Chasing flush draws

[Bigwig]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[Phil Van Sexton]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

[bball904]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

Scuba

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

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

[Bigwig]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[bball904]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

Time will tell if I feel any better.

[Scuba Chuck]

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


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



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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

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

[Scuba Chuck]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to know... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Scuba Chuck]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope so

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

[bball904]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[bball904]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Answer in white.

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

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

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

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


[/ QUOTE ]

I do feel better. No more posting required today.