PDA

View Full Version : Adjusting draw percentages

thomastem
11-19-2003, 04:04 PM
Let's say I have an open-ended straight draw that gives me 8 outs going into the river. When I figure my % to hit I divide 8 by 46 and come up with 17.4%.

My question to everyone is pertaining to the 46 number. Do you ever adjust the 46 to a lessor # ?

Lost Wages
11-19-2003, 07:06 PM
I'm not sure what you are asking. Of course if there hand been an exposed card that was burned then you could make it 45, not that it would make any difference.

Lost Wages

thomastem
11-20-2003, 02:04 AM
I don't see it in any books but if you know of players at your table that play any two suited isn't this an example of an adjustable number?

Lost Wages
11-20-2003, 09:37 AM
I don't see how that would affect the denominator. If you held J/images/graemlins/spade.gifT/images/graemlins/club.gif and the board was 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif8/images/graemlins/heart.gif2/images/graemlins/spade.gif then you might give someone who plays any two suited credit for the flush draw giving you just 6 outs out of 46 unseen cards.

Lost Wages

thomastem
11-20-2003, 01:05 PM
Your right I am brain dead. My 2nd post I forgot that my 1st post was a straight draw rather than a flush draw. Let's start over.

I'm on a flush draw, let's say I have A-10 of heart as a pocket and the board is: Kh-6h-2d-7c.

I see six cards but there are ways to discount more cards. Let's say based on betting thus far and my knowledge of an opponent I know he has top pair. I can now discount 7 cards rather than 6 as I know one of his card is a K but not a heart. Further, 2 individuals that play any 2 suited folded pre-flop. This means they did not have 2 hearts so I can discount 1 card for each opponent (They may or may not have 1 heart but not 2)bringing the total from 7 to 9 cards discounted. Further based on the loose passive table I'm at, the 1 person that folded after the flop did not have 2 hearts or he would have stayed in. Discounting 1 of his 2 cards I'm now up to 10 and I'm dividing by 42 rather than 46.

This is the best scenario that I can give to show there are ways to refine to a more accurate calculation for pot odds. On the other side of the coin, at times, we can cut the amount of outs as well.

Bozeman
11-20-2003, 01:56 PM
The folding preflop of an any two suited doesn't help you. You now know that he didn't have two hearts, but there is still about a 9/45 chance that each of his cards was a heart. Basically, the no heart hands he can't have had ( /images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif, for example), make up for the two heart hands he can't have had.

You will be close to correct if you never adjust the demoninator (and sometimes adjust the numerator).

Craig

Houston Green
11-20-2003, 02:28 PM
Here's what I don't understand about your situation. When are you not going to have pot odds in this scenario?

Considering you are in a loose passive game, like you mentioned, with good reads on four players (sounds like a wonderful dream I had last night), I don't see much of a possibility of not having proper odds.

9 outs with 46 cards left yields 4.11 - 1
9 outs with 42 would make in 3.66 -1

Let's assume you are in a full ring 10-20 game here (loose passive, like you said). You only need \$90 in the pot to have odds in this situation. And \$80 is pretty darn close. Being loose passive, you are bound to have at the very least 4 preflop callers (\$40), 3 flop callers (\$70), and high pair bet on the turn (\$90 in the middle). And I think that this is pretty much a worst case scenario in the situation you are describing.

Not to mention you are forgetting your outs with the other three aces. These could very likely give you the winning hand heads up against top pair. This would mean you only need 2.8 - 1 (about a \$60 pot) to have proper odds. I know this doesn't factor in the possibility of being up against two pair though. ( Can anyone explain to me how to factor this contingency in? )

I could be grossly misunderstanding something here, I am a relative newbie. If I am, please correct me anyone. I could use the feedback.

Houston

thomastem
11-20-2003, 03:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The folding preflop of an any two suited doesn't help you. You now know that he didn't have two hearts, but there is still about a 9/45 chance that each of his cards was a heart. Basically, the no heart hands he can't have had ( /images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif, for example), make up for the two heart hands he can't have had.

You will be close to correct if you never adjust the demoninator (and sometimes adjust the numerator).

Craig

[/ QUOTE ]

My logic is that is a player plays any 2 suited all of the time and he folds pre-flop that I know that 1 of his cards is not of my suit. He can't have 2 hearts the max he can have is 1. Therefore since I know 1 is not a heart I can discount 1 card for this person. Since I don't know if he had 1 heart or 0 hearts I can't discount his second card only 1 of the 2.

thomastem
11-20-2003, 03:36 PM
Houston you are correct and I appologize that this post wasn't clearer. The important thing here is the concept of eliminating more than the 6 cards you see based on reads and logic. I used a hand where it makes no difference in proper strategy BUT there are hands that it will.

Disecting this hand wasn't what I was trying for rather a simple example of using logic to adjust calculations.

Houston Green
11-20-2003, 04:04 PM
I see what you're getting at. And I tend to agree with your logic. The problem I see is in the read. You would have to know with certainty that you are up against top pair (and not say bottom two pair, or a draw hand with a pair in it, or low trips even). However, your logic that follows is sound.

As far as the players that you know will play any two suited and the player who folds post-flop, I feel that this is a much better assumption I believe you are correct and safe removing the 1 card per player from the denominator.

thomastem
11-20-2003, 04:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I see what you're getting at. And I tend to agree with your logic. The problem I see is in the read. You would have to know with certainty that you are up against top pair (and not say bottom two pair, or a draw hand with a pair in it, or low trips even). However, your logic that follows is sound.

As far as the players that you know will play any two suited and the player who folds post-flop, I feel that this is a much better assumption I believe you are correct and safe removing the 1 card per player from the denominator.

[/ QUOTE ]

These particular reads you wouldn't but there are other types of reads that you would. I just wanted to give a example to spark some thought on reads, eliminating cards and adjusting the strength of your hand or pot odds.

I guess my point is this: If you can eliminate more cards than your opponent you gain an advatage over them. Your read and betting decisions become stronger even if it only effects 1 hand in 250 (I believe it more substantial) I would rather have that hand than not.

Bozeman
11-20-2003, 04:54 PM
I understand your logic, but that doesn't make it correct. Try to understand what I wrote.

Part of your problem is you don't know which of his cards isn't a heart. In addition, if one of his cards isn't a heart, the other is more likely to be a heart.

Craig

Houston Green
11-20-2003, 05:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I understand your logic, but that doesn't make it correct. Try to understand what I wrote.

Part of your problem is you don't know which of his cards isn't a heart. In addition, if one of his cards isn't a heart, the other is more likely to be a heart.

Craig

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his logic is correct. He knows a player will play any two suited. That player did not play, so he knows they did not have two hearts. They may have had one, but not two. Therefore, you could safely subtract one from the denominator.

I see it as a sort of opposite to a player that you know will only play AA, KK, or AK. If this player is in the game, you know with certainty (for the purpose of argument) that he is not holding any cards that will interfere with your 789 open ended straight. Therefore, you could decrease the denominator by 2 because you technically have slightly better odds of hitting one of your cards.

The only problem is getting a read that you have that much confidence in. In reality it's usually much more fuzzy.

Houston

Bozeman
11-20-2003, 05:53 PM
Ok, since multiple people have a problem with this, I will show the whole soln.

Suppose there are 45 unseen cards, 9 of which (hearts) make your hand. For simplicity, assume that there are 12 each of the other suits. One of your opps. has two unsuited cards. His hands could be:

sh 12*9
sd 12*12
sc 12*12
hs 9*12
hd 9*12
hc 9*12
ds 12*12
dh 12*9
dc 12*12
cs 12*12
ch 12*9
cd 12*12

total hands 12*12*6+12*9*6=1512
hands with one heart=648
Chance he has a heart=3/7=42.9%
Chance he has no heart=4/7=57.1%

So, your chance of hitting is
3/7*8/43+4/7*9/43=19.9%=8.97/45 essentially the same as your 9/45 chance of hitting if you didn't know this.

Craig

Copernicus
11-20-2003, 06:02 PM
While the logic is right, the uncertainty in a read combined with the miniscule number of hands where a decision could be swayed by a one or two card adjustment it isnt worth thinking about. The vast majority of draws that you are going to have sufficient odds for are in the 4-12 out range, so you are looking at odds differences of 41/4 vs 42/4 and 33/12 or 34/12. Even if you should be calling but dont because you have 33/12 odds but didnt adjust and think you need (but dont have) 34/12 odds, the impact on your EV is irrelevant.