Chasing flush draws

[Scuba Chuck]

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t15 (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

BB (t800)
UTG (t800)
UTG+1 (t900)
UTG+2 (t855)
Hero (t800)
MP2 (t800)
MP3 (t725)
CO (t790)
Button (t745)
SB (t785)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+2 raises to t45</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to t100</font>, MP2 calls t100, <font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, UTG+2 calls t55.

Flop: (t325) 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
UTG+2 checks, Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 bets t325</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+2 raises to t755 (All-In)</font>, Hero .....

[Nick B.]

I think you should raise more preflop, and yes I would make this call.

[TheUsher]

Why did you check the flop? Bet something like 200-225 next time and be very happy that they pushed so you could call it.

[Maulik]

I think this is straighfoward, you are drawing to overcards &amp; the nut flush.

[The Yugoslavian]

I don't think you can get away from this here.

I think you can if you just coldcall behind the initial raiser preflop (what I would do here most likely).

I also think getting away from this due to the heavy action isn't necessarily a bad idea.

Yugoslav
I also wanna know the damn buyin here...

[PoBoy321]

I don't like calling here. If you had lead out on the flop and basically pot commited yourself, it's an easy call, but given the action, your overcard outs are dubious and it's early. I just let it go.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you check the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was just a rare situation. And furthermore, it was 3 handed. My plan was to check-raise.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like calling here. If you had lead out on the flop and basically pot commited yourself, it's an easy call, but given the action, your overcard outs are dubious and it's early. I just let it go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, given the action before me, I wasn't sure what the best line was, but I figured with my two overcards, things looked pretty good.

Let's assume for the moment my Ace and King are good. That's 6 outs, plus the 9 flush cards. And, a very distant inside straight draw.

So, these are my in the game thoughts...
I've got 15 outs, and 47 unseen cards. Two cards to come, that's got to be decent odds. There's 1550 in the pot, with potentially more from the intial bettor still yet to act. I've got 700 to call. 2.2:1 pot odds. Potential implied odds are 2.75:1.

Anyway, what's ringing in the back of my mind is Adanthar's comments to always play pot odds. So, I'm in this boat, and I don't know how to calculate pot odds with two cards to come. Any help?

PS - Yugo, I post here often enough, and frequently give my buyin, but you're right, I should have included. $33 buyin.

[TheUsher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you check the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was just a rare situation. And furthermore, it was 3 handed. My plan was to check-raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check/raise might have been fine in other situations but consider the information you already have about the hand. Person in front of you raised, you re-raised, with 1 caller behind you. Original raiser checked thinking you'd bet it, you checked it hoping to check/raise and then... oops... cold-caller has to now actually have a real hand to make a bet. If they missed they'd check it behind. Make a continuation bet like you'd always do, and then you'd call the all-in after some thought.

You know actually after I think about the hand now in these circumstances, I'd be real worried about my overcards if they really are clean outs. If you knew anything about the play of the 2 opponents I'd be more likely to fold this now unless given proper pot odds to chase if you checked, but if it were against unknowns I'd be more willing to call.

Edit: Since they're both going to be all-in anyways on this hand I'd call no matter who I'd be up against and pray for the flush without even worrying about the overcards. Call them insurance.

[microbet]

If your overcards are good, it is an easy call. If they aren't I think it is an easy fold. (I'm too tired to do any ICMing now).

How often are they good? Well, your hearts make it a lot less likely that either villian is betting a flush draw. A lot of the time one of them will have TPGK and the other will have an overpair.

It's fairly close, but I lean towards folding. If you had bet out the flop, I think it would be a call for sure.

[Benoit]

FOLD? Something tells me you have one guy with a pair of tens trying to protect it and the other is crazy doing a weird all-in move on the flush draw that you have beat. So either you are already ahead with ace high or you have plenty of outs to call with these pot odds, thanks to this third player... With these pot odds you can take the risk.

[ACW]

I think this is an easier call early on than later. If you bust out, you've not wasted any time and you find another game. If you win, you've got a huge lead from the start. That's a mammoth advantage in most STT's. It's likely going to be 3 way so you've got the odds, and if the guy on your left folds your overcard draws are probably around 50% to be clean. It's even possible (though not likely) that you could get heads up and be in front - UTG+2 could just about have HQJ here.

[rickr]

Call ,though I don't care for the way the hand was played to this point. You have the pot odds to call with just the nut flush draw, even if your overcards are not clean. Later I might change my mind, but first hand I'm in. If I'm wrong, fire up another with very little time invested. My gut tells me your behind here, but I'd live with it.

Later,
Rick

[lorinda]

My instinct tells me it's an hourly rate call or an ROI fold.

Lori

[AJo Go All In]

raise more preflop or flat-call.

bet big on the flop.

given where you're at, call it off.

[kevstreet]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in this boat, and I don't know how to calculate pot odds with two cards to come. Any help?


[/ QUOTE ]

Scuba,

I know this isn't perfect math by any means but it gives you a ballpark figure...

With 1 card to come: Number of outs x 2 + 2.
With 2 cards to come: Number of outs x 4 - 4.

With 1 card to come: 14 x 2 + 2 = 30% (actual 30.4%)
With 2 cards to come: 14 x 4 - 4 = 52% (actual 51.2%)

Sorry math wizards, don't flame too much!

[bball904]

Scuba, I'm going to try and be nice here, but this is an example of your posts being way off the mark.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume for the moment my Ace and King are good.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's like hanging out in a club and staring at a hot chick that has scowled at you and turned away with disinterest, then assuming that you could walk over there and get her number. On a rare occasion you may be right, but to assume so is foolish.

If you're going to talk about outs and pot odds, you have to make an effort at calculating outs. With this much aggression shown, you will often be up against a set, AT, KT, T9 or other hands that may have redraws to your overcards. I think you can count your overcards for 2-3 outs at best. Read SSH for the best reading on discounting outs.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how to calculate pot odds with two cards to come. Any help?


[/ QUOTE ]

This table is your probability to hitting a certain # of outs with 2 or 1 card to come and 47 unseen cards. You can handle the math from there.

Outs 2 1
20 67.5% 43.5%
19 65.0% 41.3%
18 62.4% 39.1%
17 59.8% 37.0%
16 57.0% 34.8%
15 54.1% 32.6%
14 51.2% 30.4%
13 48.1% 28.3%
12 45.0% 26.1%
11 41.7% 23.9%
10 38.4% 21.7%
9 35.0% 19.6%
8 31.5% 17.4%
7 27.8% 15.2%
6 24.1% 13.0%
5 20.4% 10.9%
4 16.5% 8.7%
3 12.5% 6.5%
2 8.4% 4.3%
2 4.3% 2.2%

[hyde]

"Scuba, I'm going to try and be nice here, but this is an example of your posts being way off the mark.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's assume for the moment my Ace and King are good.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's like hanging out in a club and staring at a hot chick that has scowled at you and turned away with disinterest, then assuming that you could walk over there and get her number. On a rare occasion you may be right, but to assume so is foolish."

I love a good analogy.

on the hand, I would fold, but hate doing it. Smells like a set to me....
results?

[Raiser]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how to calculate pot odds with two cards to come. Any help?


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, in this case you figure you have 15 outs. That means you have 32 "bad" cards. So on the turn you will get a bad card 32/47=0.68 of the time and on the river you will get a bad card 31/46=0.67.

So you will get 2 bad cards (0.68)*(0.67)=0.45 of the time. So you will get at least 1 good card 1-0.45=55% of the time.

Basically you calculate the probability of getting 2 bad cards and calclulate the inverse.

[swarm]

Hmmmm...

At first glance it looks like an easy call. But there is no way you have 15 clean outs here.

Let's assume worst case one Villan A is in with A10 (takes away your 3 ace outs) and Villan B is all in on something like a set or QJ hearts which takes away 3 of your heart outs (8 does you no good) and all of your K's are dead. In either case you are down to around 6-10 outs with possible redraws to a straight flush, straight (if you only hit an ace) or boat.

That's worse case though. It's early enough and for enough chips I can certainly see the reasoning for calling and gambeling it up.

This is a GUT call or FOLD.

[Scuba Chuck]

So then, by bball's numbers, I would need to have 12 live outs for this to be a correct call.

My hunch was to discount 5 of my 15 outs. The implied odds suggest I need 9 live outs to make this call. Am I heading in the right direction with this?

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I'm in this boat, and I don't know how to calculate pot odds with two cards to come. Any help?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the other posters covered it, but here's a handy reference (http://www.poker1.com/mcu/tables/Table25.asp) as well.

[Scuba Chuck]

Well, I called, and here's what happened.

UTG+2 (allin before me) QQ
MP2 folded

And I hit the 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif on the turn.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
My plan was to check-raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with the check-raise is that there's just too much money in the pot compared to your stacks. If MP2 bets the pot and UTG2 calls, you can push, but nobody is going to fold any kind of hand.

If UTG2 had just called and you pushed, there would be about 1700 in the pot and they'd only have to call about 400 more after you push.

Even if UTG2 had folded, MP2 isn't going to fold AT or JJ to your checkraise.

If you had simply pushed instead of checking, now AT/JJ has to make a decision. I'm sure someone is going to say "no one on party will fold those hands". I disagree. I play party, and I would fold them.

You reraised pre-flop. If you push the flop, they have to put you on AA/KK. They might even have to lay down QQ here.

Going back to your original question. I supposed I'd call here and pray that UTG2 has QQ. I've gone back and forth a few times in my mind. AA/KK/TT are strong possibilities. I'd guess MP2 has JJ, maybe TT/99...ugh...maybe I should go back to limit holdem, my head hurts.


edit: He had QQ? Whew. This is easier after you know the opponent's cards.

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
So then, by bball's numbers, I would need to have 12 live outs for this to be a correct call.

My hunch was to discount 5 of my 15 outs. The implied odds suggest I need 9 live outs to make this call. Am I heading in the right direction with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basing your decision on pots odds you are in the right direction. However, I believe Lorinda summed up the answer to this thread very succinctly.

[ QUOTE ]
My instinct tells me it's an hourly rate call or an ROI fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

[sofere]

[ QUOTE ]
My instinct tells me it's an hourly rate call or an ROI fold.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, Lorinda's succinct analysis blows all others out of the water. She even had to mix it up a bit as "riverring quads" was not an option. Good work Lori.

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
My hunch was to discount 5 of my 15 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

My hunch would be 11 or 12 discounted outs.

9 hearts, easy
A/K -- based on the betting, I assume that Villians hold 1 or 2, of them. And based on the betting, there's a good chance for a set. Call it 2 outs -- but I'd go with 3 if you push.
Straight draw 1/2 an out (which more or less cancels the discount I have to take against my flush being beaten)

And if we believe Harrington's rule, that there's a 10% chance that the all-in was a bluff (in this case, I think 10% overstates the case, though), maybe a bit for rounding.

So, call it 11 or 12 outs

(Comments on this out analysis?)

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My hunch was to discount 5 of my 15 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

My hunch would be 11 or 12 discounted outs.

9 hearts, easy
A/K -- based on the betting, I assume that Villians hold 1 or 2, of them. And based on the betting, there's a good chance for a set. Call it 2 outs -- but I'd go with 3 if you push.
Straight draw 1/2 an out (which more or less cancels the discount I have to take against my flush being beaten)

And if we believe Harrington's rule, that there's a 10% chance that the all-in was a bluff (in this case, I think 10% overstates the case, though), maybe a bit for rounding.

So, call it 11 or 12 outs

(Comments on this out analysis?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything but the straight draw is nowhere near 1/2 an out when you need 2 specific cards (QJ- 134:1) as in this case. It's about 1/8 of an out.

[pooh74]

Obviously having 2 others in the pot increases your implied odds but how did you consider the fact that MP2 was left to act after your decision...did you count on him folding or coming in? I guess at a 33 im not too worried about a 2pr here but a set is not out of the realm. (pots sized bet on flop with flush draw could mean this from MP2...maybe not worth considering)

I like getting away cheap here instead of hoping for a 9/47 (probably less)...and, yes, Lorinda got this right given how early this was...you gamble it up here and its sort of win/win depending on how u look at it...

n1

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
So, call it 11 or 12 outs

(Comments on this out analysis?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ken, you pretty much talked through what you should do at the table, which is kind of what I did. I came to the conclusion of 10 to be conservative. My feeling was that if I was going to assume more than 10, then might as well assume my ace or king (or both) are live for sure. Which were my optimistic thoughts.

Oh, and I think the conclusion of $/hr vs. ROI decision is an easy way out of this debate. I do think it's an important concept tho.

What I'm getting at, is figure the probabilities I'm up against a lower pair (like QQ), I'm up against another draw, or a pure bluff (like MP2) vs. the possibility of a set, or a pair of KKs or AAs. All told, I figure to be a coinflip here at worst for a lot of chips.

Huh, I think I just talked my way into $/hr vs ROI. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[swarm]

The perfect scenario for you. You did have 15 clean outs.

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everything but the straight draw is nowhere near 1/2 an out

[/ QUOTE ]

You're undoubtedly right. Since I was using it to 'balance' other unlikely occurances, probably harmless in this case, but I have to watch it for cases when it would make a difference.

[Bigwig]

Your preflop reraise perplexes me. For a tight player, reraising AKs to an UTG raise early in a tournament seems a bit reckless. I'd call the raise.

But, if I were to reraise, it would be to about 140. 100? What was that about? You trying to build a pot?

[bball904]

Sorry, Scuba, but I can't let this go. You can't post these 2 statements in the same thread and expect any credibility from anyone that's paying attention.

[ QUOTE ]
So, these are my in the game thoughts...
I've got 15 outs

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My hunch was to discount 5 of my 15 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think more. Post less.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
The perfect scenario for you. You did have 15 clean outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this proves is that you can't go too low on you're assumed number of outs. I think assuming less than 9 is way too tight. And assuming more than 11 is way too optimistic. That's kind of how I settled in on 10.

That being said, in terms of increasing ROI, this is a fold.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Scuba, but I can't let this go. You can't post these 2 statements in the same thread and expect any credibility from anyone that's paying attention.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, these are my in the game thoughts...
I've got 15 outs


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My hunch was to discount 5 of my 15 outs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Think more. Post less.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bball, you are correct. My intent was to start the discussion with the total number of outs, and then work backwards. Do you do it any different? Perhaps I should have stated it all, and succinctly in my first post, but I was tired, and I don't have a chart showing me the odds with two cards to come.

But you're correct, if you believe I am trying to claim my total thought process, disjointed as it appears in this thread, as an afterthought, then I am the fool.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
But, if I were to reraise, it would be to about 140. 100? What was that about? You trying to build a pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmm, good line. This might explain some questions in other parts of my game. No, building a pot is not my intent. Do you think that a raise to 100 signifies pot building? Particularly, that it will induce another call behind me? (forget the results, meaning, you think MP2 would have been more likely to fold whatever hand he had? and more likely isolate this hand down to just UTG+2?)

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Think more. Post less.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're advice is that I should NOT post hands that I have questions on? Then, out of curiosity, what is the point of this forum?

Scuba

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Scuba, but I can't let this go. You can't post these 2 statements in the same thread and expect any credibility from anyone that's paying attention.

[ QUOTE ]
So, these are my in the game thoughts...
I've got 15 outs

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My hunch was to discount 5 of my 15 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think more. Post less.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Scuba, but I can't let this go. You can't post these 2 statements in the same thread and expect any credibility from anyone that's paying attention.

[ QUOTE ]
So, these are my in the game thoughts...
I've got 15 outs

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My hunch was to discount 5 of my 15 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think more. Post less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what the problem with this is. I think it is pretty clear what he meant.

Scuba is posting a lot of hands and generating a lot of interesting discussion. There is very clear evidence that this was a good post as the poll is just about 50/50.

Without Scuba around the board would be filled up by ForumBot, GF, and 'Is this ROI sustainable?'.

Scuba has plenty of credibility and (I'm trying to express this without it sounding like an insult) I commend him for exploring a lot of hands with an open mind rather than just trying to appear smart, which is most of what I try and do.

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The perfect scenario for you. You did have 15 clean outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this proves is that you can't go too low on you're assumed number of outs. I think assuming less than 9 is way too tight. And assuming more than 11 is way too optimistic. That's kind of how I settled in on 10.

That being said, in terms of increasing ROI, this is a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, first of all, please quit using the word assume when referring to possible holdings of opponents. It is retarded and wrong. Calculating outs is not an exercise in reaching an assumption, but rather an exercise in reaching a reasonable estimate of how live particular cards may be in giving you the best hand.

[ QUOTE ]
All this proves is that you can't go too low on you're assumed number of outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't "prove" anything. There still is a chance that the hot chick was feigning disinterest to see how committed you were to making your move and you were going to score immediately without having to offer up so much as a dinner. It's like saying if the results were that one villian had 8h7h and the other villian had AdAc, that it "proves" you were way too optimistic because you actually only had slightly less than 5 outs.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that a raise to 100 signifies pot building?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that it 'signifies' pot building, but it often creates pot building. UTG+2 isn't going to fold ANY hand to this size raise at this point in the tournament. And the potential for other callers exist when it's still only 100. That's what happened here. Raising it to 140-200 will likely chase out everybody else except monsters (who'll likely reraise you) and UTG+2. You want to play these power hands against one opponent if possible when you're the aggressor.

Now, that last line contradicts my earlier 'just call' comment a bit. However, just calling keeps the pot small with a hand that is often difficult to play with deep stacks if your A, K, or strong flush draw doesn't hit. Remember, you only have position on UTG+2. Most of the other players who may play this pot will have position on you.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, if I were to reraise, it would be to about 140. 100? What was that about? You trying to build a pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmm, good line. This might explain some questions in other parts of my game. No, building a pot is not my intent. Do you think that a raise to 100 signifies pot building? Particularly, that it will induce another call behind me? (forget the results, meaning, you think MP2 would have been more likely to fold whatever hand he had? and more likely isolate this hand down to just UTG+2?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the raise to 100. The raiser is probably going to call 100 or 140, so 140 just builds the pot. Maybe he'd fold AJ for 140, but why do you want him to fold AJ?

100 should be plenty to drive out loose callers and isolate against the raiser.

In addition, AK is not a made hand. To play it profitably, you need to take down the pot often even if you miss. If headsup on the flop, I'm going to bet 90% of the time if my opponent checks the flop. This is much easier/cheaper if the pot is 200 rather than 300.

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Think more. Post less.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're advice is that I should NOT post hands that I have questions on? Then, out of curiosity, what is the point of this forum?

Scuba

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by all means post the hands. You do add value to the forum by posting interesting hands for discussion.

What I am referring to is when you transition to the part of discussing the strategy elements of the game. Anyone that read your first strategy post in this thread (the one "assuming" 15 outs) was wasting their time at best. At worst they took away that you should play that hand "assuming" 15 outs and then haven't been back to read the follow up's.

My point is this: Think more, post less. Example: If you actually thought that you should discount the 15 outs to 10 (which I don't think you did at the table) as you've said in your last 5 or so posts in this thread, then why the hell did you ever post your first stategy post in this thread ("assuming" 15 outs)?

An answer to that I'd find interesting... post away.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to bet 90% of the time if my opponent checks the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so easy to do when you have a multi-way pot, however. If your goal is to isolate UTG+2, raising to 100 lowers this possibility.

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The perfect scenario for you. You did have 15 clean outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this proves is that you can't go too low on you're assumed number of outs. I think assuming less than 9 is way too tight. And assuming more than 11 is way too optimistic. That's kind of how I settled in on 10.

That being said, in terms of increasing ROI, this is a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, first of all, please quit using the word assume when referring to possible holdings of opponents. It is retarded and wrong. Calculating outs is not an exercise in reaching an assumption, but rather an exercise in reaching a reasonable estimate of how live particular cards may be in giving you the best hand.

[ QUOTE ]
All this proves is that you can't go too low on you're assumed number of outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't "prove" anything. There still is a chance that the hot chick was feigning disinterest to see how committed you were to making your move and you were going to score immediately without having to offer up so much as a dinner. It's like saying if the results were that one villian had 8h7h and the other villian had AdAc, that it "proves" you were way too optimistic because you actually only had slightly less than 5 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, here's the deal. I thought this post would be therapeutic enough to get me past the bad beats I took this morning. (I don't post bad beat posts, but find badgering foolish posts to work fairly well sometimes.) Unfortunately, this effort has left me wanting for more. Fortunately, there is work here yet to do.

I have taken apart your drivel from a poker perspective, now let me do that same from a literal perspective.

[ QUOTE ]
All this proves is that you can't go too low on you're assumed number of outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you meant to say "can" go too low on "your" assumed number of outs, but I'll let the 2 grammatical errors by with only this reference.

Here's my proof of you "can" go too low on "your" assumed number of outs.

Same hand: I "assume" my AhKh in this hand is good for 2 outs. I think the worst possible situation is that one opponent has the 5h5c and the other has the 8h7h. My A and K outs are no goot. I have the 4h, 3h, 2h which will hold up so long as Jh, 6h, 5d, Tc, Td, Ts, 9c, 9d, 9s don't come with it. I also have the Qh which will hold up so long as 6h, 5d, Tc, Td, Ts, 9c, 9d, 9s don't come with it. The mathematical probability that your hand wins is 13.85% which is good for about 3.3 outs with 2 cards to come. I have just "proven" that my assumption of 2 outs was in fact too low.

Time will tell if I feel any better.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
All this proves is that you can't go too low on you're assumed number of outs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This doesn't "prove" anything. There still is a chance that the hot chick was feigning disinterest to see how committed you were to making your move and you were going to score immediately without having to offer up so much as a dinner. It's like saying if the results were that one villian had 8h7h and the other villian had AdAc, that it "proves" you were way too optimistic because you actually only had slightly less than 5 outs.


[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously have a personal bone to pick with me, but I'll answer here.

What I'm saying is in the vast number of instances that you're in this situation, there will be times when there will be potentially only 5 outs, and sometimes 15 outs. My intent was to caution being results oriented. It was not me who stated that I had 15 clean outs.

But alas, you're right (that's what you want to hear /images/graemlins/confused.gif), the if the hot chick does have AA, then no dinner for me.

The law of averages doesn't always apply to one hand. Or, are you saying that it does ...at least here.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, here's the deal. I thought this post would be therapeutic enough to get me past the bad beats I took this morning. (I don't post bad beat posts, but find badgering foolish posts to work fairly well sometimes.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to know... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Time will tell if I feel any better.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope so

[ QUOTE ]
I have just "proven" that my assumption of 2 outs was in fact too low.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're getting way too far into semantics. And I don't think my original statement was worded incorrectly, but I can see how it can be interpreted in two ways, so we can agree that it was worded poorly.

We also can agree (I hope) that when discounting outs that you don't just take the worst case scenario, or that you just take the best case scenario, and make a decision. It's far more than that.

Cutting to the chase, I think you're frustrated, and I'm an easy target to pick a bone with. Furthermore, do I think I am right here, now, after the fact. No. Did I at the table, yes. That's the point of post game self-diagnosis. It's also what I use this forum for. Am I an excellent writer? No. Am I confused as to why you continue to badger me? Yes. There are plenty of posters here who post poor advice, and yet you want to pick on me ...again. So, where are you going with this?

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of posters here who post poor advice, and yet you want to pick on me ...again. So, where are you going with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not about having a personal bone to pick with you. I agree that there are plenty of posters that post poor advice. The problem is that there aren't that many that post 300-400 posts a month with an estimated 10-20% of their posts that are pure drivel.

Where am I going with this? Hopefully taking you here... Think more. Post less.

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
We also can agree (I hope) that when discounting outs that you don't just take the worst case scenario, or that you just take the best case scenario, and make a decision. It's far more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you! You just stated exactly why your first post in this thread was pure drivel. DYSW?

Answer in white.

<font color="white"> Think more. Post less. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Well, given the action before me, I wasn't sure what the best line was, but I figured with my two overcards, things looked pretty good.

Let's assume for the moment my Ace and King are good. That's 6 outs, plus the 9 flush cards. And, a very distant inside straight draw.

So, these are my in the game thoughts...
I've got 15 outs, and 47 unseen cards. Two cards to come, that's got to be decent odds.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do feel better. No more posting required today.

[Barcalounger]

Scuba, you've got at least one fan. I find your posts to always be smart and thought provoking. Damn the naysayers, keep them coming.

Barca's mantra goes more like: Drink more, think less.

[Seadood228]

I think it's a pretty clear call.

As for the preflop raise, looks okay to me, although admittedly I probably wouldn't have tried for the isolation so early.

Not that it's bad.. It's just me (I suck:))

[RoyalLance]

What I would have done is call the 45 chip bet to see the flop. AK suited of offsuit is not that great a hand to re-raise with.

As for post flop, If you were going to call the all-in bet, you might as well go all-in yourself. Also, there was a pot sized bet followed by and all-in raise. That means somebody either has a big pocket pair or a set, so you may be so behind, only a flush will save you. You should have layed down your draw and wait for a better spot.

[NegativeEV]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that there aren't that many that post 300-400 posts a month with an estimated 10-20% of their posts that are pure drivel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scuba's posts are OFTEN the only ones on the SnG forum front page that contain meaningful discussion of strategy and STT game play. Encouraging him to post less is just plain bad for the forum. You won't find a single poster who has sparked more good hand analysis/debate in the past two months, so your "post less" mantra aimed at Scuba is shxxxty.

Your strategy/gameplay comments on his hand posts are very welcome, your direction for him to post less is not.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to bet 90% of the time if my opponent checks the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so easy to do when you have a multi-way pot, however. If your goal is to isolate UTG+2, raising to 100 lowers this possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Betting 100 is a huge bet at level 1. In addition, this is a re-raise, so it should carry more weight than a simple raise to 100. A re-raise indicates a very strong hand AND any caller is risking a re-re-raise from the original raiser behind them.

If they are stupid enough to call 100, they are probably stupid enough to call 140.

To ensure isolation, you probably have to raise 200. Now you've forced the raiser to fold hands that you dominate (AQ/AJ). You've also created a pot so big that you can't buy it cheaply if you miss.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
To ensure isolation, you probably have to raise 200. Now you've forced the raiser to fold hands that you dominate (AQ/AJ). You've also created a pot so big that you can't buy it cheaply if you miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so don't raise.

Call.

[rickr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To ensure isolation, you probably have to raise 200. Now you've forced the raiser to fold hands that you dominate (AQ/AJ). You've also created a pot so big that you can't buy it cheaply if you miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so don't raise.

Call.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's my line this early with players left to act. The first couple levels are like a bees nest. Your reraise can be like swatting the nest with a stick. See the flop and play from there.

Later,
Rick

[Scuba Chuck]

This is just for my sake.

We all agree that there are potentially 15 clean outs. I think this is a mistake to assume. I think it's likely the Ace is dead. It's also likely that I've lost some hearts to some of the other hands that have folded, or are in any of the players cards still in the hand.

There were 20 cards dealt, and the flop makes 23. 14 of those cards no longer "exist." 4 hearts currently exist in my hand and on the board. There are 29 cards remaining in the deck. I'm sure some book somewhere has done a rough estimation on how to calculate outs in this scenario.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just for my sake.

We all agree that there are potentially 15 clean outs. I think this is a mistake to assume. I think it's likely the Ace is dead. It's also likely that I've lost some hearts to some of the other hands that have folded, or are in any of the players cards still in the hand.

There were 20 cards dealt, and the flop makes 23. 14 of those cards no longer "exist." 4 hearts currently exist in my hand and on the board. There are 29 cards remaining in the deck. I'm sure some book somewhere has done a rough estimation on how to calculate outs in this scenario.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is any 'book way' to calculate this, because it's a scenario with far too many variables. Here's how I do it:

A's could be dead. So could K's if a set was flopped. Or, both could be alive (you're up against Q's, J's). In this situation, where I am unsure, I simply discount half the overcard outs. So, you have 12 (at best) and make my decision from there.

[Degen]

overcards are likely not good, unless he hits runners. He's drawing to a flush, a running straight or running two pair or set (which may not be good if they get their).

You have to put one of these guys on a set or two pair.


Degen

[NegativeEV]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also likely that I've lost some hearts to some of the other hands that have folded, or are in any of the players cards still in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you understand this, but you do not change your "out count" for the fact that hearts could have been in the other player's hands that folded (unless you are cheating and know hearts were folded). You determine the probability of catching your desired card based on the informaiton available. So if you only think the hearts are good outs and you can account for 4 hearts you have 9 outs- period. Then that 9 outs is evaluated against the unseen cards you are drawing from. This means catching a heart on the next card is 9/47 or 19.15% or roughly 4:1 against. The fact that other players may have mucked a heart does not enter into this analysis.

Again, I think you understand this, but your sentence above could be confusing to folks who are learning how to calculate outs/probabilities/etc.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I think you understand this, but your sentence above could be confusing to folks who are learning how to calculate outs/probabilities/etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, this could be confusing. It just seems like I read somewhere that you can narrow down the scope of probabilities against the dead cards. Guess I've been dreaming about poker too much lately.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, I think you understand this, but your sentence above could be confusing to folks who are learning how to calculate outs/probabilities/etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, this could be confusing. It just seems like I read somewhere that you can narrow down the scope of probabilities against the dead cards. Guess I've been dreaming about poker too much lately.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if you know the dead cards.

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just for my sake.

We all agree that there are potentially 15 clean outs. I think this is a mistake to assume. I think it's likely the Ace is dead. It's also likely that I've lost some hearts to some of the other hands that have folded, or are in any of the players cards still in the hand.

There were 20 cards dealt, and the flop makes 23. 14 of those cards no longer "exist." 4 hearts currently exist in my hand and on the board. There are 29 cards remaining in the deck. I'm sure some book somewhere has done a rough estimation on how to calculate outs in this scenario.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget the card that was burned before the flop. The analysis needs to be done on the 28 remaining cards, not the 29... why hasn't someone included this discussion in any books on calculating outs.

Finally, Scuba is leading us somewhere in this calculating outs discussion. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

TM. PL. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Scuba Chuck]

Man, this must be one helluva long losing streak for you. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Benoit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is just for my sake.

We all agree that there are potentially 15 clean outs. I think this is a mistake to assume. I think it's likely the Ace is dead. It's also likely that I've lost some hearts to some of the other hands that have folded, or are in any of the players cards still in the hand.

There were 20 cards dealt, and the flop makes 23. 14 of those cards no longer "exist." 4 hearts currently exist in my hand and on the board. There are 29 cards remaining in the deck. I'm sure some book somewhere has done a rough estimation on how to calculate outs in this scenario.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget the card that was burned before the flop. The analysis needs to be done on the 28 remaining cards, not the 29... why hasn't someone included this discussion in any books on calculating outs.

Finally, Scuba is leading us somewhere in this calculating outs discussion. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

TM. PL. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't count the burn cards because you do NOT see them, that's why it hasn't been in any books.

Scuba, as for subtracting hearts to a heart flush draw, the only way I'm seen that is when playing games like 7-card stud.

[papa_georgio]

I think it is a dangerous call. It would cost you most of your chips to call, and what if your flush never comes. If he didn't go all in I would definately call. but don't listen to me, lately I've been a losing player so my advice is probably dead wrong.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]


You have to put one of these guys on a set or two pair.



[/ QUOTE ]

If this was played on a weeknight, this is utterly false. On a weekday, it might ring more true, but I still call here. You'll see top pair here often.

[raptor517]

i like to think in this hand i have 11.5 outs. with 11.5 outs and a chance to triple up, i guess i should throw my money in there. and dont ask how i got to 11.5, its my gorilla math. holla