A lesson on implied odds

[fnurt]

$10+1 NL tourney at PokerStars. 45 players left, top 27 divide a king's ransom. I am in the BB with 13k which puts me in the top 10 in chips. Blinds are 300/600 with 50 ante.

MP with 16k in chips puts in a minimum raise to 1200. Folded around to me in the BB. With 2500 in the pot I call with the monster 54o.

Flop is 754 rainbow. I check, MP bets 8k, I raise all-in and he calls. Take a moment if you like to think about his possible range of hands.

He shows A2o. Turn Q, river 3. Interesting hand, I thought to myself.

You can talk all you want about not tangling with other big stacks but I had pretty nice odds of becoming the overall chip leader here! Any comments are appreciated.

[Magician]

Fnurt,

What I know is:

With two unpaired cards, you hit two pair on the flop about once in 50 times.

About once in 74 times, you make trips with one of your unpaired cards.

You know about the odds of making a straight with a "maximum stretch" hand - about 1 in 77.

I don't know if those numbers are additive (I suspect there is a small amount of overlap) - but let's assume for simplicity (being conservative here) you hit one of those hands once in 25 times.

Assuming that if you flop a straight draw that he would bet enough to drive you out - and that you wouldn't try to outplay him - it doesn't sound like a good deal even if you know for a fact you would get his 16K chips (that's like 13:1 implied odds for something that's 25:1).

Plus you are out of position.

I'm not claiming to be an expert but I think if there is one thing I am good at it's estimating EV.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

It sounds to me like you made ever decision perfectly, and he played like [censored] and got lucky.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Magician]

I've not achieved anything near Fnurt's results and I know I've made a lot of stupid mistakes.

I'm relatively inexperienced at this and I'm just giving what I think is an objective view.

[Rickfish]

Yes, they are additive. The chance of a hand two pairs or better (using the cards from your hand) is 4.78% or about 20-1. But then that is the hands you are sure about on the flop. There will be other flops that you will like a lot, e.g. 532, 653, etc and you will probably bet flops like 952 and win most of the time. All of which means you are getting close to the implied odds you are looking for.

[fnurt]

There's a math error here. I need to call 600, not 1200 as I think you assumed. So if the computation is that 1 out of 25 times I win his whole stack then I'm right around the correct odds. However it's more complicated than this because sometimes I flop 2 pair and lose etc etc.

If I knew that every single time I didn't hit then he would bet the pot and force me to fold, it would be a borderline situation. But that won't happen, and I will win some hands where I don't flop 2 pair.

I didn't do any of these calculations at the table, more important to me was the fact that I'm calling less than 5% of my stack for a chance at a big score. Quite simply this is why the minimum raise preflop is a bad idea.

[Magician]

If it was 600 the play makes a lot more sense then. Plus, if you know the guy enough that he might not bet at you if you check on the flop that makes it less borderline.

One thing I have trouble with is deciding to call with what I think may be the best hand on the flop but knowing I might be beat and that if I just call on the flop that my opponent will bet more aggressively on the turn, i.e. I am forced to either just call or move in on a hand which I am not that sure of if I know my opponent bets out at any sign of weakness (such as a call). If you have the nuts this is a great trapping opportunity but if you don't it becomes hard to decide.

[Copernicus]

This lesson on implied odds might not be the one you think it is. A common error is thinking that because there is only one caller in this hand, that your odds of winning are based on one opponent. In fact, there were 10 hands dealt, and your implied odds (with no other information on what your callers hand might be) need to be measured vs. 10 random hands, not 1.

54o against 10 random hands is a 9.5/1 dog, making your 8.3/1 look not so great anymore.

There is an additional problem that 54o carries with it, which is discussed briefly in HFAP...it carries a high probability of being second best even when you do hit something, and that is what caught you here. Especially facing a minimum raise there is a good chance that you are facing Ax or small connected suiters that either counterfeit part of your hand or make straights. (The disparaging comments often made about "but they were sooted" ignore the fact that at least when you hit the flush, you have a much better chance of not being in 2d).

I don't think the call is that horrible, but when the flop hits without giving you a 4 straight I don't think you can play it for an all-in.

The advice about not tangling with big stacks is still good advice, unless you have nearly the nuts, which you are far from here.

[fnurt]

In the posted situation, everyone has folded to me except the preflop raiser. How does the number of players who have folded affect my implied odds?

I completely understand that a 2-pair holding is vulnerable, particularly bottom 2 pair, but I still don't see how anyone could be reluctant to play it for all the chips against a preflop raiser. Or did I completely miss the point of your post?

[Copernicus]

From your wording you may have missed part of my point, and the rest of my point is so poorly put that I don't blame you for missing it.

On the first, its not the number of folders nor the number of callers thats important, its the number of hands dealt to start with (starters+callers). The fact that some have folded and some have called is based on a myriad of individual factors (their cards, their stack size, their position, their read of the raise and so on) which, put together, don't tell you much of anything about the folders or the raisers holding. Thus you are playing your hand against the same universe of hands. (To put it another way, from the initial hands dealt who is more likely to be in the hand...one of the starters that could eventually beat you, or one of the starters likely to lose? To put it still a third way, I don't think you can put the raiser onto any set of hands that gives you BETTER than the 9.5/1 random odds, only worse). Since in your position I don't feel any more comfortable than playing against 10 random hands, my actual odds are short of the winning odds. From an odds point of view, I don't hate the call, as I said...its close enough.

The second part is that IF I'm going to call (somewhat the worst of it on the odds) I am doing it with the explicit intention to check/fold anything except a straight or outside straight draw. While I of course would be reluctant to fold two pair, I would do it, because the ONLY reason I called was for the straight. Compounding the problem is that I'm fighting the chip leader and could be out, and position is bad...I would not have called in the first place.

BTW one thing I forgot to say is I also disagree with your disdain for a minimum raise from one of the chip leaders. In the SNGs Ive played in, at least, anyone except a very short stack's minimum raise gets nearly the same number of folders as a 3x raise. Add to it that this is the chip leader (unless there is some other read on him such as "stealer", "rock" etc) and there is some fear of getting into it with him, I think he gets as many folders as a 3x raise. Particularly holding Ax or a low card drawing hand, while holding out the threat of chip domination, can be very effective in these 1 tablers. You get the same (or nearly the same) folding equity, almost any A board will control the betting. While some advocate always raising the same amount so that you cant be read, I believe in almost never raising the same amount. Not only can't you be read, it doesnt tie you to a number on a steal. If I think or know the players are particularly aware of betting patterns, of course, then I might establish a pattern to leave a particular impression. (Eg earlier today I got caught with a weak hand after a bet of the pot +$50 in late position. A river win with the same pre-flop bet set up the idea that this was my "stealing" raise, which may have contributed to getting 3 callers when I did it again with KK, resulting in putting 2 short ones out of the tournament.

[fnurt]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
To put it still a third way, I don't think you can put the raiser onto any set of hands that gives you BETTER than the 9.5/1 random odds, only worse

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I put the raiser on AA. Heck, let's say he flips over his cards and shows me AA. The odds are 5-1 against my 54o beating him. So even if he has AA, I'm going to win a significantly higher percentage of hands than I would taking 54o up against 9 random hands.

Your method of computing odds based upon the number of people who started the hand is novel but I don't think it's logically sound. Every person who stays in the hand decreases my odds of winning, even if they have 82o. (Of course, they may help my pot odds with their contribution, but that's a different issue.) Conversely, every person who folds increases my odds of winning the hand.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
IF I'm going to call (somewhat the worst of it on the odds) I am doing it with the explicit intention to check/fold anything except a straight or outside straight draw. While I of course would be reluctant to fold two pair, I would do it, because the ONLY reason I called was for the straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have 54o against AA and the flop is Q76, giving me an open-ended straight draw, I am a 2-1 underdog. If I have 54o against AA and the flop is Q54, giving me two pair, I am a 3-1 favorite. So I can't understand why I would stay in with a straight draw but not with 2 pair.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
BTW one thing I forgot to say is I also disagree with your disdain for a minimum raise from one of the chip leaders.

[/ QUOTE ]

My disdain was not for the strength of his likely holding, but for the pot odds he laid for the potential callers, especially the big blind. He gave me odds to call with any reasonable holding (arguably with any 2 cards) and that's just not smart considering he definitely wants everyone to fold.

Ironically I'd much rather my opponent have a real hand here than a piece of junk like A2o, because the whole notion of implied odds relies on me getting paid off if I flop a monster. It's my good fortune that I found the one opponent in the world who would go all-in on this gutshot straight draw, tempered somewhat by my bad fortune in losing the hand /forums/images/icons/smile.gif