy and I hear other comments at the table of how lucky I got with that runner runner flush. Just goes to show the average player you'll run into at a card club has no clue about how to analyze a hand. Thats ok my almost $200 pot comforted me well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you raise the turn? I don't see what you gain by it.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hero is on the button with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif in a 9 handed game. UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB completes, BB checks.

6 players see a flop of J /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

SB checks, BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call, Hero calls, SB folds, and BB calls.

5 players see a turn of 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

BB checks, MP1 bets, MP3 and CO call, Hero Raises, BB folds, MP1, MP3, and CO all call.

River comes a sweet sweet Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

MP1 bets, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero Raises, MP1 3bets, MP3 folds, CO folds, Hero 4 bets, MP1 calls.

MP1 shows QJ and I promptly get blasted for the way I played the entire hand by that guy and I hear other comments at the table of how lucky I got with that runner runner flush. Just goes to show the average player you'll run into at a card club has no clue about how to analyze a hand. Thats ok my almost $200 pot comforted me well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you raise the turn? I don't see what you gain by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Value raise. My pot equity is high enough at this point that with 3 other players in I gain on every bet and raise put into the pot.

[As Zehn]

An extra bet form three opponents.

[mistrpug]

[ QUOTE ]
Value raise. My pot equity is high enough at this point that with 3 other players in I gain on every bet and raise put into the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I forgot you had the pair too. I was thinking you didn't have enough outs for a value raise but you do. My bad.