Implied Odds: Lets clear some silly misconceptions shall we?

[TStoneMBD]

Everyone talks about implied odds here and I think that there is a big misunderstanding about how to calculate implied odds properly.

Let me post an example from BicycleKick's Thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1574810&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

BK limps 77 UTG1
Bunch of limpers
CO raises
Action comes back to BK for 1SB with 7 players in the pot.
He has the option to call or reraise.

Now, the members of this forum would probably argue that if you reraise you are killing your implied odds, but is this really true? I disagree. There are 7 players in this pot, and BK in this hand is 1/7.5 to flop his set. His preflop pot odds are neutral EV. (In order to make this discussion easier, let's not consider other EV situations, like the times he catches a straight or his pair of 7's holds up.) He does not lose money by reraising here. Reraising preflop, at the moment is nor +EV nor -EV.

Lets look at the implications of his reraise:

He inflates the pot. If he flops his set he will receive far more action. Players will chase more when drawing dead and aggressive players will put in excessive raises to try and protect their pairs. His +EV now increases greatly.

Let me try to use an analogy here to simplify the problem:

You have the opportunity to buy a rare coin for $100 off a guy who needs money immediately. You know that tommorow you are able to sell the rare coin to someone for $120, for a net profit of $20.

The same guy offers you another deal, but you can only choose one proposition. You can buy a different coin for $200, and you know that tommorow you will be able to sell the coin for $235.

Assuming you have an appropriate bankroll, which option do you choose? The answer is quite simple.

[Mansavage]

The implications of raising go further than just inflating the pot. In my experience, many limpers will fold to a limp-reraise coming from EP expecting AA or KK. If the limpers fold, then the raise become clear -EV.

[Paluka]

The number of assumptions that have to be true for any of this post to be 100% correct is extremely large.

[Nick B.]

With that many players in the pot, his set of 7's will get drawn out on quite frequently. Reraising before the flop would not be a neutral EV decision.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, the members of this forum would probably argue that if you reraise you are killing your implied odds, but is this really true? I disagree. There are 7 players in this pot, and BK in this hand is 1/7.5 to flop his set.

[/ QUOTE ]

The odds are 7.5 to 1. So you hit a set one time in 8.5. You are 1 of the seven players, so this is actually a losin proposition in this simplified world.

[ QUOTE ]
His preflop pot odds are neutral EV. (In order to make this discussion easier, let's not consider other EV situations, like the times he catches a straight or his pair of 7's holds up.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it also ignores the hands where you make your set and lose.



[ QUOTE ]
He inflates the pot. If he flops his set he will receive far more action. Players will chase more when drawing dead and aggressive players will put in excessive raises to try and protect their pairs. His +EV now increases greatly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot will often be big enough now where his opponents are correct to chase their longshots.

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
The number of assumptions that have to be true for any of this post to be 100% correct is extremely large.

[/ QUOTE ]
I had a bunch of things I wanted to say but I think this sums it up in one neat little package.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 7 players in this pot, and BK in this hand is 1/7.5 to flop his set. His preflop pot odds are neutral EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even pretending that 6-1 on a 7.5-1 shot would somehow be ev neutral, this demonstrates another "silly misconception": that making the hand you are drawing to is equivalent to winning. I know that on this forum it is somehow taboo to mention the possiblity of set over set. Apparently anyone who recognizes that there is a small chance of someone making a better hand than you is "weak tight". The macho thing to do is apparently to pretend that it never happens, and when it does chalk it up to bad luck. I guess good poker players don't think about things that are somewhat unlikely like making a set and losing to a bigger set, or a flush, or a straight. Because doing that would be, you know, "seeing monsters under the bed". And would make us "weak tight". So let's all pound our chests and pump the pot with small pairs because we are such manly men that we don't have to worry about our hand ever losing like those sissy weak tight cowards do.

This rant is not aimed at you but instead the general tenor I sometimes find on the forums here. Thanks.

[astroglide]

- he's out of position
- equity calculations factor everyone going to the river

i see the preflop play as a slightly negative pot-pumping technique, which i'm a fan of because it will generally make you look nuts if you win and it's a big score. but he actually WAS nuts postflop, checkraising something like a KQxx turn. you are not remotely ready to post crap like this, especially with a "let me break this whole holdem thing down for you guys..." tone.

[Paluka]

astroglide is dead-on here.

[ggbman]

I think the biggest oversight is that by 3 betting you will lose a lot of the limpers. This is not your goal with 77, it will MAYBE win unimproved 2% of the time against the field and i think that's being generous. If you hit set under set, you stand to lose a lot of money. By betting, you lose a lot of the hands that you can make higher sets over to win huge pots. Also don't want Ax and KJ folding because they pay you off when they hit top pair and you hit your set. What you really are doing by 3 betting is isolating yourself against only better hands. Also, the pot will become so big that on a flop of J 8 5 you are temped to call another flop be because of implied/pot odds if there are already say 20 SB in the pot. Really here you want to try to hit your set or fold. I'm all for being aggressive, but this is clearly the wrong situation. I should say that even thought i think your logic is mostly incorrect, i do enjoy posts like this because rationalizing these situations are fun and sometimes you really might stumble across something that other people has been oblvious to, i just don't think that was the outcome here.

[amulet]

the idea is correct but the example hand is not one to use. because if he 3 bets he will lose opponents, therefore, loosing implied odds. put him in late position and have 6 in for 1 bet or 2 bets and the implied odds are correct to raise. increases the fluctations, but over the long term should show a profit.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
the idea is correct but the example hand is not one to use. because if he 3 bets he will lose opponents, therefore, loosing implied odds. put him in late position and have 6 in for 1 bet or 2 bets and the implied odds are correct to raise. increases the fluctations, but over the long term should show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't think this is right. Even if you knew everyone would call your limp re-raise the play still blows.

[roy_miami]

Actually, if you flop a set and your up against 2 over pairs they will outdraw you close to 20% of the time. That is more than just a glitch in the radar as many posters seem to believe set over set to be.

Heres a hand I was involved in a few weeks ago

15/30 5 handed, thats right FIVE HANDED!

Hero has QQ in the BB

4 of us to the flop for 4 bets

flop: Q82

3 of us to the turn for 4 bets

turn: A

3 of us to the river for 4 bets

river: K

4 more bets go in on the river

SB shows KK, I muck my QQ, button takes it down with AA

Nuttiest thing I've ever been witness to in poker

[skp]

Let's say you have 77 and have 9 way action.

Do you want the hand to be contested for 1 sb preflop or do you want it capped? Assume 10-20 game

Assume you flop a set and go on to win the hand.

If the pot had not been raised preflop, you would have invested 10 bucks to win the $80 strange preflop and $x strange postflop.

If the pot had been capped preflop, you would have invested 40 bucks to win the $320 strange preflop and $Y strange postflop.

In most cases, the difference between X and Y will be small. That is to say, the mere fact that the pot was capped preflop will not make players chase with complete garbage i.e. no one is going to call a KQ7 flop with 65. And a guy is just as likely to call that flop with A3 whether the pot had been capped preflop or not raised at all given 9 way action.

You can quibble with some of that and i might accept it. But the bottom line is that the difference between X and Y will be small.

But Y will be a larger number because some marginal hands that may have been folded in the no-raise scenario may stay for the capped scenario.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that X is $180 and Y is $220.

So, in the no raise situation, your $10 investment made you $260 strange. 26:1. Not bad.

In the capped scenario, your $40 investment made you $540 strange. That's about 13:1. Not bad but not as good as 26:1.

Ergo, preflop raises are a bad thing when you have a pp and looking to hit a set.

Even if Y was magically $360, your $40 investment gets you $680 strange and that is 17:1 which is still way worse than 26:1

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone talks about implied odds here and I think that there is a big misunderstanding about how to calculate implied odds properly.


[/ QUOTE ]

As you point out, I may well be out to lunch. If so, please bring some clarity for me.

[NMcNasty]

77 is a top ten hand. The only situations where I wouldn't raise or reraise with this hand is against a proven tight raiser or a 3 bet.

As with all top 10 hands, you raise to shorten the field because suited connectors and small pairs hurt your implied odds, and you don't want to give the small blind and big blind a free chance to hit two pair or trips. Simply put, 77 plays better in smaller pots. With the caller, raiser, and 2 more callers bicyclekick's implied odds have been damaged, but 77 being a top ten hand, might still be worth raising depending on the read of the cutoff player. I would just call, but raising isn't necessarily bad.

My point is that thinking 77 isn't powerful enough to raise with in the first place but is powerful enough to raise with after implied odds and positional advantage have been damaged is ridiculous.

[amulet]

for one bet if 6 people have limped a raise definitely has a slightly positve ev, but adds to the flucations.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
- he's out of position
- equity calculations factor everyone going to the river

i see the preflop play as a slightly negative pot-pumping technique, which i'm a fan of because it will generally make you look nuts if you win and it's a big score. but he actually WAS nuts postflop, checkraising something like a KQxx turn. you are not remotely ready to post crap like this, especially with a "let me break this whole holdem thing down for you guys..." tone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch. Good points though.

[Stormwolf]

You forget that by pumping the pot PF you will give odds for people to hang around with gutshots, backdoor flushes/straights which will make you get outdrawn more often

[amulet]

roy, i do the math and i do not get anywhere close to 20% of the time. you say outdraw, does that imply that you flop a set vs 2 overpairs and you are only an 80% fav post flop. if so either my math is incorrect or yours is. are you talking preflop (although you used the words "out draw"). could you explain if i am missing something? thanks.

[amulet]

4 cards out of 45 twice, but i think you forgot that you also have 1 card twice. the number is still high, but not 20%, or am i missing something? i enjoy reading your posts.

[Nick B.]

Also if the board trips above your set you are f'ed, which happens a small amount of time.

[skp]

IMO, this factor is negligible when you have a multiway pot. The fact is that there is a large subset of hands that will fold on the flop no matter if there was a raise preflop. A second large subset of hands will call no matter if there was a preflop raise. There is a third subset which will only stay if the pot had been raised preflop.

But guys hanging on when you flop a set is not necessarily bad and is often good given that you probably have the best hand *and* the best draw.

[roy_miami]

I used the hold'em calculator from card player to get these numbers. Remember, this is only considering outdraws, actually losing to set over set vs 2 overpairs is going to be higher than 20% becuase I'm not figuring in all the times the set over set is made on the flop. I guess it would roughly work out to be close to 40% of the time you will lose to a set over set if you have say 77 vs AA vs JJ or something.

[skp]

Set over set rarely seems to happen in actual play however. Maybe your math is wrong...I don't know...or maybe it's because hands like JJ and 88 fold on a AK7 flop (and the board ultimately goes on to become Ak798 or Ak7J4 or whatever) when you have 77 thereby making set over set seem like it's way less than the 40% that you are saying it is.

[Victor]

Hi skp,

I would rather win 540-40=500 than 260-10=250.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
- he's out of position
- equity calculations factor everyone going to the river

i see the preflop play as a slightly negative pot-pumping technique, which i'm a fan of because it will generally make you look nuts if you win and it's a big score. but he actually WAS nuts postflop, checkraising something like a KQxx turn. you are not remotely ready to post crap like this, especially with a "let me break this whole holdem thing down for you guys..." tone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Glide,

You are correct here, except in perhaps a slightly looser more aggressive game, I would validate TStone's post here.

Lawrence

[theBruiser500]

Skp, very interesting and provacative post. I don't understand this situation yet need to think about it more, but I'm not sure the ratio is what matters, whether 26:1 is really better than 13:1, the bottom line seems to be that you win more money if you cap preflop. Here is a little math:

1/9 * $260 - 8/9 * $10 = $20
1/9 * $540 - 8/9 * $40 = $24.44

How can this be argued with? The expectation of capping preflop is higher than the expectation of seeing it for a single bet.

[cpk]

So, in the no raise situation, your $10 investment made you $260 strange. 26:1. Not bad.

In the capped scenario, your $40 investment made you $540 strange. That's about 13:1. Not bad but not as good as 26:1

What you're forgetting is that

1. 13:1 is still greater than my odds against winning the hand.
2. $540 > $260.

In other words, as the saying goes, you have to spend money to make money.

[skp]

13:1 greater than odds of hitting: What that means is that calling with 77 even in a capped pot is a winning play.
That does not answer the question as to whether capping is better than playing 77 for just one bet.

But your second point (although Bruiser has expressed it more correctly) is more intriguing.

...more on it tomorrow...

[Paluka]

Do the people who advocate 3 betting preflop here also do it with 22 and 56s?

[Ray Zee]

one important note is that no one has mentioned is, what hands you three bet it or cap with. if you narrow your set too much, you end up giving away too much when you do it. and getting lots of money in with big hands is good. so to keep your opponents off base you need to throw in some hands that are more neurtral ev to help balance out your big hand raises.
there are times to push the pair and times to call or fold.

[cpk]

22 = In a 15/30+ game, yes, for the reason Ray gives, as well as the reduced relative rake making a marginal play profitable. Otherwise, no, the rake is too big an intrusion on profit.

EV = 6 * .142 - 1 * .848 = .852 - .848 = 0.004

In lower limits, the rake eats an edge this small.

56s = Yes. Clearly profitable even without implied odds:

EV = 6 * .152 - 1 * .848 = 0.064

The rake taketh, but implied odds giveth.

[cpk]

On reflection, the rake shouldn't really matter at this point, as at 15 bets the cap on the rake should've been reached. I think it's still a bit thin for 22, but for 56s it's clearly there.

[TStoneMBD]

id like to say first off that i didnt intend for my thread to lecture the players here. i do feel that i am very accurate in my viewpoints, but posted this to get a handful of good replies for my own benefit. my understanding of preflop EV versus postflop EV has evolved greatly within the past month, but i still have things to learn as i do with every aspect of my game. i would normally post a theoretical problem like this in question format, but from my experiences of the past i have found that the replies are by far less responsive using this format. im happy with the replies that ive received. the hand that i chose is flawed for this particular problem for a few of the points mentioned by the above posters, mainly that your reraise may cause limpers to fold. i am not advocating this play in all circumstances, and if you read the original thread by BK you will see that i actually said this limpreraise is not something i would do but i like it. i did not take the time to pick out an optimal scenario for this post, and i probably should have when starting such a rather large fire. regardless, i feel that there are indeed misconceptions about implied odds in this forum, and i hope that this discussion clarifies them.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
- but he actually WAS nuts postflop, checkraising something like a KQxx turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couple quick things -
A) i'm almost never a 'nuts' postflop player. I've seen schneids and clark make interesting raises and people say that ABC poker doesn't really win at higher limits. May as well try my interesting (as in off the beaten path) plays at 30/60 where it's not going to hurt as much as lessons at 80/160 or something.
B) I had a read here and it was a pretty strong feeling. I don't get feelings that strong at the table all that often but I had it that time.
C) I was right in my asessment that i had the best hand and won the hand.
D) maybe I just got lucky
E) I'm definately open to what other players, especially ones that are better than me have to say, as I post these hands to learn to play better...so I've given what you said about the nuts turn good thought but I still disagree. I'm not emotional about it, though...

[Paluka]

I just don't think against 6 opponents that I win 1/7th of the hands. So putting more money in preflop isn't a winning play.

[elysium]

hi ts

you need to factor in some type of risk factor into your analogy.

[Stormwolf]

Ok, now we from now on will start capping with 22 PF when it cames 3 cold to us, maybe QQ wont laydown because we made the pot big.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Set over set rarely seems to happen in actual play however.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well....it has to begin with your set being up against a higher pocket-pair doesn't it?
Even with all the limping, raising, etc pre-flop there is a high likelihood that your 77 is the only PP out there to begin with.


FWIW - I ran into set-over-set 3x yesterday (although one of them was "only" a set on the turn and then quads on the river).

Yuck!!


I do agree with the general sentiment that set-over-set "typically" (except on my bad nights like yesterday) don't happen often enough for one to be too terribly concerned about it.


My initial reaction when reading TStoneMBD's post was the likelihood of many of the limpers folding to a 3-bet. It's silly to think they would all come along for 2-cold after your limp-reraise.

[amulet]

i think anodically set over set is rare and not something to be worried about.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Skp, very interesting and provacative post. I don't understand this situation yet need to think about it more, but I'm not sure the ratio is what matters, whether 26:1 is really better than 13:1, the bottom line seems to be that you win more money if you cap preflop. Here is a little math:

1/9 * $260 - 8/9 * $10 = $20
1/9 * $540 - 8/9 * $40 = $24.44

How can this be argued with? The expectation of capping preflop is higher than the expectation of seeing it for a single bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you win more money when you cap preflop--those times when you win with it. You also lose more money by capping preflop all the times you lose with it.

THE RATIO MATTERS A GREAT DEAL.

I am too lazy;-) but go ahead and do the math if you like, including all the times you lose and see which is better, capping or not capping preflop. Remember that future bets are not increased four-fold as are preflop bets (when capped). Your ratio must diminish.

Not capping is intuitively better and I'll bet it has to be supported by the math.

Capping or reraising just hurts your implied odds and the playing advantages need to be significant in order to compensate for that. Actually I think the playing advantages may not even be a net plus, since you are giving overcards more incentive to chase if the Flop (and even Turn) are crappy lowish cards. Also people chase a lot nowadays anyway so making the pot bigger to tie them on has IMO less value than it used to. And as skp pointed out, you want the AJ's etc. in to pay you off when they hit a pair.

[astroglide]

but i did say that ray. if we get the chance to meet maybe i'll be nice and let you win a pot to pick up some new trifocals.

[TStoneMBD]

a better example of when reraising with a PP is this:

4 players limp, you limp with 22, button raises, SB calls, BB calls, 4 limpers call, you reraise, button caps, SB folds all call. You are now getting precisely 6.5:1 odds which is neutral ev to flop a set. if you had 77 instead of 22, your hand also has far more value preflop than 6.5:1. if you flop your set you will be chased down with overcards increasing your profit.

now some of the posters in this thread misunderstand some relevance of the odds that you give your opponents to chase. they say you will be outdrawn more often and are allowing bigger pairs and gutshots to chase you out. this is a small sacrifice for the chasing hands that are drawing dead. in an 8 player pot for 2 bets, players already have correct odds to chase gutshots. if they chase their pocket pairs for set value, getting 26:1 odds, they are making profit off of your losses, but it isnt a significant profit. increasing the pot size makes it more profitable for gutshots to chase the flop, but devalues their preflop equity when you flop a set, so they are not profitting off your play.

[roy_miami]

Plus its always fun to see someone drag a 35BB pot with some garbage like T7o. Keeps the game more interesting.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
now some of the posters in this thread misunderstand some relevance of the odds that you give your opponents to chase. they say you will be outdrawn more often and are allowing bigger pairs and gutshots to chase you out. this is a small sacrifice for the chasing hands that are drawing dead. in an 8 player pot for 2 bets, players already have correct odds to chase gutshots. if they chase their pocket pairs for set value, getting 26:1 odds, they are making profit off of your losses, but it isnt a significant profit. increasing the pot size makes it more profitable for gutshots to chase the flop, but devalues their preflop equity when you flop a set, so they are not profitting off your play.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the problems with the raise is that it may make it correct for you to chase a 2-outer if you do not hit your set.

[theBruiser500]

But if it's correct to chase that 2 outer it's not a mistake.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
But if it's correct to chase that 2 outer it's not a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a mistake once the pot has grown that large. But it may be a mistake to make the pot so large that calling with a 2-outer is no longer a mistake.

I realize that this point seems obscure, but one of the nice mathematical features of small pocket pairs is that they are hit or miss propositions: you either make a set and have fairly enormous equity, or miss and have only a trivial of equity (the chance of spiking a 2-outer and it holding up).

If you make this sort of limp-reraise, and increase the pot size from say 12 SB to 24 SB, you reduce that mathematical advantage. Now, the equity loss from folding when you miss is greater, and the equity advantage from hitting is smaller, because you'll make it correct for people to call with some extremely weak holdings.

[theBruiser500]

"Of course you win more money when you cap preflop--those times when you win with it. You also lose more money by capping preflop all the times you lose with it."

Haha, good point MMMMMM. I am trying to think this through though and still don't see why ratio matters. It's like if I put up $100 to get $300 back, or I could put up $300 to get $600 back, in first case that is 3-1, in second it is 2-1, but in first case I make $200 in second case I make $300. What does ratio matter here, the bottom line is I make more money in the second case.

I'd like to do the math but I don't know how to come up with the other cases and numbers here. Can someone help me on that?

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
now some of the posters in this thread misunderstand some relevance of the odds that you give your opponents to chase. they say you will be outdrawn more often and are allowing bigger pairs and gutshots to chase you out. this is a small sacrifice for the chasing hands that are drawing dead. in an 8 player pot for 2 bets, players already have correct odds to chase gutshots. if they chase their pocket pairs for set value, getting 26:1 odds, they are making profit off of your losses, but it isnt a significant profit. increasing the pot size makes it more profitable for gutshots to chase the flop, but devalues their preflop equity when you flop a set, so they are not profitting off your play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another thing: the top pair sorts of hands are usually going to calling down the whole way anyway once the pot hits a sufficiently large size preflop, say 12 SB preflop. If you increase the size of the pot to 24 SB, you won't be making any *more* money off these sorts of calls postflop. However, you will be losing a lot more money against hands like 2-out overset draws and runner/runner flush and straight draws.

In other words, growing the pot from large to extremely large will encourage more calls, but a lot of the calls that you encourage will be correct ones. Most of the standard sorts of incorrect calls with top pair/middle pair/can't-improve-to-the-nuts sorts of hands that are made when you flop bottom set are going to be made anyway.

[BottlesOf]

I don't thin it's obscure at all but rather an important logical distinction.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
But if it's correct to chase that 2 outer it's not a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what about the times that you have the odds to draw to 2 outs, but you are really drawing dead and put in a bunch of bets when you hit the underset on the turn. Or you call and don't close the action only to see a raise.

[TStoneMBD]

this post of mine is charting unwatered territories here and the complex math is proving to be difficult for me. i hope someone can correct my math or help clear my thoughts:

nate i think you are wrong about a couple of your assumptions. firstly, if you inflate the pot to a size in which you have to chase your 2 outs, you are not losing money. im trying to think of a mathematical way to express this, but its complex. also, it should be pointed out that if you merely call the pf raise, the pot will still be large enough to chase your PP assuming the button bets and all the limpers only call. if they raise to thin you out, they are cutting down your implied odds and are making both folding and calling unprofitable, but folding being the better of the two. if you inflate the pot and are correct in chasing your 2outer with ample odds, you are profitting. pocket 77s is a strong multiway hand because it has the capability of making a large hand. by inflating the pot preflop you take away the postflop equity of hands like AJo and KQo, because the pot will be so large that a pair of aces is giving up excessive equity to players chasing their live draws.

i also want to stress once again that if a gutshot has correct odds to chase in a 16bb pot, he is not taking away anymore of the postflop equity from your hand than if the pot were smaller. he takes away from the preflop equity, but you dont mind giving him the extra preflop equity during the times in which you have flopped your set, as you have gained so much.

my thoughts on the 3rd paragraph of this thread are really fuzzy. im not thinking too well at the moment. ill come back to it later and hopefully my thoughts will be better sorted and more mathematically sound.

[DiceyPlay]

I didn't see any results from BicycleKick. Could you bring closure to the hand you describe?

I have what might be a dumb quesstion -

Could we switch 77 with JdTd in the hand described by BK?

I'm thinking about my recent post:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1576492&page=2&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

I realize the pots are entirely different sizes at the time a decision is made, but the value of the hands is different too (I don't really know if JTs is better then 77 - I think it is).

How different is the ev of calling or capping with JTs on the button in the situation in my post compared to the ev of calling or re-raising with 77 in BK's hand?

Thanks,

-DP

[TStoneMBD]

i think that question is an entirely different discussion all on its own. its much more difficult to calculate the implied odds of a hand like JTs, because it makes far more hands and doesnt flop made hands as often as it flops draws. twodimez.net's calculations of preflop EV is a good place to start this debate. the tricky part begins when you start questioning how often you flop a draw or made hand, and how much your equity increases by players chasing their pairs to the river drawing dead if you hit your draw. calculating all that will take hours and even then your numbers will be flawed because there are too many variables to analyze this situation close to accurately. however, if some smart minds took the time to really think this one through, im sure a really profound answer could be developed. im sure noone will take the time for that at least a couple of weeks until after this thread blows over.

[Stormwolf]

Since your a 7.5-1 dog to spike a set you would need SEVEN and half opponents make money on every bet that goes in PF, but you will make many sets and still lose the pot, so you probably need more than that and sometimes you will chase a 2 outs and win, sometimes lose, so overall it your "true" win rate must be like 7 or 8%, which would need somethine like 11.5-1 Bet odds, doesnt sounds like its a good deal on a 5 or 6 opponents situation. They WILL hang around later in the hand but they will do it CORRECTLY(Like the guy with AA) so you lose money when they chase you

[BarronVangorToth]

I'm not saying that you haven't taken these factors into account, but 7's can win in other ways as well -- they can simply hold up on their own, they can make a straight, or make a flush. Yes, I know that some of these border on the very unlikely, but there are other things to consider with every holding other than savagely spiking the set.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Stormwolf]

Yes, but was I said on the other thread hanging around when the flop is 983 will be expensive.
If you add up all their collective outs against you, they will have almost every single rank that beat your, in case your not behind already, so you will pay off a better hand extremely often, will get outdrawn extremely often because they wont fold anything that has any remote chance of winning and they will be CORRECT on doing that, that because you helped them by pumping the pot.

Flops like 456 dont came around as often as you might think. And besides what if the flop is 224, you bet, six players calls, the turn is a T, what now?Are you going to bet again, call a raise and payoff the guy with AT?It could be +EV to play that flop because you may not get outdrawn but why the hell would you pump it before the flop???
If you add up all the times you payoff someone else, all the times the flop cames implayable(Which is going to be stupidly often), it will make no sense put money PF knowing your in big trouble if you dont flop a set.

If the cap PF would make the pot 3 or HU THEN you would have a realistic chance of winning without a set

[TStoneMBD]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but was I said on the other thread hanging around when the flop is 983 will be expensive.
If you add up all their collective outs against you, they will have almost every single rank that beat your, in case your not behind already, so you will pay off a better hand extremely often, will get outdrawn extremely often because they wont fold anything that has any remote chance of winning and they will be CORRECT on doing that, that because you helped them by pumping the pot.

Flops like 456 dont came around as often as you might think. And besides what if the flop is 224, you bet, six players calls, the turn is a T, what now?Are you going to bet again, call a raise and payoff the guy with AT?It could be +EV to play that flop because you may not get outdrawn but why the hell would you pump it before the flop???
If you add up all the times you payoff someone else, all the times the flop cames implayable(Which is going to be stupidly often), it will make no sense put money PF knowing your in big trouble if you dont flop a set.

If the cap PF would make the pot 3 or HU THEN you would have a realistic chance of winning without a set

[/ QUOTE ]

your points are well taken. however you are drastically leaving out an important detail. if pumping preflop is a -EV play for you, than it is a +EV play for someone else. if you are worried about chasing to the river and putting yourself in a difficult position, which hands at the table are the ones that profit over the course of a million hands?

[Stormwolf]

66 is a profitable hand according to my pokertracker, yet I never playing by capping it pf multiway, I suspect it would quickly became a losing one, thats because I put my money in when I MADE MY HAND or liked the flop, not before when I have no idea what the flop is going to be like and certanly not to help some guy with K7 chase my around correctly

[Stormwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
which hands at the table are the ones that profit over the course of a million hands?

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats the problem, your thinking in terms of hot and cold simulations which assumes everybody is putting their money in regardless of the board, you wont be able to stand any heat if the flop cames with overcards(Even though you MAY have the best hand and folds the winner, so you give up a lot that twodimes equity) or you dont flop a set, that will happen the overwhelming majority of the time, you will get outdrawn often if the flop cames with undercards, if you flop a set you may win, you may lose

So overall you may have like 10% of win rate, so you need 9-1 bet odds, you need NINE opponents to make your raises profitable, I dont think that happens even on stars 0.2/0.4

[TStoneMBD]

no storm that is not my point. i am debating your standpoint without using my redundant arguement of twodimes.net pf EV. my question to you, is by capping preflop, which hands have more value postflop than others when considering how the hand plays out, aka implied odds. you seem to argue my question by saying its too difficult to determine what the flop will look like, but that is entirely irrelevant. the point is, if you are losing money by capping with 77, someone is gaining money. you need to determine what hands benefit from the preflop cap, in order of probable starting hands that the table holds, from greatest to weakest, before your arguement has any validity.

[Stormwolf]

You with 77 gets to "make" money PF but you will not be able to CLAIM it, the argument of "you gain money because you have a good pot equity" is irrelevant, if you cant CLAIM your pot equity(Like 77 when the flop is Q92 6handed)so even though you "made" money from the guy with AQ HE gets to claim the money, they guy with AK will may be "losing" money from you but will CLAIM much more often because there are MUCH more favorable flops for him, if the he hits the flop he goes to the river, not like you, you will have to play much more careful because you could easly be outdrawn and pay off a better hand, be drawing to two outs.

You could try to chase your two outer and see on the river if your pair is any good YET how often would a pair of sevens be the best hand 6 handed?I tell you, you could be against so many outs that on the flop that 70-80% of the deck could destroy your hand, how your going to guess when your hand is good or not?Are you going to pay off every single time?You cant guess, thats why you dump it, otherwise you will gigantic swings and will need a crystal ball to know if a 5 really didnt make someone a better hand, the guy with AK loses the money PF but dont lose AFTER the flop as often as you do when you have 77 and someone has a pair of eights on the flop 843 and you pay off all the way, the guy with AK is in a MUCH safer and profitable situation

[theBruiser500]

Stormwolf, I was wondering the same thing as TBStoneMDB, and I don't think you understand his point or if you do I don't think you're explaining yourself well. You're saying that raising 77 preflop is not good because it is harder to play postflop. So since 77 losses by capping in a multiway pot, what hands gain by it? That is the simple question.

[Stormwolf]

What you mean by "gaining"? If you referring to the pot equity shown by twodimes, its 77, YET this does not mean your making MONEY for the points how been already explained.

The SMALL edge shown by twodimes its EASLY lost on houndreds of times you have to pay off a better hand or that you give up on the flop because there are two overcards and you have the best hand
(Or when you decide to chase your two outer and payoff a better hand on the river because you think your hand is good)

But with AK this happens WAY less often and you get paid off by worse hands all the time, yet with 77 what worse hands will pay you off?Almost none, you will only collect from draws that you wont have any idea if they hit or not, for the example if the board is all undercards and the river is a jack, someone bets, do you call?If do and lose money on this situations you will lose again and again because they will happen ALL THE TIME and you will lose all the "edge" you had preflop(Which is a SMALL advantage anyway)

[jogumon]

[ QUOTE ]
Haha, good point MMMMMM. I am trying to think this through though and still don't see why ratio matters. It's like if I put up $100 to get $300 back, or I could put up $300 to get $600 back, in first case that is 3-1, in second it is 2-1, but in first case I make $200 in second case I make $300. What does ratio matter here, the bottom line is I make more money in the second case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an easy, extreme, example to show why the actual odds matter, and the actual amount doesn't. We flip a coin, heads you win, tails you lose. Which get do you prefer? If you win, you get $100, and if you lose you lose $10, getting 10:1? Or if you win you get $1,000, but if you lose you lose $10,000, getting 1:10? In the second case, you win a lot more money when you win.

In your example, you're only looking at the net amount you win, $300 vs. $200, not what you invest, $300 vs. $100. Do $300 once, and you get back $600, winning $300. Do $100 3x, and you get back $900, winning $600. You get back to 2:1 against 1:1, with the 2:1 being better, exactly as the odds told you to begin with.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a mistake once the pot has grown that large. But it may be a mistake to make the pot so large that calling with a 2-outer is no longer a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no such mathematical concept. The opportunity to make a little money by correctly calling the flop instead of being forced to fold is a benefit. It can never be the reason that a preflop play was a mistake.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a mistake once the pot has grown that large. But it may be a mistake to make the pot so large that calling with a 2-outer is no longer a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no such mathematical concept. The opportunity to make a little money by correctly calling the flop instead of being forced to fold is a benefit. It can never be the reason that a preflop play was a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stellar,

This is not quite true. At some point, I'm going to try and develop a fuller, more eloquent restatement of this, and perhaps submit it to Mason and David for publication.

The easiest example is to take something from no limit. Suppose that your opponent makes a large raise before the flop with what you believe to be one of the following hands: AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AKo, AQs. You call off half of your stack holding AKo, which will win 43% of the time against this range of hands.

The flop comes Q52 rainbow and your opponent pushes. That is an awful flop for you, but getting 3:1, it is now correct to call (your equity in the hand is about 27%). This is a classic case of pot-committing yourself. The initial call would have been incorrect if you had to commit your entire stack, as you are an underdog. However, once you have already pushed half of your stack in before the flop, you will almost certainly have to put the remainder of it in after the flop, so you should treat the initial raise as though it puts you all-in. Yes, taken in isolation, calling off the remainder of your stack on the flop is correct, but it is an unfavorable situation that you could have avoided simply by folding before the flop.

Issues of pot-commitment are not as profound in limit hold 'em, but they still do apply in marginal situations. The sort of limp-reraise play that is being discussed here tends to commit the entire field to the pot, which for reasons I've already described, is not in my opinion a favorable development for a baby pair like 22.

[TStoneMBD]

Nate I'll help you out here with mathematical analysis, or hurt you depending upon what it is that we find.

For the ease of my example, let's assume that you know you will not be raised, and you know that the players with no money in the pot will fold. We will also not be considering pot odds or effective odds.

If you only call the preflop raise, the pot will be 16bb. The flop comes and you miss your set. UTG bets, UTG2 calls and when the action comes back to you, you have approximately 18:1 odds to chase your set. You fold because it is correct to do so without consider to implied odds, and thereby cut your losses to -2bb.


Now, you instead inflate the pot to 4bb preflop, causing the SB to fold giving you a 30bb pot. You miss your set. UTG bets, UTG2 calls and now you have 32:1 to call the flop to spike your set on the turn. Your equity to flop your set on the turn is about 4.7%, or 6.8bb. you have invested 5bb into the pot so your +EV margin is 1.8bb, showing a clear profit for the hand at the current state in time.

conclusion: scenario 2 is profitable while scenario 1 is not.

[Nate tha' Great]

TSMBD,

You're missing a lot of nuances that I think I've already explained adequately.

-Nate

[limitholdemshark]

wish u were at my table!!
u cant limp in utg1 with 77 u either raise or fold simple as that all ur other mumble jumble about implied odds wood never come up if u played ur hand correctly preflop

good luck

the shark

[Chobohoya]

is this a joke post?