some hold em odds please

[krypto]

If hitting a flush or a outside straight on the next card is 4/1 (about) what are the odds if you still have 2 cards comming? What about a inside straight. What is the formula for figuring this out?

Thank you all in advance.

[Ed Miller]

Read David Sklansky's article in Card Player this week...

http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=afeature&art_id=12853

[lorinda]

Let's say you are flushing.
You have 9 cards to hit from 47 unknown cards to make it on the turn.
If you miss, you have 9 from 46 to make it on the river.

Take the chances that you MISS twice..
(47-9)/47 * (46-9)/46
38/47 * 37/46 = .6503
so you have a 65.03% chance missing
gives a 34.97% chance of hitting.

If you know your opponent's cards (in an "on their backs" proposition for example) you need to adjust the 47 unseen accoringly.
If you are straighting or some other draw, you can use numbers other than 9 (in the case of a straight 8) to work out the odds for this.

Anything unclear please don't hesitate to ask.
(Asking how on earth some people always hit their flush doesn't count)

[Mike Haven]

... so if you have a four-flush with two cards to come you need pot odds of 65.03/34.97 = 1.9 to 1

but don't get suckered here into thinking that if you are only getting 1.9 to 1 with another bet to come if you miss your flush on the first card of the two that you should always take the bet - in that situation you should see if you are getting the right odds for hitting on the first card : 38 to 9 = 4.2 to 1

the 1.9 to 1 applies to receiving both cards at once for one bet - say, if you or your opponent are going all-in on that bet

[Dynasty]

but don't get suckered here into thinking that if you are only getting 1.9 to 1 with another bet to come if you miss your flush on the first card of the two that you should always take the bet - in that situation you should see if you are getting the right odds for hitting on the first card : 38 to 9 = 4.2 to 1

Don't get suckered into thinking that you should be folding flush draws in small pots against just one or two opponents. The combined possibilities of winning by making a flush, winning by making just a pair or some other hand, and collecting extra bets on future rounds makes playing any four-flush on the flop for one bet correct. It is also correct to play any four-flush on the turn for one bet.

Playing any four-flush in these situations means you are playing at least 99% optimally.

[Mike Haven]

lol! - are you still chasing flushes dyno? /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Mike Haven]

i was trying to work out what the fundamental difference between my statement and dynasty's advice was, and i think i have it now

with my warning that you should not always take the bet if you are getting only 1.9 to 1 instead of 4.2 to 1 i was trying to hint that the texture of the game and the predilections of the opponents are vitally important

i believe you should look mainly at the bet in which you are involved at that moment - you must not necessarily include the way you would like the hand to pan out in your actual actions at that point - unless you are positive your opponents are blind to the cards that fall in respect of what the cards may be doing for your hand and that your opponents will bet come what may

whereas, dynasty seems to hope that not only will he hit the draw he needs (as we all do) but also that the other players will not notice his hand has improved and will continue to bet and pay him off - i concede that if this turns out to be the
case then drawing as freely as he suggests will be profitable

however, if the opponents are not quite so willing to pay off his made flushes, then my odds calculations become vitally important as to whether or not you make a profit in the long run

if you make your flushes on the turn or the river but make no money on the next bets or bet then it is a mathematical certainty that you will lose money unless you follow the pot odds requirements as stated in my earlier post, and i do not
believe that dynasty would disagree with this fact

i maintain that going into each bet you must not in every case assume that if you hit your hand you will later earn extra bets - if this was not the case you might as well join in every hand and if you hit a good flop raise away, but bale out fast if
you don't, with no eye to the odds needed - in fact - this is a little like the loose game scenario where you should indeed reduce your opening requirements somewhat

there is room for all choices in a game which includes a great amount of luck, but to recommend categorically that you should always chase flushes whatever pot odds you are getting is a little irresponsible in my book when made by a
player whose words are respected by many others

[Dynasty]

You're still asuming you need a flush to win in a short-handed pot. It compromises your entire approach to these hands.

We've discussed this before. How could you possibly not have at least 3.5:1 pot odds if you flop a four-flush? Even if you were heads-up against the big blind, you've got 3.5:1. And, in those situations, you don't need to make a flush to win the hand. You will probably win with just a pair or possibly a high card hand.

[Mike Haven]

as i said - i am not arguing with you wanting to gamble - i just don't think you should tell everyone to gamble, as if it is the way to play poker for everyone - especially as almost by definition most readers are internet players, who should not gamble to win in the long term

[Dynasty]

If you are playing poker for money, you are gambling. If you think it's something different, you are deluding yourself.

My reccomendations concering playing a flush draw for one bet on the flop and one bet on the turn is going to win money in the long run.

[Mike Haven]

ok - if that's what you think that explains all to me

you go your way, i'll go mine

good luck dynasty

[Mike Haven]

sorry, dyno - that was very rude of me - if i could delete the post, i would

i had only come off a game where my 99 had been beaten by a 53s that flopped 642r and i was a mite pissed off

my apologies for picking on you - you were just the easiest target for my ire at the time in the circumstances

chums again i hope?

[Dynasty]

How could I say no to that face.

[Mike Haven]

lol!

ty