Q2s... Odds to call preflop for a flush draw

[slugheads]

Q2's... What are the odds to call preflop when your goal is to flop either a flush draw, or 2 pair....

Would 7-1 or 6-1 odds be good enough preflop?

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Q2's... What are the odds to call preflop when your goal is to flop either a flush draw, or 2 pair....

Would 7-1 or 6-1 odds be good enough preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. 6:1 would be enough.

The chance of flopping 2 pair, trips, a boat or quads:

(3*3*44 + 2*3*44 + 2*3*3 + 2)/(50 choose 3) = 0.0346938776

The chance of flopping a flush or flush draw:

((11 choose 2)*39 + (11 choose 3))/(50 choose 3) = 0.117857143

Chance of either:

0.117857143 + 0.0346938776 = 0.152551021

Expressed in odds form:

5.55:1

I must admit this seems low to me, so I'd appreciate if someone else could double check my work.

Cheers,
gm

[jason_t]

I believe it to be correct. At least, I arrived at the same answer.

[tworooks]

EDIT: nevermind, this is probability forum. my post is pointless

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: nevermind, this is probability forum. my post is pointless

[/ QUOTE ]

It was also very wrong, but you changed it right as I clicked "Quote" to reply to it and saw a message different than what you originally posted.

[tworooks]

[ QUOTE ]
It was also very wrong, but you changed it right as I clicked "Quote" to reply to it and saw a message different than what you originally posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

so u don't think this will be -EV by just calling because the preflop pot odds allows it? if this were a suited-connector type hand then I like it. but possibilities that give him a "good" hand like trip queens on a QQ7 flop are danger hands, because he is easily beat. i would like to hear what u have to say about it, because i really dont see how a hand like this can be profitable just by going with preflop pot odds.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was also very wrong, but you changed it right as I clicked "Quote" to reply to it and saw a message different than what you originally posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

so u don't think this will be -EV by just calling because the preflop pot odds allows it? if this were a suited-connector type hand then I like it. but possibilities that give him a "good" hand like trip queens on a QQ7 flop are danger hands, because he is easily beat. i would like to hear what u have to say about it, because i really dont see how a hand like this can be profitable just by going with preflop pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an interesting question. Because this calculation makes it look like this hand is playable from the button or CO after 4 or 5 limpers in almost any game. Indeed, by the same reasoning, T2s or 92s should also be playable.

I have a feeling that the main reason it usually isn't actually playable is the threat of a higher flush when your flush does come in. Especially since 10% of the times that the board 3 flushes by the river, it will also 4 or 5 flush:

((11 choose 4)*39 + (11 choose 5))/((11 choose 3)*(39 choose 2) + (11 choose 4)*39 + (11 choose 5))= 0.0983207593

And the times that it does you are likely to be beat.

I don't think your point about boards like QQ7 being dangerous is really relevant. For one, they represent a miniscule amount of the equity of the hand as we've calculated it (keep in mind that the flush equity accouts for most of this hands value). And two, since there's only 1 Q left, the threat of domination is really not so high.

There may be other reasons as well. I'd be curious to hear other thoughts.

gm

[Siegmund]

Yes, "if your goal is to flop a flush draw or two pair," 5.5:1 odds are good enough.

And yes, it is -EV to play this hand with only 5.5:1 odds. Four-flushes don't win pots.

You are spending a whole small bet preflop to buy yourself a modestly positive calling position on the flop and a break-even calling positon if you miss the turn and have to call again.

You need to not JUST flop a flush draw, but flop a flush draw with such favorable pot odds as to gain back the small bet you've already spent. This happens when your call on the flop (the second chip you put in) is the 11th chip into the pot. That is, 6:1 preflop is good enough IF you are confident the flop won't get raised and four people will see the turn. In the "real world" flop raises and folds happen often enough I don't see myself ever playing Q2s on the button, only in the small blind.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]

You need to not JUST flop a flush draw, but flop a flush draw with such favorable pot odds as to gain back the small bet you've already spent. This happens when your call on the flop (the second chip you put in) is the 11th chip into the pot. That is, 6:1 preflop is good enough IF you are confident the flop won't get raised and four people will see the turn. In the "real world" flop raises and folds happen often enough I don't see myself ever playing Q2s on the button, only in the small blind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice explanation. This reason is more important than the one I offered, IMO.

[tworooks]

k, i agree about the amount of the equity in the hand as it was calculated. that makes sense. i was also going to talk about the flush part, but didnt feel like talking about it. basically, with 5 or 6 other players in the pot, there is a 10% chance like you said, and with that the only reason you being in the hand, it will be hard to get away from. the only way i could see you being able to get all in is when you are losing to a higher flush, otherwise you probably won't get paid off enough to make it a profitable play. and the same thing, but to a lesser extent because of the rarability of it happening, with a QQ7 board, the only way your getting called is when you're beat.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Q2's... What are the odds to call preflop when your goal is to flop either a flush draw, or 2 pair....

Would 7-1 or 6-1 odds be good enough preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. 6:1 would be enough.

The chance of flopping 2 pair, trips, a boat or quads:

(3*3*44 + 2*3*44 + 2*3*3 + 2)/(50 choose 3) = 0.0346938776

The chance of flopping a flush or flush draw:

((11 choose 2)*39 + (11 choose 3))/(50 choose 3) = 0.117857143

Chance of either:

0.117857143 + 0.0346938776 = 0.152551021

Expressed in odds form:

5.55:1

I must admit this seems low to me, so I'd appreciate if someone else could double check my work.

Cheers,
gm

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't give you anything for just flopping a flush draw. You will only complete the draw at most 35% of the time, so you will only win the pre-flop bets 35% of the time. Your calculation would only be correct if you were guaranteed of winning all of the pre-flop bets. If you multiply the contribution of the flush draw by 35%, then you would need to be getting over 12-1 pre-flop to justify a call on this basis alone, and any shortfall would need to be made up by implied odds (additional bets that you think you will win later). You cannot definitively make the statement that 6 bets is enough based on this type of analysis. You must take into account implied odds, and the chance that you will make a hand and still lose.

Hands like this can sometimes be played profitably against a large field of bad players who play too many hands and go too far with their hands, especially passive players who will not charge you a maximum when you are second best. Even then, the Q2s may be a little weak, and you would rather make this play with something like K5s.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Your calculation would only be correct if you were guaranteed of winning all of the pre-flop bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I did was answer his question. I made no claim about the merits of calling a bet preflop based on this calculation.

EDIT: Re-reading, I see how it sounds like I was making such a claim. I actually did not mean it to sound like that. I was just saying, here is the chance of the event you asked for, and here it is expressed in odds form. I knew that this did not justify a preflop call, just for the record.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your calculation would only be correct if you were guaranteed of winning all of the pre-flop bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I did was answer his question. I made no claim about the merits of calling a bet preflop based on this calculation

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you did.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. 6:1 would be enough.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Expressed in odds form:

5.55:1


[/ QUOTE ]

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course you did.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. 6:1 would be enough.


[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the 5.5 which you computed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. But I only meant that 6:1 is more than 5.5. Whatever. I know it sounds like I meant that, but I was aware there are other issues at stake, as my later answers testify. I should have been more clear.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
All I did was answer his question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here was his question:

[ QUOTE ]
What are the odds to call preflop when your goal is to flop either a flush draw, or 2 pair....

Would 7-1 or 6-1 odds be good enough preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly he is asking what POT ODDS he needs to call a bet pre-flop, not what are the odds of flopping these hands. It is important to realize that these are very different things in this case since the flush draw does not pay off on the flop. We must factor in the probability of completing the draw, rather than just the probability of flopping a draw, and this will require greater pot odds. This is similar to the way we adjust pot odds for a runner-runner draw on the flop by adding 1-2 outs. You asked if your calculation was correct. Your calculation correctly computed the odds of flopping a flush draw, flush, full house, or quads. It did not compute the required pot odds to call.

[BruceZ]

From your post further down:

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is an interesting question. Because this calculation makes it look like this hand is playable from the button or CO after 4 or 5 limpers in almost any game. Indeed, by the same reasoning, T2s or 92s should also be playable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the reason for this erroneous conclusion is that your calculation does not provide the required pot odds that you need to play these hands pre-flop since it treats draws as if they are made hands. Here you are clearly using your calculation to determine the required pot odds to call, even though you have claimed that this is not what you were claiming. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
From your post further down:

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is an interesting question. Because this calculation makes it look like this hand is playable from the button or CO after 4 or 5 limpers in almost any game. Indeed, by the same reasoning, T2s or 92s should also be playable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the reason for this erroneous conclusion is that your calculation does not provide the required pot odds that you need to play these hands pre-flop since it treats draws as if they are made hands. Here you are clearly using your calculation to determine the required pot odds to call, even though you have claimed that this is not what you were claiming. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out the very next sentence in that quote:

I have a feeling that the main reason it usually isn't actually playable is the threat of a higher flush when your flush does come in.

Clearly this shows I knew it was not actually playable. Do you think I was just lying about what I meant? I already admitted that I worded my initial response poorly, and that it seemed like I was implying something I did not mean to imply. The sentence above shows that I was aware of the other factors.

EDIT: Btw, I also already agreed that the reason you (and another poster before you) gave for the unplayability of the hand is more important than the reason listed in bold above. Nonetheless, my only point now is that I knew from the outset the hand was unplayable and was looking for further analysis about why this should be so.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From your post further down:

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is an interesting question. Because this calculation makes it look like this hand is playable from the button or CO after 4 or 5 limpers in almost any game. Indeed, by the same reasoning, T2s or 92s should also be playable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the reason for this erroneous conclusion is that your calculation does not provide the required pot odds that you need to play these hands pre-flop since it treats draws as if they are made hands. Here you are clearly using your calculation to determine the required pot odds to call, even though you have claimed that this is not what you were claiming. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out the very next sentence in that quote:

I have a feeling that the main reason it usually isn't actually playable is the threat of a higher flush when your flush does come in.

Clearly this shows I knew it was not actually playable. [/i]

[/ QUOTE ]

My first post in this thread indicated why the calculation you gave is completely inadequate to address the question asked by the original poster as to what pot odds he needs to play Q2s pre-flop, and not because of "other factors", but because of the very basic fact that the equity of the flush draws was not handled properly. That should have been the end of it, but you argued that you didn't mean to say this, and that you were only answering his question, which is a contradiction because his only question concerned the pot-odds needed to call. But regardless of what you meant, it is now clear what you thought, which was that your calculation makes it look like this hand is playable from the button or CO after 4 or 5 limpers in almost any game. Indeed, by the same reasoning, T2s or 92s should also be playable. All I was doing with my first post was to dispel the notion that your calculation in any way made it appear that this hand was playable, or that it even addressed this issue at all. Whether or not you ultimately thought that the hand was playable for reasons outside this calculation is completely irrelevant to anything I have argued here.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]

Whether or not you ultimately thought that the hand was playable for reasons outside this calculation is completely irrelevant to anything I have argued here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this is true. Anyway, I think I let this conversation veer off track, and I want to point out that I do think your initial response explained very well why the hand wasn't playable, and was the kind of "further analysis" I said I was looking for in one of my other responses. Sorry if I seemed overly argumentative -- I just wanted it known for the record that really did know Q2s wasn't a playable hand.

Thanks for your input,
gm

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
Q2's... What are the odds to call preflop when your goal is to flop either a flush draw, or 2 pair....

Would 7-1 or 6-1 odds be good enough preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I would complete in only in the SB and check it for BB.

The long term EV for Q2s is -.12, it costs u money, regardless if you think u are getting odds or not.

( EV Chart (http://teamfu.freeshell.org/poker_hands.html))

Really u have to look at what the hand can do, not just the odds you are getting. (I didnt read any other posts in this thread besides the OPs)

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Q2's... What are the odds to call preflop when your goal is to flop either a flush draw, or 2 pair....

Would 7-1 or 6-1 odds be good enough preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I would complete in only in the SB and check it for BB.

The long term EV for Q2s is -.12, it costs u money, regardless if you think u are getting odds or not.

( EV Chart (http://teamfu.freeshell.org/poker_hands.html))

Really u have to look at what the hand can do, not just the odds you are getting. (I didnt read any other posts in this thread besides the OPs)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to bump this incredibly old thread, but I'm thinking about a similar issue currently. I reread this thread and in particular this post and want to point out that just because Q2s has an EV of -.12BB that doesn't mean there are not situations where it is profitable.