Do the "Odds with 2 Cards To Come" Have Any Usefulness?

[TomBrooks]

I've read that the odds with two cards to come don't have much significance because you have another round of betting before the second card. Therefore, you have to calculate in an estimate of what the cost of those bets will be, or just forgo using this calculation at all.

Do the odds with two cards to come have any significant purpose besides perhaps being nice to know?

-TomBk

[jackfrost]

One great example is when you are on a flush draw against many opponents. The pot is laying you better than 1:2 at that point so every extra flop raise you get is profit.

[jackfrost]

I play mostly limit but i'm guessing in NL there are many more situations where this number is important.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
One great example is when you are on a flush draw against many opponents. The pot is laying you better than 1:2 at that point so every extra flop raise you get is profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, if there are 4 people putting money in on the flop besides you, then you are contributing 20% that round.

If your hand has a 35% chance to hit by the river (ie 9 out flush draw with 2 cards to come), then you should raise.

You will win (35%) more than your share (20%).

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read that the odds with two cards to come don't have much significance because you have another round of betting before the second card. Therefore, you have to calculate in an estimate of what the cost of those bets will be, or just forgo using this calculation at all.

Do the odds with two cards to come have any significant purpose besides perhaps being nice to know?

-TomBk

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm...there's this game they play on TV called "no limit"...something about the cadillac of poker..i don't really know.

[Cerril]

Mostly you would be looking at the odds with two cards to come when you know you're seeing the river. The example of a flush draw against several opponents is a good one. Even if you aren't getting odds based on just the next card (important when looking at hands with fewer outs, where your equity and pot odds are good now but won't be on the turn - i.e. you'll be folding the turn if you don't improve).

Essentially your odds with two to come matter for the sake of equity more than odds, since those cases are the ones where you want to get more bets in rather than just calling or checking.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read that the odds with two cards to come don't have much significance because you have another round of betting before the second card.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't always have another round of betting. For example, you may be put all in on the flop. In that case, you won't do any more betting on the turn, and you should use the two-cards-to-come odds.

But in general, if you want to use the two-cards-to-come odds, you have to use the two-cards-to-come price -- which will usually (in fixed-limit) be a small bet on the flop plus a big bet on the turn. You will never convert a fold into a call this way, though, since the bet size increases from the flop to the turn more than your chances of making your hand do, so you should generally just do your pot odds calculations based on seeing only the next card, not two more.

That's for deciding whether to fold or call.

When deciding whether to call or raise, as others have mentioned, go ahead and use the two-cards-to-come number. (But don't compare it to the size of the whole pot; just compare it to the money going in on the current round.)

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
But in general, if you want to use the two-cards-to-come odds, you have to use the two-cards-to-come price -- which will usually (in fixed-limit) be a small bet on the flop plus a big bet on the turn. You will never convert a fold into a call this way, though, since the bet size increases from the flop to the turn more than your chances of making your hand do

[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't necessarily true at all. If you are heads up and your opponent bets the flop and you estimate there is a 10% chance he will also bet the turn, you may not be getting good enough odds to pay one small bet to see one card, but may be getting good enough odds to pay 1.2 small bets (1 on the flop plus 10% of a big bet on the turn) to see two cards. Even though you would fold the flop if you only considered your immediate odds and chance of hitting on one card, you should call since your odds on two cards justify the (expected) price of seeing two cards. So you call and hope that either you help on the turn or he checks.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are heads up and your opponent bets the flop and you estimate there is a 10% chance he will also bet the turn, you may not be getting good enough odds to pay one small bet to see one card, but may be getting good enough odds to pay 1.2 small bets (1 on the flop plus 10% of a big bet on the turn) to see two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is correct. The point is that you have to include the cost of both rounds of betting. If you really think your opponent has only a 10% chance of betting the turn, then the turn looks pretty cheap. I don't think that's going to be a reasonable assumption very often, but if your opponent is that weak-passive, then calling on the flop to get two cards may be correct even if calling on the flop to get one cards wouldn't have been.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One great example is when you are on a flush draw against many opponents. The pot is laying you better than 1:2 at that point so every extra flop raise you get is profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, if there are 4 people putting money in on the flop besides you, then you are contributing 20% that round.

If your hand has a 35% chance to hit by the river (ie 9 out flush draw with 2 cards to come), then you should raise.

You will win (35%) more than your share (20%).

[/ QUOTE ]

this is an example of the application of pot equity. i think what the OP was asking about was the usefulness of pot odds on the flop...if this is the case, then implied odds are your pot odds adjusted in consideration to the pot you stand to win if you hit your card. for more info see sklansky's Theory of Poker.

[oneeyedjackz]

I totally agree.

[bernie]

"Effective"ly, they do.

b

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
When deciding whether to call or raise, as others have mentioned, go ahead and use the two-cards-to-come number. (But don't compare it to the size of the whole pot; just compare it to the money going in on the current round.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi. Thanks for your responses.

I'd like to see if I understand this concept for limit Hold'em. Continuing with the example of a flush draw...

On the flop with a flush draw, the odds of making your hand on the next card are 3:1, but the odds of making it by the river are 2:1. So even if you got only 3 callers on a flop bet or raise, your EV improves because they made the bet while the odds were 2:1. An assumption to make this correct is that you will go to the river if you miss on the turn; but that is almost always the case with a flush draw.

On a turn bet or raise, 3 callers would not be enough to improve your EV like it was on the flop; because with only one card to come and your odds to make being equal to the number of callers (3:1), a bet or raise is only neutral on EV. It would also increase your varience without increasing your EV.

However and for the sake of completeness, I will opine that there are other reasons to bet or raise the turn even if you only expected 3 callers. Getting a fourth (or fifth etc.) opponent to fold increases your equity in the pot which is +EV. Betting or raising also helps you maintain control of the hand, promotes your image as a gambler, and might permit you to see the showdown for free if you miss, particularly if you are last to act.

How does that sound? Did I get it?

-TomBk

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]

On the flop with a flush draw, the odds of making your hand on the next card are 3:1, but the odds of making it by the river are 2:1. So even if you got only 3 callers on a flop bet or raise, your EV improves because they made the bet while the odds were 2:1. An assumption to make this correct is that you will go to the river if you miss on the turn; but that is almost always the case with a flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly right. The other assumption it makes is that you will always win if you make your flush. But flushes win frequently enough (and you sometimes win without making the flush) that if there are four people with you on the flop and you have a flush draw, you are usually happy to see the betting get capped. Normally what is happening here is that you and the player who currently has the best hand are both making money at the expense of everyone else, so the two of you are happy to cap it together and trap everyone else. In addition to the equity reasons, jamming with draws in multiway pots is good because bad player who don't understand the play will think that you were "gambling" and playing badly when they see your hand and because it adds deception. If you only cap the flop with monsters like a set, everyone will always know where you are. Since you are willing to cap both with draws and with monsters, it is much harder for your opponents to play against you. Someone with a good pair or two pair won't know whether he currently has the best hand and would be making a big mistake by folding or whether he is drawing dead and making a big mistake by continuing.

[jackfrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One great example is when you are on a flush draw against many opponents. The pot is laying you better than 1:2 at that point so every extra flop raise you get is profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, if there are 4 people putting money in on the flop besides you, then you are contributing 20% that round.

If your hand has a 35% chance to hit by the river (ie 9 out flush draw with 2 cards to come), then you should raise.

You will win (35%) more than your share (20%).

[/ QUOTE ]

this is an example of the application of pot equity. i think what the OP was asking about was the usefulness of pot odds on the flop...if this is the case, then implied odds are your pot odds adjusted in consideration to the pot you stand to win if you hit your card. for more info see sklansky's Theory of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that it isn't useful to know when betting is more profitable than calling? I think the op was asking when knowing the odds is significant and this is an example where I find it to be significant.

[CORed]

The odds with two card to come are useful for deciding whether to value bet (or raise) a draw on the flop. If you are expecting more callers that the odds against hitting your draw (or actually, your odds of winning the hand), a bet or raise will make money. The two card adds are also useful in deciding whether to call all-in on the flop, since you won't be putting any more money into the pot on the turn.

[Derek in NYC]

They are obviously useful for all-in situations.

[Benman]

You got the concepts right, but the odds of making a flush on the turn are 4 to 1, not 3 to 1.

[vanezza]

wouldn't it be usefull when raising will buy you a free card

[CORed]

Yes, but reallisticly, you have to assign a probability that a raise will buy a free card, because you usually can't be sure.

[patrick dicaprio]

of course they are useful to know but not more useful than many other things to know. if you are talking nolimit then they are of extremely limited value compared to those other things.

Pat