Wynn 15/30 Nit-counting exercise

[jason_t]

Preflop: rmarotti is UTG+1 with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#cc3333">rmarotti raises</font>, <font color="#cc3333">I 3-bet in MP</font>, LPP cold calls on Button, LAP cold calls in BB.

Flop: (12.67 SB) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000ff">(4 players)</font>
BB checks, rmarotti checks, <font color="#cc3333">I bet</font>, Button calls, BB folds, rmarotti....

Find rmarotti's average number of outs against my hand range and decide whether or not he should continue to the turn. Keep in mind the idea of effective odds as opposed to immediate odds, etc.

Don't just answer "he should call;" justify your answer. I believe that the actual answer is close.

[stinkypete]

he should call. it is close.

[thesharpie]

I must've miscalculated it because it's not close by my calculations putting you on AK and TT-AA, I give him ~4.75 outs. Did I mess it up?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I must've miscalculated it because it's not close by my calculations putting you on AK and TT-AA, I give him ~4.75 outs. Did I mess it up?

[/ QUOTE ]

99 is in my range. Don't forget about effective odds.

[flair1239]

Your going overboard with effective odds. His backdoor draws alone are almost enough to see the turn when he is closing the action.

The only real tricky part, is figuring out how much to discount the overcards. But really that can wait until the turn. At this point I give him four outs. But the problem is he is going to have to payoff on either overcard.

[bugstud]

my snap analysis at wynn:

backdoor nut flush ~ 1.5 outs (sometimes makes it vs jason boat, though)

ace - depends on jason's range. So AA (3) JJ (3) 99 (3) it is not clean. KK (6) QQ (3) the ace is clean, vs TT (6) he has 6 outs and vs AK the Q is clean. so count the aces as another ~2 outs depending on how you want to weight the action with regards to ranges. Adding in some backdoor straight combinations which might be roughly 1 out, you've got 4.5 outs, 4 if you discount the straight outs, 3.5 if you deem them useless. so at 3.5:45 being a little worse than 13:1 he's getting the right odds. He has some reverse implied odds, but this being a conservative view of his outs situation means to me that I'd call this flop.

[PTjvs]

His biggest problem with this hand is that he is OOP with no freaking idea what his outs are. There are absolutely no cards in the deck that he can bet/checkraise on the turn, and he may be drawing virtually dead. This is a hand where my autopilot play is to call, but the more I think about it, the more I like a fold.

jvs

[flair1239]

I think you must heavily discount the overcards. Together they may be one out.

The reason is, you almost have to plan on paying off with either of them. The only things that make this hand worth continuing is you have two backdoor draws to the nuts, and many cards that will improve your hand on the turn (K, T, 8, Diamonds). You are closing the action so you can afford to be a little bit loose. The size of the pot is the clincher. I think it is interesting, but for one bet, I really don't think it is close.

[BigEndian]

I'd count it at about 3 outs. 1 for the BD flush and 2 for the overs. So it's worth peeling.

I thought this was the most interesting part of the hand:

[ QUOTE ]
Flop: (12.67 SB)

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing math skills you have at the table!

- Jim

[Entity]

My guess was 5 outs. Just off the top of my head. Here's some math, based upon your backdoors being worth about 2 outs here (against JJ and 99 exclusively HU your equity is about 5.8%, so it looks like 2ish outs is fair based solely on math, since there will be redraws if you turn a 3-outer against KK, etc.). A turned 8 or K gives you a gutshot which you will be close to being able to profitably call. A turned T gives you an OESD which you can easily call. It's a bit of a nasty reverse implied odds situation though, given that you aren't getting a whole lot out of AK and you can't expect to get much out of 88 or TT if you turn a Q/A.

AK - 12 hands: 5 outs
AA - 3 hands: 2 outs
KK - 6 hands: 5 outs
QQ - 3 hands: 5 outs
JJ - 3 hands: 1.8 outs
TT - 6 hands: 8 outs
99 - 3 hands: 1.8 outs
88 - [discounted] 3 - 8 outs

Against all those it's about 4.7 outs, so my guess of 5 outs was pretty close. It's an ok peel IMO, especially given the loose passive player trapped. That's just bayesian and ignores the reverse implieds nature of the unclean outs, but it's too much overlay not to peel. I don't get all of you who are discounting this to "3" outs.

Rob

[BWebb]

I'm coming up with ~3 outs, making it a close call. I don't have time now, but I'll show the math I used in a little while. I probably screwed it up.

Edited: Didn't consider pot size.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get all of you who are discounting this to "3" outs.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where they are coming from. They are compensating heavily on the front end, because the dirty nature of the overcards.

I think they are hitting them to heavily, but IMO whether you are getting 3 or 5, you are closing the action in a large pot. I think there is more than enough to see the turn.

[BigEndian]

I make it 3 outs given the nature of the hand, your position and the player in the middle.

- Jim

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I make it 3 outs given the nature of the hand, your position and the player in the middle.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

Your estimate completely ignores a bd straight where a T turns an OESD and K's and 8's turn gutshots. While reverse implieds odds may discount your hand's worth somewhat, it's certainly not a 38% discount.

Rob

[BWebb]

Well, I reran the math and came up with ~5 outs, so I think it is an easier call. This was my process, tell me if I'm off here.

AA, QQ, JJ, 99, AQs (might not be in your range, but against marrioti, I say it is)- 3 ways each=3/48=6.25% each
KK, 1010-6 ways each=6/48=12.5% each
AK-12 ways=12/48=25%

I round the 6.25% to 8% each, 12.5% to 15% each and 25% to 30% each.

5*8=40%
2*15=30%
1*30=30%
total of 100%

Taking % times # of outs-
AA: 8%*2.5=.2
KK: 15%*5.5=.83
QQ: 8%*5.5=.44
JJ: 8%*2.5=.2
1010: 15%*8.5=1.28
99: 8%*2.5=.2
AK: 30%*5.5=1.65
AQs: 8%*1.5=.12
Total=~5 outs

Alright, is my math off somewhere?

[BWebb]

I think I messed up but got the end number about right. Instead of dividing by 48, I should be dividing by 39 since there are 39 possible hands for Jason to have. Is this correct? Turns out the numbers after rounding are about the same so the answer doesn't change, I just got there the wrong way. Can someone let me know if that is right?

[BigEndian]

No, I thought about those. But you aren't continuing if the gutshot comes, so only runner-runner perfect give you the straight you'd be playing. So I didn't account for it.

RE: the reverse implied odds. I could be talked into it. But we're out of position against a fairly skilled opponent and an unknown in the middle. The best scenario from here on out is for the Q to come and your opponent keeps driving with and underpair or AK. If the meat in the middle wakes up on the turn, you may even have improved and have to muck. If the Ace comes you will have to play it passively.

This is wetting the bed, but it should be evident that the hand is tenuous. Because of this, I choose to err on the side of caution.

At any rate, this is one of those purely intellectual rambles. The real world application is, with so much money in the pot and closing the action, our hero has enough to call - regardless of how many outs we credit him.

- Jim

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I must've miscalculated it because it's not close by my calculations putting you on AK and TT-AA, I give him ~4.75 outs. Did I mess it up?

[/ QUOTE ]

99 is in my range. Don't forget about effective odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you mean reverse implied odds? Effective odds don't really apply here.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I thought about those. But you aren't continuing if the gutshot comes, so only runner-runner perfect give you the straight you'd be playing. So I didn't account for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You might be getting 8 or 9-1 on the turn closing the action, you probably will call the turn with a gutshot.

[meep_42]

3 Ts give him 8 outs
3 Ks give him 4 outs
1 T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif gives him 15 outs
1 K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif gives him 12 outs
10 /images/graemlins/diamond.gifs give him 9 outs
--
Weighted that's (24+12+15+12+90)/47 cards unseen, add 2 outs for overcards, since they're likely tainted = 2+(153/47)=5.25 outs, and this call isn't that close.

If you give only 1 out for overcards, which may be prudent with the third player in, then it becomes closer, but still a pretty clear call closing the action at almost 15-1.

-d
[edit - ooh, I forgot the 8s, 3 more 8s give him 4 outs, giving an additional 1/4th of an out on the flop]
[edit2 - last line should be 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gifs, as 2 are accounted for, that and the gutshot I missed are about a wash.]

[Justin A]

I think you should 4bet preflop.

You only need 3 outs to call here and your backdoor draws nearly account for that by themselves. I think it's a pretty easy call.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I must've miscalculated it because it's not close by my calculations putting you on AK and TT-AA, I give him ~4.75 outs. Did I mess it up?

[/ QUOTE ]

99 is in my range. Don't forget about effective odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you mean reverse implied odds? Effective odds don't really apply here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean both.

Effective odds apply here because he'll likely be calling bets on two streets.

[B Dids]

As I told Ent in IRC, the word "baseyian" makes me scared. That said- doing my best "I read SSHE 9 months ago", I feel like 3 is too few and 6 is too much.

Jason has enough different hands, that assuming only 3 outs is bad, imo.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
But you aren't continuing if the gutshot comes, so only runner-runner perfect give you the straight you'd be playing. So I didn't account for it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, hero's straight will come in enough that you need to account for it. Of course any T is an OESD. And if the turn is the K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif or 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif you will draw to the gutshot. In fact, any 8 or K may give you odds to call with 1 or 2 overs, 10BBs in the pot, and closing the action.

It looks to me like the math showing about 4.5 outs is pretty decent, and the reverse implied odds aren't so high as to make a call here all that close of a decision.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you should 4bet preflop.

You only need 3 outs to call here and your backdoor draws nearly account for that by themselves. I think it's a pretty easy call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot, including rmarotti's flop call, will be 7.83 BB on the turn. If I bet and Button calls, rmarotti will be getting 9.83:1 which isn't enough to draw to a gutshot. He possibly has other outs, say overcards, but those have reverse implied odds attached to them. That's what makes the analysis complicated and the call closer than it first appears.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you should 4bet preflop.

You only need 3 outs to call here and your backdoor draws nearly account for that by themselves. I think it's a pretty easy call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot, including rmarotti's flop call, will be 7.83 BB on the turn. If I bet and Button calls, rmarotti will be getting 9.83:1 which isn't enough to draw to a gutshot. He possibly has other outs, say overcards, but those have reverse implied odds attached to them. That's what makes the analysis complicated and the call closer than it first appears.

[/ QUOTE ]

The turn would be an easy call with a gutshot. He'd only need to make up one bet on the river to make it profitable. It's probably marginal if the turn is an eight, because then he could be drawing to chop outs, but I think his ace outs in that case are still enough to make up the difference.

As for the effective odds thing, I'm pretty sure those are accounted for when estimating backdoor outs in SSH. So when we give a backdoor flush draw 1.5 outs, we're taking effective odds into consideration already.

[meep_42]

He's almost certainly making up 1 bet on the river if he makes his gutshot, though, with the possibility of multiple bets if you have a big hand like a set.

(I don't know that i'd draw to the gutshot if the 8 came, though, as it is a 4-straight and not to the nuts, thus making it harder to collect anything on the river.)

-d

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you should 4bet preflop.

You only need 3 outs to call here and your backdoor draws nearly account for that by themselves. I think it's a pretty easy call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot, including rmarotti's flop call, will be 7.83 BB on the turn. If I bet and Button calls, rmarotti will be getting 9.83:1 which isn't enough to draw to a gutshot. He possibly has other outs, say overcards, but those have reverse implied odds attached to them. That's what makes the analysis complicated and the call closer than it first appears.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense. If the flop call is easy, and it is, then you make it and reevaluate on the turn. If you think the turn call was close, you have to post the turn card and action. You can't say the turn call will be close so the flop is close when it isn't.

Krishan

[MrStretchie]

[ QUOTE ]
The pot, including rmarotti's flop call, will be 7.83 BB on the turn. If I bet and Button calls, rmarotti will be getting 9.83:1 which isn't enough to draw to a gutshot. He possibly has other outs, say overcards, but those have reverse implied odds attached to them. That's what makes the analysis complicated and the call closer than it first appears.

[/ QUOTE ]

How not? Gutshot's 1:10.5. He's getting 9.83:1 and will certainly make at least 1 more on the river if he hits, likely 2.

[BigEndian]

I should have used my toes instead of my fingers. My fingers have a floating-point bug.

- Jim

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you should 4bet preflop.

You only need 3 outs to call here and your backdoor draws nearly account for that by themselves. I think it's a pretty easy call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot, including rmarotti's flop call, will be 7.83 BB on the turn. If I bet and Button calls, rmarotti will be getting 9.83:1 which isn't enough to draw to a gutshot. He possibly has other outs, say overcards, but those have reverse implied odds attached to them. That's what makes the analysis complicated and the call closer than it first appears.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense. If the flop call is easy, and it is, then you make it and reevaluate on the turn. If you think the turn call was close, you have to post the turn card and action. You can't say the turn call will be close so the flop is close when it isn't.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[Catt]

Two nice points made on different but related subjects:

[ QUOTE ]
Justin A said: The turn would be an easy call with a gutshot. He'd only need to make up one bet on the river to make it profitable. It's probably marginal if the turn is an eight, because then he could be drawing to chop outs, but I think his ace outs in that case are still enough to make up the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Krishanleong said: This doesn't make any sense. If the flop call is easy, and it is, then you make it and reevaluate on the turn. If you think the turn call was close, you have to post the turn card and action. You can't say the turn call will be close so the flop is close when it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you should 4bet preflop.

You only need 3 outs to call here and your backdoor draws nearly account for that by themselves. I think it's a pretty easy call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot, including rmarotti's flop call, will be 7.83 BB on the turn. If I bet and Button calls, rmarotti will be getting 9.83:1 which isn't enough to draw to a gutshot. He possibly has other outs, say overcards, but those have reverse implied odds attached to them. That's what makes the analysis complicated and the call closer than it first appears.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense. If the flop call is easy, and it is, then you make it and reevaluate on the turn. If you think the turn call was close, you have to post the turn card and action. You can't say the turn call will be close so the flop is close when it isn't.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still talking about the flop call and not at all about the turn call. But when making the flop call, rmarotti needs to weight the possible actions on the turn. If, for example, Button drops on the turn he is only getting 8.83:1 to draw to a gutshot and his overcard outs which again have reverse implied odds attached to them.

[chief444]

Jason,

Good excercise but there's no way he can or should fold this flop. He's closing the action. He has two backdoor draws. He's got two overs (although not likely worth a whole lot). Without looking closer I'd guess he has around ~4+ effective outs and he's getting 14.5:1 closing the action.

Chief

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
If, for example, Button drops on the turn he is only getting 8.83:1 to draw to a gutshot and his overcard outs which again have reverse implied odds attached to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you still have to count something for the overcard outs on the turn. which means even if the button dropped he would still be getting 9-1 closing the action, he would have another easy call.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you should 4bet preflop.

You only need 3 outs to call here and your backdoor draws nearly account for that by themselves. I think it's a pretty easy call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot, including rmarotti's flop call, will be 7.83 BB on the turn. If I bet and Button calls, rmarotti will be getting 9.83:1 which isn't enough to draw to a gutshot. He possibly has other outs, say overcards, but those have reverse implied odds attached to them. That's what makes the analysis complicated and the call closer than it first appears.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense. If the flop call is easy, and it is, then you make it and reevaluate on the turn. If you think the turn call was close, you have to post the turn card and action. You can't say the turn call will be close so the flop is close when it isn't.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're not going to have odds to draw to your gutshot on the turn, you can't count the backdoor draw outs on the flop either.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you should 4bet preflop.

You only need 3 outs to call here and your backdoor draws nearly account for that by themselves. I think it's a pretty easy call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot, including rmarotti's flop call, will be 7.83 BB on the turn. If I bet and Button calls, rmarotti will be getting 9.83:1 which isn't enough to draw to a gutshot. He possibly has other outs, say overcards, but those have reverse implied odds attached to them. That's what makes the analysis complicated and the call closer than it first appears.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense. If the flop call is easy, and it is, then you make it and reevaluate on the turn. If you think the turn call was close, you have to post the turn card and action. You can't say the turn call will be close so the flop is close when it isn't.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're not going to have odds to draw to your gutshot on the turn, you can't count the backdoor draw outs on the flop either.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only one of the possible straights.

Krishan

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If, for example, Button drops on the turn he is only getting 8.83:1 to draw to a gutshot and his overcard outs which again have reverse implied odds attached to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you still have to count something for the overcard outs on the turn. which means even if the button dropped he would still be getting 9-1 closing the action, he would have another easy call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The overcards are extremely dirty and have reverse implied odds attached to them. If calling the flop causes you to make more close and possibly incorrect calls later in the hand then calling the flop may in fact be incorrect.

[meep_42]

I guess my analysis was perfect, huh? :P

REPLY TO ME! VALIDATE ME!

(sorry, it's been a weird day.)

-d

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
if you're not going to have odds to draw to your gutshot on the turn, you can't count the backdoor draw outs on the flop either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but there is enough unknown information on the flop that we can't completely eliminate the BDSD from our thinking, IMHO. We could very well have easy odds (implied) to call just a gutter; we could have thin odds to call just a gutter, and we could have really thin odds / not enough to call just a gutter. All this points for me to not discouting the BDSD to 0 for purposes of assessing what to do on the flop. Maybe it's worth 0.1 out; maybe it's worth 1 out. Point is it is gravy on top of 1.5 outs for BDFD and some bit of outs for our overs. Jason's handrange is wide enough that I don't think we can discount our overs to 0; there are enough unknowns about the players and pot size on the turn that I don't think we can discount our BDSD outs to 0; all this points for me to a reasonably close but all in all easy flop peel.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Jason's handrange is wide

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think my hand range is?

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If, for example, Button drops on the turn he is only getting 8.83:1 to draw to a gutshot and his overcard outs which again have reverse implied odds attached to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you still have to count something for the overcard outs on the turn. which means even if the button dropped he would still be getting 9-1 closing the action, he would have another easy call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The overcards are extremely dirty and have reverse implied odds attached to them. If calling the flop causes you to make more close and possibly incorrect calls later in the hand then calling the flop may in fact be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least one of the gutshots is very clean and very concealed and has the potential to get more than one bet on the river.

Depending on your holding the BDFD could be particularly devastating as well.

As for passing up an obviously profitable call to avoid future mistakes... not in a big pot.

I am probably more cautious than most on these boards, and try not to get myself in over my head or play beyond my limited abilities, but this call (on the flop) is pretty easy IMO.

Are you sure this is not a bad beat post in disguise? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
The overcards are extremely dirty and have reverse implied odds attached to them. If calling the flop causes you to make more close and possibly incorrect calls later in the hand then calling the flop may in fact be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they potentially have reverse-implied odds attached to them we call them "dirty" and we do not count them as full outs. If the A-outs were pristine, we'd count them as 3 outs; since there are not pristine we discount them; the amount of the discount reflects our judgment and experience. But you can't say "discount the outs" and then say "your discounted outs have reverse-implied odds attached to them." You're effectively applying the danger that an out is not an out more than one time in the analysis.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If, for example, Button drops on the turn he is only getting 8.83:1 to draw to a gutshot and his overcard outs which again have reverse implied odds attached to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you still have to count something for the overcard outs on the turn. which means even if the button dropped he would still be getting 9-1 closing the action, he would have another easy call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The overcards are extremely dirty and have reverse implied odds attached to them. If calling the flop causes you to make more close and possibly incorrect calls later in the hand then calling the flop may in fact be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are the overcards extremely dirty? He should have 3 outs most of the time, and he'll occasionally be drawing dead as far as overcards are concerned, but he'll also occasionally have 6 pair outs. The reverse implied odds when he makes a second best hand are nearly made up for by the implied odds of making the best hand. Reverse implied odds are a small factor here.

We only need 3 outs to call, we have at least 4 against your hand range. This is an easy call.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The overcards are extremely dirty and have reverse implied odds attached to them. If calling the flop causes you to make more close and possibly incorrect calls later in the hand then calling the flop may in fact be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they potentially have reverse-implied odds attached to them we call them "dirty" and we do not count them as full outs. If the A-outs were pristine, we'd count them as 3 outs; since there are not pristine we discount them; the amount of the discount reflects our judgment and experience. But you can't say "discount the outs" and then say "your discounted outs have reverse-implied odds attached to them." You're effectively applying the danger that an out is not an out more than one time in the analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coin a new term: "Double discounting"

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]


At least one of the gutshots is very clean and very concealed

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it'd be that concealed.

[ QUOTE ]
and has the potential to get more than one bet on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends on what I hold.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure this is not a bad beat post in disguise? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha. Klepton, rmarotti, TheMetetron and I discussed this hand for an hour over dinner. I think it's pretty interesting.

[thejameser]

...calls
bd flush-1.5
bd straight-1
overs-an unscientific 2 maybe 2.5
~ 4.5 or so, a call given pot size.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jason's handrange is wide

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think my hand range is?

[/ QUOTE ]

The quote was actually "wide enough" and the statement was made in the context of whether or not we should discount our overs to 0 outs. I haven't played with you and only know you through the forums, but I'd guess its PPs down to about 88, AJs+, AKo. Against this range our overcard outs are not reduced to 0. Even if your range were limited to TT+, we do not discount the overcard outs to 0.

[Moneyline]

*Disclaimer* I'm hungover now so my answer may be more grumpy than usual. That said...

I'm aware that you posted this hand as an "exercise" for players who don't have your out-counting expertise, and not as advice on how to play the hand. Nevertheless, I think this is a bad question insofar as how this hand and others like it should be played. The reason I think this is because, whether it was your intention or not, your question will lead people to believe that calculating their exact number of outs is the most important thing to do in poker situations like this one.

A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif clearly has somewhere between about 4 and 6 outs. How many outs is it exactly? The correct answer is something along the line of "who cares." You're getting 14: 1 and you're closing the action. A call is automatic here no matter what the exact number, but the turn is potentially tricky. So instead of expending your mental energy trying to figure out how many outs you have on the flop, you can think about something useful like what line you'll take if a Q comes on 4th street. I'm not claiming that OP misappropriates his time in this manner, I'm just saying that when less experienced players read this post they'll get the impression that they should be counting outs, when really they should be thinking about other things.

Just my opinion...

EDIT: Part of the reason I made this post is because I'm curious what's going through the heads of other winning players in tough and potentially tough situations. Do any experienced players actually go ahead and figure out exactly how many outs they have in situations like this?...

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
*Disclaimer* I'm hungover now so my answer may be more grumpy than usual. That said...

I'm aware that you posted this hand as an "exercise" for players who don't have your out-counting expertise, and not as advice on how to play the hand. Nevertheless, I think this is a bad question insofar as how this hand and others like it should be played. The reason I think this is because, whether it was your intention or not, your question will lead people to believe that calculating their exact number of outs is the most important thing to do in poker situations like this one.

A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif clearly has somewhere between about 4 and 6 outs. How many outs is it exactly? The correct answer is something along the line of "who cares." You're getting 14: 1 and you're closing the action. A call is automatic here no matter what the exact number, but the turn is potentially tricky. So instead of expending your mental energy trying to figure out how many outs you have on the flop, you can think about something useful like what line you'll take if a Q comes on 4th street. I'm not claiming that OP misappropriates his time in this manner, I'm just saying that when less experienced players read this post they'll get the impression that they should be counting outs, when really they should be thinking about other things.

Just my opinion...

EDIT: Part of the reason I made this post is because I'm curious what's going through the heads of other winning players in tough and potentially tough situations. Do any experienced players actually go ahead and figure out exactly how many outs they have in situations like this?...

[/ QUOTE ]

I figure it out as a matter of discounting. I counted this hand pretty quickly.

At the table in this situation or online I would have made the decision to call in about 2 seconds and then been thinking about what to do if an over did hit.

Usually, by the time the turn card hits, I have thought of a couple ways the hand might go.

For this pariticular hand it is not a case of being tricky or tough IMO, its more of a matter of feeling "icky". Probably because at this point I am playing passively, unless I hit a comfortable hand on the river.

[flair1239]

That said, I think this is an interesting exercise. I just don't think it is interesting in the manner of call v. fold.

I think it is a clear call. But it has been interesting to see everybodies take and thought processes.

[BWebb]

You're right, it's not important to determine how many outs you have exactly. But, it is important to know that you have enough outs in situations like these that occur many times. I did mine mathmatically because I'm trying to work on the math part of the game. I would have called in an instant at the table, but it's good to work on it away from the table to make sure you are making the right decisions. Calling then never thinking about it afterwards will not help you improve your game.

[Klepton]

[ QUOTE ]
Jason's handrange should be wide, but it's not cuz he's a super tight nit playing a "higher limit"

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Klepton]

I already know the results, but he's my little contribution:

If I ever 3-bet you preflop, and then bet the flop and you sat there for 5 seconds counting your outs, and then you folded...

I'll 3-bet every single one of your raises and then bet and raise you the whole way down.

'you' being any player

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
I already know the results, but he's my little contribution:

If I ever 3-bet you preflop, and then bet the flop and you sat there for 5 seconds counting your outs, and then you folded...

I'll 3-bet every single one of your raises and then bet and raise you the whole way down.

'you' being any player

[/ QUOTE ]

this is why its profitable to always sit on kleptons right.

peace

john nickle

[Klepton]

if you came to vegas this weekend, i wouldn't have stopped smiling...

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

That's only one of the possible straights.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]


this is true... i'm just saying you have to value the backdoor draw accordingly

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's only one of the possible straights.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]


this is true... i'm just saying you have to value the backdoor draw accordingly

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we agree. I'm saying we can't value the backdoor straight at 0 just because we might not have odds to draw at 1 of the straights on the turn.

Krishan

[TheMetetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jason's handrange is wide

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think my hand range is?

[/ QUOTE ]

The quote was actually "wide enough" and the statement was made in the context of whether or not we should discount our overs to 0 outs. I haven't played with you and only know you through the forums, but I'd guess its PPs down to about 88, AJs+, AKo. Against this range our overcard outs are not reduced to 0. Even if your range were limited to TT+, we do not discount the overcard outs to 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way is Jason's range that wide. AK, AA-99. That's what makes this call ridiculously close and anyone saying it's "close enough" and rmarotti should just call is not putting enough analysis into it. If it's close and even slightly incorrect, then rmarroti is making a mistake here calling and that is going to be affecting his win rate long term.

The hand is actually very interesting as we had an hour long conversation about it with no group consensus. I went with jason_t that I believe it is a fold. rmarroti and klepton both instantly said call but left the room undecided. I really wish we recorded that entire convesation, it was quite interesting.

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
The hand is actually very interesting as we had an hour long conversation about it with no group consensus. I went with jason_t that I believe it is a fold. rmarroti and klepton both instantly said call but left the room undecided.

[/ QUOTE ]

having been part of a couple of these conversations, i can say, with a fair amount of certainty, that this is precisely how these things always go down. Nits vs Lags. Unfortunately, i wasnt there to build the consensus in favor of the correct answer, which is to

peace

john nickle

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
No way is Jason's range that wide. AK, AA-99.That's what makes this call ridiculously close . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I will leave aside any debate on what his range should be against rmarotti's open but this sounds pretty tight to me.

In any event, are you of the view that rmarotti has less than 3 outs here against that range? 3 outs getting 14.5:1 closing the action in a 3-handed pot is not "ridiculously close" though it is close. Anything above 3 outs makes it a pretty easy peel. Against that range, you'd have to ascribe less than 2.5 outs for the combined BD FD and BD SD's and I think that is too conservative.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No way is Jason's range that wide. AK, AA-99.That's what makes this call ridiculously close . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I will leave aside any debate on what his range should be against rmarotti's open but this sounds pretty tight to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been known as a tight player and my standards against an UTG+1 open are pretty tight. This was only my second session of 15/30. Even though rmarotti is a rather loose player his standards here aren't that loose given that he and I had been discussing them all weekend and Klepton had discussed it with him too and thus he had been tightening up. Therefore, I respected his UTG+1 raise and my 3-bet should be respected accordingly.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No way is Jason's range that wide. AK, AA-99.That's what makes this call ridiculously close . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I will leave aside any debate on what his range should be against rmarotti's open but this sounds pretty tight to me.

In any event, are you of the view that rmarotti has less than 3 outs here against that range? 3 outs getting 14.5:1 closing the action in a 3-handed pot is not "ridiculously close" though it is close. Anything above 3 outs makes it a pretty easy peel. Against that range, you'd have to ascribe less than 2.5 outs for the combined BD FD and BD SD's and I think that is too conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's jason_t. in 15/30. he's making diamonds thew way he's playing vs. a rmarotti EP raise. He adamantly said he wasn't going to do so with AQ.

[shant]

He has about as many outs as nights I cried myself to sleep over that 5 day weekend that you all were in Vegas and I was sitting in my dirty ass apartment, unshaven and unshowered, working on building a website 12 hours a day.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
He has about as many outs as nights I cried myself to sleep over that 5 day weekend that you all were in Vegas and I was sitting in my dirty ass apartment, unshaven and unshowered, working on building a website 12 hours a day.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's more than enough outs to call this flop.

[chief444]

OK,

AK = 12 combos...3 outs + backdoors
AA = 3 combos...just backdoors
KK = 6 combos...3 outs + backdoors
QQ = 3 combos...3 outs + backdoors
JJ = 3 combos...just backdoors
TT = 6 combos...6 outs + backdoors
99 = 3 combos...just backdoors

So out of 35 combinations there are only 9 where he's drawing to only backdoor draws.

Are you checking the flop here with AK? If so then it may be a little closer. But I still don't see how you guys feel this is so close getting almost 15:1 closing the action.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always been known as a tight player and my standards against an UTG+1 open are pretty tight. This was only my second session of 15/30. Even though rmarotti is a rather loose player his standards here aren't that loose given that he and I had been discussing them all weekend and Klepton had discussed it with him too and thus he had been tightening up. Therefore, I respected his UTG+1 raise and my 3-bet should be respected accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. But if you're going to present an outs-counting exercise where you think it is very close getting almost 15:1 closing the action, then fractional outs become important in determining how close it actually is. If you think it is that close, then a clear range helps the exercise. Adding 88 or AQs to your range moves the needle.

Even without adding hands such as those, and assuming a range of 99+ and AK, Rich has like 2.5+ outs just on the backdoors alone (and that includes a discount for those times when he turns an 8 or a K and decides not to call a turn bet if button drops or its raised in front of him). If the combined overcard outs are 0.5 are better, it's a call. Are the overcard outs worth 0.5? It's clear the overcard outs are worth more than 0.5, right?

If you wouldn't bet (or would only sometimes bet) AK on the flop, then it gets closer. If we'd never get a bet out of you on the river when we hit our draw, then it gets a bit closer (but if rmarotti leads the river giving you 10+:1 on a potnetial scare card, I presume you're not dumping).

I just don't think it is that close closing the action on the flop. If there were players or even a LAG yet to act behind us on the flop, so the risk of the betting being reopened is there, it becomes closer. But as the problem is presented, it is mostly pure math and the math says peeling is correct (unless my math is way off, but I don't think it is).

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
OK,

AK = 12 combos...3 outs + backdoors
AA = 3 combos...just backdoors
KK = 6 combos...3 outs + backdoors
QQ = 3 combos...3 outs + backdoors
JJ = 3 combos...just backdoors
TT = 6 combos...6 outs + backdoors
99 = 3 combos...just backdoors

So out of 35 combinations there are only 9 where he's drawing to only backdoor draws.

Are you checking the flop here with AK? If so then it may be a little closer. But I still don't see how you guys feel this is so close getting almost 15:1 closing the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

he said after the hand that he was betting AK here.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
he said after the hand that he was betting AK here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'm really confused as to how this is close. And that's with a pretty damn tight range. If there's any possibility of AQ or others than it's even less close.

[Catt]

Just so it doesn't sound like I'm spouting nonsense and since I did the math calcs earlier at work:

How many outs is the BDFD worth?

Since we're drawing to the nut flush, we needn't concern ourselves with losing flush over flush. There are 47 unknown cards. We're hoping for one of the 10 diamonds that are still out on the turn. A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif will fall 10/47 times, or 21.2% of the time. Once a /images/graemlins/diamond.gif falls on the turn, we're drawing to the 9 remaining diamonds among 46 unknown cards, or 9/46, or 19.6% of the time. We'll hit runner-runner flush 4.15% of the time. This 4.15% x 46 cards = 1.91 outs. If we choose to be more cautious and only count diamonds that don't pair the board, then we aren't helped by the J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif or 3 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif those times when Jason has JJ or 99 (he'll have JJ or 99 16.67% of the time). The calcs become 8/47 and 7/46 and the outs-equivalent is 1.19 outs the 16.67% of the time he has a set on the flop. The blended outs for the BDFD is 1.79 outs. (I'm not going to bother trying to normalize for the times he has TT and the runner-runner flush comes T 3 also giving him a FH just as I wouldn't try to normalize for a fractional Q pair out when Jason has AA and we hit runner-runner QQ to make a set). So the BD nut flush draw is worth 1.79 outs.

How many outs is the BDSD worth?

Let's break this into two runner-runner possibilities: first where a T falls on the turn, second where a K or 8 falls on the turn.

A non-diamond T will fall on the turn 3/47, or 6.38% of the time. Following that, a K or 8 will fall on the river 8/46, or 17.4% of the time. We'll runner-runner a straight with the T falling first 1.11% of the time, against 46 cards, that is worth 0.51 outs.

A non-diamond K or 8 will fall on the turn 6/47 or 12.77% of the time. A T will fall on the river 4/64 or 8.7% of the time. We'll runner-runner a straight 1.11% of the time, or another 0.51 outs. But lets assume that we only call a turn bet 50% of the time because button folds or button raises -- this means that the K/8 gutter on the turn is worth only 0.25 outs.

Combined, the BDSD is worth about 0.76 outs.

So, our two BD draws are collectively worth about 2.55 outs. Less if we think the LPP folds or raise more often on the turn, or Jason checks the turn and LPP bets, more if these scenarios happen less.

How much are the pair outs worth?

Against the range of 99+ and AK, we have the following outs versus the following frequency of those hands:

Hand_____Outs_____# of Hands

AK_______ 3 ______ 12
AA_______ 0 ______ 3
KK_______ 3 ______ 6
QQ_______ 3 ______ 3
JJ_______ 0 ______ 3
TT_______ 6 ______ 6
99_______ 0 ______ 3

So, 0 outs against 9/36 hands; 3 outs against 21/36 hands; 6 outs against 6/36 hands. ([3*21/36]+[6*6/36]) = 2.75 outs.

Cut this back a bit since we're unlikely to find a value bet on the river and Jason may check behind (meaning we pay 2 BBs when beat and earn 1 BB when good). Maybe cut this back for when we lose to button if he's still around. Heck, even if you cut these outs in half for various reasons, they're still worth 1.37 outs.

We've got collective outs of well over 3 here against the defined narrow range. Since we're closing the action with no risk of putting in more than 1 SB on this flop, I just don't see how this is terribly close.

No way do we do this math when the action is on us, but that's we we have shorthanded out-equivalents. With 1.75 for the BD nut flush; .75 to 1 for the BD straight; we only need to figure our overcards are worth 0.25 or 0.50 outs or so to make this a call. It's a big pot; we're closing the action; we probably don't know that Jason's range is quite as tight as it is; and the only other player in the pot is passive. We can pretty quickly come to the conclusion that calling here is relatively easy.

Please point out any fundamental errors in this analysis.

[flair1239]

I guess I am not sure what to say.

Maybe a compromise soloution would be "We make this call against everybody else in the world except Jason?"

BTW, plugged the thing into pokerstove including the LPP... it is not even close. Even compensating for position, it is still a call.

The LPP makes this call even easier.

Also, I really don't think the rest of this hand plays to difficult. It might involve biting your lip and calling down... but that is about as bad as it gets.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, plugged the thing into pokerstove including the LPP... it is not even close. Even compensating for position, it is still a call.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell me how you did this? I ignored the LPP and used PokerStove to obtain the following.

35,640 games 0.020 secs 1,782,000 games/sec

Board: Jh 9d 3s
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 17.2741 % 16.78% 00.50% { AdQd }
Hand 2: 82.7259 % 82.23% 00.50% { 99+, AKs, AKo }

The pot on the flop is 7.33 BB. Let's say that the times that rmarotti wins the pot, he can expect to collect 1 BB on each street. Sometimes he picks up more depending on what he improves to and sometimes he picks up less. Thus he can expect the final pot be around 9.33 BB. Thus

EV = .1727 * (9.33) - (1 - .1727) * (2.5) = -.4570.

The conclusion from this is that a call is -EV.

Edit: This analysis is incorrect due to the error of assuming that rmarotti will always call down (not a terrible assumption since he is a fish /images/graemlins/smirk.gif) which arose from an oversimplification of this complex problem.

[Jake (The Snake)]

Why are you assuming we lose 2.5 BB on average when we lose? We don't have to go to showdown every time.

[istewart]

Are we truly spending 2.5BB (seeing all 5 cards) 83% of the time though? This seems incorrect.

[TheMetetron]

I like Catt's analysis. The only thing not mentioned is that we in no way shape or form have any idea where we stand, save for making the nuts. Without a straight or flush, we are simply not going to do anything besides check/call or check/fold the rest of the hand because otherwise we are just going to spew when behind. I'm not sure how the fact that we win 2 or less bets when ahead and always lose 2 bets when behind computes into the equation, but it does need to be factored.

I'll admit to not looking at jason's math too closely and simply taking his word that rmarroti did not have enough outs to draw to. It's beginning to look like he may unless jason had some extra explanation that wasn't touched on here.

The only reason I even question this is the fact that rmarroti is against jason_t which changes every single hand you play. Against a normal player, it's not even close and I peel every time. I just thought it was interesting where a situation could occur in which the fold here would be correct. But the presence of another player may completely nullify the jason_t factor.

Then again, no one has even bothered to figure out a hand for the other player and how clean marroti's outs stay when put against HIS range as well. This is vital to the discussion IMO.

[TheMetetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you assuming we lose 2.5 BB on average when we lose? We don't have to go to showdown every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, your calc there is incorrect jason. We are only losing the extra BB on the turn when we pick up one of our draws and it doesn't hit.

Also, I think ignoring the other player is a mistake.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

BTW, plugged the thing into pokerstove including the LPP... it is not even close. Even compensating for position, it is still a call.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell me how you did this? I ignored the LPP and used PokerStove to obtain the following.

35,640 games 0.020 secs 1,782,000 games/sec

Board: Jh 9d 3s
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 17.2741 % 16.78% 00.50% { AdQd }
Hand 2: 82.7259 % 82.23% 00.50% { 99+, AKs, AKo }

The pot on the flop is 7.33 BB. Let's say that the times that rmarotti wins the pot, he can expect to collect 1 BB on each street. Sometimes he picks up more depending on what he improves to and sometimes he picks up less. Thus he can expect the final pot be around 9.33 BB. Thus

EV = .1727 * (9.33) - (1 - .1727) * (2.5) = -.4570.

The conclusion from this is that a call is -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a lot more complex than that homie. I'll try to do some math here and sketch it out to get a better idea though.

Rob

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you assuming we lose 2.5 BB on average when we lose? We don't have to go to showdown every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, yeah. I was just about to edit my post to remark that. It's much more complex than what my last post indicates, but it gives some idea that a call is much closer than some people seem to think.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Are we truly spending 2.5BB (seeing all 5 cards) 83% of the time though? This seems incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

cf. my reply to Jake.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you assuming we lose 2.5 BB on average when we lose? We don't have to go to showdown every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, your calc there is incorrect jason. We are only losing the extra BB on the turn when we pick up one of our draws and it doesn't hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is incorrect; it's an error that arose from oversimplfying this terribly complex problem.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I think ignoring the other player is a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this variable makes it even harder.

Sigh.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]

It's a lot more complex than that homie. I'll try to do some math here and sketch it out to get a better idea though.



[/ QUOTE ]

I know. Alas, I just don't have the time tonight to do a correct analysis. I'll think about it while I'm driving to San Francisco tomorrow.

[Jake (The Snake)]

Glad you're not going crazy on us /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I think it's more like this:

Of the times we would have ended up with the best hand, we will fold sometimes.

I'll say 15/17.3 we actually showdown the winner.

9.33 sounds reasonable for an average pot we win when we go to showdown and win.

1.2 sounds more reasonable to me for the other 85% we don't showdown the winner.

So (9.33)*(.15) - (1.2)(.85)= +.38

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's a lot more complex than that homie. I'll try to do some math here and sketch it out to get a better idea though.



[/ QUOTE ]

I know. Alas, I just don't have the time tonight to do a correct analysis. I'll think about it while I'm driving to San Francisco tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer your AIM nit.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's a lot more complex than that homie. I'll try to do some math here and sketch it out to get a better idea though.



[/ QUOTE ]

I know. Alas, I just don't have the time tonight to do a correct analysis. I'll think about it while I'm driving to San Francisco tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer your AIM nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not at home. I'm at school studying but this hand is more interesting than my math.

I may have to pull an sthief09.

[Catt]

I think ignoring the LPP is mostly the right approach for purposes of analysis when at the table (and really, for analysis away from the table). If he sticks around and we hit a flush or straight, he's providing a nice overlay. If he sticks around and we hit an overcard he's either providing an overlay or taking the pot from us. If he drops on the turn, it impacts our turn decision. If he drops on the river, he doesn't matter much. The biggest wrench he can throw into the machine is if he raises the turn depedning on the turn card. We're calling with a FD or OESD on the turn but not pleased about having to put in 2 bets; we're folding a gutshot. If, as I'm lead to believe of passive players in a B&amp;M game, he is unlikely to raise with less than a monster, then he really only presents a problem when he raises something like the J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif on the turn -- I'll deal with that when the time comes but am not going to expend a lot of energy on it when thinking about calling the flop.

If we turn an A or a Q, there is very little we can do other than ck-cl. If LPP makes it two to us after Jason bets an A turn, we need to have the discipline to fold (I haven't done the math, but I presume this should be an easy fold). Same for a Q. This hand can get expensive when Jason bets a blank /images/graemlins/diamond.gif or a T and LPP raises, but again, I expect this to happen infrequently enough to not worry about it too much when faced with the flop decision.

It feels icky to ck-cl a turned A down, but I think it's the right play. We're winning an extra 2 BBs or losing an extra 2 BBs, but there is 7.5 BBs at stake on the flop. With the hand range given, it's profitable to call down. I think this makes calling down a Q on the turn and river unprofitable without LPP putting in at least one bet (would be 9.5 BBs for a 2BB investment and the Q beats 6 possible hands (TT) among 36 possible combos needing effective odds of 5:1) unless we spike an A or Q on the river, which may further affect our outs calculation on the flop but not enough to change this to a fold on the flop.

[baronzeus]

(all calculations assuming 7.5BB pot, and 3BB implied odds)

Let's say we will peel to the river with any diamond or T on the turn = 13 cards

(34/47)*(-0.5BB) = -0.362BB
+
(3/47)*(8/46)*(10.5BB) = 0.117BB
+
(9/47)*(9/46)*(10.5BB) = 0.393BB
+
(1/47)*(15/46)*(10.5BB) = 0.073BB
-
(3/47)*(38/46)*(-1.5BB) = -0.079BB
-
(9/47)*(37/46)*(-1.5BB) = -0.231BB
-
(1/47)*(31/46)*(-1.5BB) = -0.022BB


GRAND TOTAL



= -0.111BB net loss when JUST calling for your nut draws (NOT OVERCARDS).

Add in anything for overcards and it's +EV.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

BTW, plugged the thing into pokerstove including the LPP... it is not even close. Even compensating for position, it is still a call.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell me how you did this? I ignored the LPP and used PokerStove to obtain the following.

35,640 games 0.020 secs 1,782,000 games/sec

Board: Jh 9d 3s
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 17.2741 % 16.78% 00.50% { AdQd }
Hand 2: 82.7259 % 82.23% 00.50% { 99+, AKs, AKo }

The pot on the flop is 7.33 BB. Let's say that the times that rmarotti wins the pot, he can expect to collect 1 BB on each street. Sometimes he picks up more depending on what he improves to and sometimes he picks up less. Thus he can expect the final pot be around 9.33 BB. Thus

EV = .1727 * (9.33) - (1 - .1727) * (2.5) = -.4570.

The conclusion from this is that a call is -EV.

Edit: This analysis is incorrect due to the error of assuming that rmarotti will always call down (not a terrible assumption since he is a fish /images/graemlins/smirk.gif) which arose from an oversimplification of this complex problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason,

How can you ignore the LPP in any analysis?

Also you are putting to much effort into projecting forward from the flop.

I am not advocating operating in a vacum. But a a bad turn decision does not mean that the flop call was a mistake.

You make your profitable call on the flop and you have another decision to make on the turn. It is that simple, it is a new decision with a different set of circumstances. On the flop there exists enough of a probability (with the pot odds), that RM will win this hand to justify him seeing the turn. If he botches the hand from there, it is not because of his flop call.

[PokerBob]

he's got 2 backdoor draws to the nuts, one of which may be a chop. his overs are likely dirty, but not completely. imo he's got between 3-4 outs, and getting nearly 15-1 closing the action, he can peel.

[2moreTerps]

I'm a new player. I've never done anything like this. Am I on the right track?

3 Betting Hands (Combinations) - Outs
AA (3) - 1.5
KK (6) - 5.5
QQ (3) - 5.5
JJ (3) - 1.5
TT (6) - 9.5
99 (3) - 1.5
AK (12) - 5.5

Are my outs estimates close? I pretty much totally discounted the backdoor straight possibility.

This gives him 4.83 outs against YOUR range. That totally ignores the preflop calls by the button and the BB though. I think it is fair to say that they probably have some of our outs, but I still think it is worth a call getting ~15:1. It is nice that we act last (don't have to worry about being raised) and a lot of our outs disappear if the turn isn't a diamond, so folding the turn won't be too hard.

[meep_42]

I think this analysis misses the straight outs we gain on the K/8/T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, as it only counts them in the BD flush calculation.

Or maybe I missed it.

-d

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this analysis misses the straight outs we gain on the K/8/T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, as it only counts them in the BD flush calculation.

Or maybe I missed it.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]


I slightly fixed it in my calculation, at least for T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
I slightly fixed it in my calculation, at least for T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hadn't gotten that far. /images/graemlins/smile.gif The others aren't missing a whole lot (~8/46ths of an out).

-d

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this analysis misses the straight outs we gain on the K/8/T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, as it only counts them in the BD flush calculation.

Or maybe I missed it.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah - I think that is a small mistake. I counted the K / 8 / T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif "continue outs" for the BDFD and didn't want to count them twice. I was looking at as "what do we need to see the river" but on thinking it over, I do think it is missing some fractional outs, since we could turn the T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif and spike a K/images/graemlins/club.gif say, and neither the BDFD nor the BDSD calcs assume we'd see the river with our winning straight. Good catch.

I am really bored at work and am actually working through an EV calc because the math exercise from this thread has become more interesting than the other tasks at hand. Now I don't have to make the same mistake twice!

Thx.

[meep_42]

I had to read your post three times to make sure I didn't just plain miss it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Like I said, it only amounts to about 1/4 of an out (with the OESD, 1/8 with just the gutshots - 2 cards give us 3 more outs, 1 card, 6 more, 12/46 out.)

-d

[Catt]

I’m going to take one more stab at this because the math has become kinda fun actually (yes, I am bored at work).

In trying to calculate the EV of calling here, we need to make a bunch of assumptions about future rounds of play. These assumptions are obviously subject to be off in many circumstances, but I’ve chosen what I think are reasonable baselines. Basically, we’re putting in 0.5 BBs on the flop. We’re putting in 1 BB on the turn when we hit a presumed out. We’re collecting a 10.5 BB pot when we win (except when we win with an A or Q – explained below) which represents collecting 3 BBs from our two opponents over two streets. We’re losing an additional 1 BB on the river when we see a losing showdown with an “overcard out” hand (instead of a flush or straight).

We’ll miss all of our outs (/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, T, K, 8, A, Q) on the turn 46.8% of the time. So we lose (-0.50BB)*(.468) on our flop call. EV of -0.234 BBs.

We’ll hit a /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 21.2% of the time and continue to the river. Of these times, we’ll miss on the river 80.5% and hit 19.5%. Of the 21.2% of the time we turn a /images/graemlins/diamond.gif we lose an extra 1 BB 16.8% of the time and win the pot 4.1%, so (-1.5BB)*(.168) + (10.5BB*.041). EV of +.178 BBs.

We’ll hit a T 8.51% of the time and continue to the river. Of these times, we’ll miss on the river 82.6% and hit on the river 17.4%. Of the 8.51% of the time we turn a T we lose an extra 1 BB 7.03% of the time and win the pot 1.48%, so (-1.5BB)*(.0703) + (10.5BB)*(.0148). EV of +0.0500 BBs.

We’ll hit a K or 8 17.02% of the time and continue to the river half of the time (since LPP may fold or raise). So 8.51% of the time we lose only the flop SB, and 8.51% of the time we put another BB in. Of those times we put in another BB on the turn, we miss the river 91.3% of the time and hit 8.7% of the time. So, (-0.5BB)*(0.0851) + (-1.5BBs)*(0.0777) + (10.5BBs)*(0.0074). EV of -0.081 BBs.

We’ll hit an A 6.38% of the time and continue to showdown 50% of the time (since LPP may raise). However, unless we are outstanding value-bettors, we won’t value bet the river and Jason will check behind some solid chunk of hands that we beat – I’ll take the very conservative “we’ll always pay-off and never collect” approach and say we only win a 9.5 BB pot but still invest 2.5BBs post-flop. 3.19% of the time we lose only the flop SB. Of the other 3.19% of the time, we are losing to Jason’s range 45% of the time and winning against Jason’s range 55% of the time. So, (-0.5BBs)*(0.0319) + (-2.5BBs)*(0.0143) + (9.5BBs)*(0.0175). EV of +.114 BBs.

We’ll hit a Q 6.38% of the time and continue to showdown 50% of the time. However, same value-bet / check-behind worry so we’ll say we win only 9.5BBs when we win but still lose the 2.5BBs invested when we see a showdown. 3.19% of the time we lose only the flop SB. Of the other 3.19% of the time we are losing to Jason’s range 47% of the time and winning against Jason’s range 53% of the time. So, (-0.5BBs)*(.0319) + (-2.5BBs)*(0.015) + (9.5BBs)*(0.017). EV of +0.108 BBs.

The total EV for these scenarios is: +0.135 BBs. Even if we discount the EV of pairing an A or Q by a whopping 50% to account for the times we lose to LPP’s hand that he didn’t raise on us, the overall EV is still positive.

I think I’ve taken an overly conservative approach on how often we are bet out of the pot by LPP since I don’t expect him to raise the turn nearly 50% of the time – this conservative “get bet out of the pot” standard reduces our overall EV. I also haven’t tried to account for those times when the turn is checked through because Jason has AK and the LPP doesn’t bet (would obviously add to our EV) or LPP bets and we feel we can’t call because of a lack of odds (gutshot) or a reasonable fear of a Jason C/R behind us. I haven’t given us the advantage of LPP calling a river bet (making it an 11.5 BB pot) which I think a lot of LPPs can do with a piece of the board in a large pot. I haven’t given us the advantage of picking up a BB on the river when Jason decides to value bet his KK after an A turns, or value bets his TT when a Q turns, etc. And I haven’t given us the advantage of sometimes getting two bets in against at least one of Jason or the LPP when we hit the river and pull off a successful check-raise.

As I said, there are so many variables on later streets that it is extremely difficult to produce a set of assumptions and outcomes that are super reliable – but I think a showing of positive EV of more than a quarter of a small bet under pretty conservative assumptions makes the flop call a little more clear when we’re closing the action.

Again, we don’t do anything like this at the table, but doing this sometimes helps build confidence in our out-counting process with very marginal draws but a big pot (at least it did for me). Anyway, interesting thread.

[Klepton]

this hand wouldn't be truly hilarious without the results...

jason... if you would please

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
this hand wouldn't be truly hilarious without the results...

jason... if you would please

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing it involves rmarotti grinning and singing "Oh, I'm a lucky fish, a lucky, lucky, lucky fish . . ."

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
this hand wouldn't be truly hilarious without the results...

jason... if you would please

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we all know already that the whole thing is just a badly disguised [censored] bad beat post. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rob

[oreogod]

Been meaning to post in this thread but I was to lazy to type out my thinking, so...blah blah blah blah (insert numbers here) blah blah blah...easy-ish flop call.

Did he BD flush it, or was it runner Qs?

[meep_42]

I'm guessing backdoor straight against jason's JJ/KK.

-d

[Catt]

Reviewing another hand made me realize I goofed a little bit on the EV calcs. If the A/Q draws have +EV as they do, then there is additional +EV when we spike an A or Q on the river after calling the turn with a FD / OESD / gutshot. I didn't account for 2 chances to spike a pair because I looked narrowly at "no turn spike = no see the river" when in fact the overs will have two chances to spike those times we peel to the river. Probably not off by more than 5% or so, but in the interest of completeness I goofed.

[meep_42]

I noticed that too, but we can't bet a rivered A/Q and jason will check behind with hands that can't beat them, so we don't gain any additional bets, just what's in the pot the times we're ahead then.

-d

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
this hand wouldn't be truly hilarious without the results...

jason... if you would please

[/ QUOTE ]

the fans are chanting his name...Rocky...Rocky...Rocky...

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
I noticed that too, but we can't bet a rivered A/Q and jason will check behind with hands that can't beat them, so we don't gain any additional bets, just what's in the pot the times we're ahead then.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but coerrect me if I'm wrong here. The way I set up the various outcomes, when we're caling the turn with a FD or SD, I automatically count as a "losing hand" any hand that doesn't complete the specific draw at issue. If instead an A falls when we are going for the FD, even if Jason checks behind and no more bets go in, we pick up the pot some portion of the time instead of it being tabulated as a -1.5 BB loss. This picking up the pot isn't being captured by the "turn an A or Q" possibility, and isn't being tabulated in the other draws scenario. Essentially, by calling the turn to see the river with a strong draw, we have a second chance to hit the weak draw (pair) that wins some small portion of the time.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
this hand wouldn't be truly hilarious without the results...

jason... if you would please

[/ QUOTE ]

No wonder Jason has been arguing that he should have folded...