holdem, flush draw question

[chopchoi]

Suppose you are playing Holdem; there are three of a suit on board, and you hold one of that suit in your hand. How many outs do you have?

I know that was a stupid question. The answer, of course, is it depends. In this case, it depends upon the rank of your hole card and the number of opponents in the hand. If you hold the highest remaining card of that suit, then you can give yourself the full nine outs. The deuce is practically worthless against several opponents, but might be worth 5 outs if you are heads up.

But how many outs can you give yourself when you have the third higest possible hole card, against two opponents? I don't know.

Does anyone know if someone has publised something that addresses this issue?

[Charlie J]

Util you know that one of the other players for sure has one or more cards of that suit, you still consider yourself to have nine outs.....

[chopchoi]

[ QUOTE ]
Util you know that one of the other players for sure has one or more cards of that suit, you still consider yourself to have nine outs.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Discounting your outs for the possibility that you are beat even if you make your hand is one of the most basic principles of poker. If you don't do that, you're going to dump a lot of chips.

[Charlie J]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Util you know that one of the other players for sure has one or more cards of that suit, you still consider yourself to have nine outs.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Discounting your outs for the possibility that you are beat even if you make your hand is one of the most basic principles of poker. If you don't do that, you're going to dump a lot of chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant for that particular situation he brought up. Typically unless they were betting towards the flush draw strongly (where you would still think they were trying to buy it before you caught), wouldn't you assume you still had all nine outs if you were holding the 3rd highest of that suit? against two opponents that is.

[chopchoi]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant for that particular situation he brought up. Typically unless they were betting towards the flush draw strongly (where you would still think they were trying to buy it before you caught), wouldn't you assume you still had all nine outs if you were holding the 3rd highest of that suit? against two opponents that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutly not. With the third highest of a suit, there would be about a one in six chance that one of your two opponents hold a higher card of that suit, if they were holding random hands. However, they are not holding random hands. Since they saw the flop, they are much more likely to be holding high cards than low ones. Furthermore, if the flop is two suited, and they stuck around for the turn, this chance increaces even more. You definately need to discount your outs. I just don't know by how much.

[Girchuck]

One needs to consider that with the third highest in the suit one is getting poor implied odds on all but two of one's flush outs. That is, if a fourth low flush card hits, one will not be able to raise safely without a solid read on the remaining player(s). However, if the remaining players are weak-tight, one might still get some folding equity, if there is no betting coming from other players.
That folding equity is probably worth at least half as much as one's flush outs.
If there is betting, I think it is safe to discount one's flush outs by no more than 50% and no less than 30% with the third highest in a suit, provided, that one still takes some implied odds credit for two outs.

[Guruman]

I think that the relative strength of a one-card flush draw is pretty heavily dependant upon exactly which of the flush cards are on the board.

ex 1: I hold 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif8/images/graemlins/spade.gif and the board is A/images/graemlins/heart.gifK/images/graemlins/heart.gifT/images/graemlins/heart.gif

ex 2: I hold 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif8/images/graemlins/spade.gif and the board is 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif6/images/graemlins/heart.gif

In ex 1 I have a much stronger flush draw because there are only 3 heart cards that can beat me if I make my flush. Ex 2 has 6 cards that will beat me.

All of this is true even though I hold the same hold cards in each ex.

[chopchoi]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the relative strength of a one-card flush draw is pretty heavily dependant upon exactly which of the flush cards are on the board.

ex 1: I hold 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif8/images/graemlins/spade.gif and the board is A/images/graemlins/heart.gifK/images/graemlins/heart.gifT/images/graemlins/heart.gif

ex 2: I hold 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif8/images/graemlins/spade.gif and the board is 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif6/images/graemlins/heart.gif

In ex 1 I have a much stronger flush draw because there are only 3 heart cards that can beat me if I make my flush. Ex 2 has 6 cards that will beat me.

All of this is true even though I hold the same hold cards in each ex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. So I refer to the cards as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. highest possible hole card. If the board is A /images/graemlins/spade.gif Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif, and you hold J /images/graemlins/spade.gif, you have the 2nd highest possible hole card. In fact, the J here is a slightly stronger draw than the K would be if no ace were on board, since a K is more likely to have been folded pf than an ace.

[Bad Lobster]

-----------------
However, if the remaining players are weak-tight, one might still get some folding equity, if there is no betting coming from other players.
------------------

Seems to me this equity would be negative if anything, since these people are only likely to call your final bet if they have you beat.

Who would call a bet with less than the third-highest card, when a four flush is on the board?

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me this equity would be negative if anything, since these people are only likely to call your final bet if they have you beat.

Who would call a bet with less than the third-highest card, when a four flush is on the board?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your point about negative equity, but don't think you should discount completely the possibility of getting called by a worse hand, at least in the aquarium games.
On two occasions recently I've bet with a four flush showing to try to get a low suited card to fold, and been called by a hand that lost to my non-flush.

Of course, in a tough game this just won't happen.

[Girchuck]

I was thinking of semibluffing your one card flush draw and making your opponents to fold folding equity.

[chopchoi]

[ QUOTE ]

-----------------
However, if the remaining players are weak-tight, one might still get some folding equity, if there is no betting coming from other players.
------------------

Seems to me this equity would be negative if anything, since these people are only likely to call your final bet if they have you beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what he means is, if there is a three flush on board, and it checks around to you, you should bet with your 3rd highest card, because you have fold equity.

[ QUOTE ]
Who would call a bet with less than the third-highest card, when a four flush is on the board?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would, if I thought my opponent would bet with less, which is most of the time. Automatically folding to a single bet because you have less than the third highest flush is very weak-tight. Of course, it depends on a lot of things, e.g., how may players are in the pot, how many to act after you, how much money is in the pot, whether you are on the turn or the river, etc.