Accounting for cards that have been discarded

[MikeRand2000]

Happy holidays, everyone.

Quick question: in all of the pot/effective/implied odds discussions I see, I never see anybody consider the probability that one or more of their outs have already been dealt and discarded.

For example, I have AhTh and the flop comes Tc7d2s. Normally that would be a strong hand. But, what if I know (via some tell) that an Ace has already been ditched and a couple of other players have KT or QT? If a king/queen falls on the turn, shouldn't I say that I'm playing to 2 outs and not 3?

I just never see this adjustment made for either cards that have been discarded or outs that are sitting in someone elses hand. Is it wrong to do that?

Thanks,

Mike

[AKQJ10]

You yourself said the relevant point: if you have reason, from some tell, to think that your outs have been mucked then you're correct to discount them accordingly.

In practice, however, I can't imagine a tell that would be remotely accurate enough to use for this kind of analysis. I suppose you could shade your decisions a bit figuring that an opponent mucked a strong preflop hand, and strong preflop hands tend to contain aces. I wouldn't get carried away with that sort of analysis, though, unless you're very sure you know that opponent.

See also the discussion of tells in SSH. I'm curious, are you talking about tells as such, or about hand strength demonstrated in prior rounds' betting? My gut feeling is that the latter factor would be more important than tells themselves, unless you have a clear interpretation of the tell.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

When you do a pot odds calculation, you account for unseen cards. Where those unseen cards are located - in the deck, in active hands, or discarded, - is irrelevant.

[AKQJ10]

True, but irrelevant to the OP.

If through whatever means -- tells, betting patterns, etc. -- you know that your opponents had a better than average probability of starting with an ace, then that means aces are less likely to be in the stub. The operative word in your comment is "unseen"; if you have a well-founded belief that one or more opponents started with an ace, then their hands aren't strictly "unseen".

You're answering another beginner's objection -- "What about my outs contained in random unseen hands?" -- but the OP was talking about non-random, partially "seen" hands. That said, i'm not convinced this consideration would matter until you have a good read on your opponents. I've seen a lot of low-limit players who'll play QJ-offsuit as aggressively as Big Slick.

(For comparison, there was a thread some time ago on Other Poker about how middle cards -- normally the bane of an Omaha 8/b hand -- could be profitable if you're in a tight game with many limpers. The idea is they're all drawing at each other's high and low outs. I've never been in a tight O8 game so I have no opinion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[aron]

[ QUOTE ]

For example, I have AhTh and the flop comes Tc7d2s. Normally that would be a strong hand. But, what if I know (via some tell) that an Ace has already been ditched and a couple of other players have KT or QT? If a king/queen falls on the turn, shouldn't I say that I'm playing to 2 outs and not 3?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you would, if you knew, but you can't know for sure so you don't.
-aron

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure you would, if you knew, but you can't know for sure so you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key point. You have to be very sure of whatever "tells" the OP was talking about. Unless you have some very good reads it is better to only use the number of unseen cards.

[BOTW]

When someone who folded says "damnit" under their breath when the flop comes, say, 66J, I can be pretty sure that one 6 is in the muck. (Of course, if I actually see a card go in the muck I'll count it dead.) Otherwise, I don't know that I could make a read like someone mucked an Ace.

Be careful of looking for "monsters" that aren't there.

[MikeRand2000]

There could be a bunch of tells ranging from obvious to not so obvious, but I was talking about less obvious ones.

This isn't that unrealistic. For example, someone in early position following SSH tight guidelines cold-calls a raise. According to the table, there are only 3 hands with which you'd cold-call: AQs, AJs, KQs. If that person is still in the pot when I need an ace to win (say I have AK against KK), isn't it reasonable to say that I have 2.33 outs (i.e. 3 outs less the 66% chance that the pre-flop cold-caller has an ace)?

I'm not talking about saying "100%, for sure, they have an ace" or "0%, no way they have an ace". But weighted probabilities seem to make sense.

Anyway, just a thought.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
but I was talking about less obvious ones

[/ QUOTE ]

These would have to be amazing tells, like someone practically wearing a sign around their neck saying "I have AQ suited". The point is you should use a weighted strategy, but only rarely for your own draws and "out" calculations. There are not many practical ways to go about using a weighted strategy to determine your own outs at the table. However, when you only use the unseen cards your probabilities are much more concrete.

It's just not that practical, and the dangers of becoming pre-occupied with such things are numerous, especially at lower limits.