Re: Aces in deck; never seen this analysis?
 

yea, 88s don't hold up often but when they do you'll win enough to justify taking those chances. but i was wondering if he meant he's pretty sure that he's in a battle against high cards which would mean there are lower cards and the remaining 8s in the deck. i don't recall ever seeing anyone change what their pot odds would be if they figured someone folded one of their needed cards, but i think it is a situation that could come up. seems crazy, eh?

Re: Aces in deck; never seen this analysis?
 

This is something that comes up a lot in omaha high/low. Since a very large percentage of good starting hands contain an ace, you need to be more careful with otherwise decent hands like 23xx if a few solid players have already entered the pot. In hold 'em, I don't think it's nearly important, because a higher percentage of the hands that are playable do not contain an ace.

Re: Aces in deck; never seen this analysis?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In hold 'em, I don't think it's nearly important, because a higher percentage of the hands that are playable do not contain an ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a distinction between playable hands and hands played, depending on the limit. But having said that, the increased random nature of hands in lower limits will probably discount any increase in Ax hands played.

Re: Aces in deck; never seen this analysis?
 

[ QUOTE ]
to put it somewhat matematically...

You need to hit an Ace or King to win and (let's pretend we're on the turn), there are 6 known cards (2 in your hand, 4 on the board) none of which are an ace or king, so you need to hit one of 6 outs to win on the river. 6 outs/ 50 unknown cards = 12% chance to win

Let's say that we somehow knew what the other 9 players had held and thrown away (or still have) and that 1 ace is gone and 1 king is gone so you only have 4 outs, but now there are only 32 unknown cards. 4 outs /32 unknown = 12.5%

So, you can see, even though 2 of your cards were held by otehr players and already dead, you still have about the same chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are multiple errors here.

First, it's not 6/50 unknown, it's 6/46. 52 - the 2 in your hand - the 4 on the board that you can see. That makes it ~13%.

Secondly, you can't show one example of the relationship between normal calculation of outs and knowing other players' cards and say the percentages are the same.. you used the example of one ace and one king being gone, and that made it the same percentage (you said 4/32, which should be 4/28). What happens if you know there's only one king and one ace remaining after knowing the other nine players' cards?

2 outs/28 cards = ~7% chance.

The percentages were only similar in the specific example you gave.


To the OP, I agree with something brought up earlier in the thread, I will play 67s and the like when a lot of people have entered the pot, because I know more than likely a lot of As and Ks are in the other players' hands.. especially at low limits.

Re: Aces in deck; never seen this analysis?
 

In his excellent poker tome The Making of a Poker Player, Matt Matros cites "the bunching factor" as a reason why you should open-raise with more hands in a short-handed game compared to when you are sitting an equal number of seats from the button in a full ring game when it is folded to you.

Re: Aces in deck; never seen this analysis?
 

sorry, forgot whose post it was... but excellent point about shorthanded play and not having to worry about bunching effect (or i guess negative bunching) ... and in general i am curious about abdul (and others) assertion that shorthanded is similar to everyone folding in full table except for card distribution that came. it strikes me there might be other differences too.

Re: Aces in deck; never seen this analysis?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is something that comes up a lot in omaha high/low. Since a very large percentage of good starting hands contain an ace, you need to be more careful with otherwise decent hands like 23xx if a few solid players have already entered the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to say something similar. The only thing I might add is that I think this is much more important in limit O/8 .. I think 23xx becomes much more playable in pot-limit.

Re: Aces in deck; never seen this analysis?
 

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, forgot whose post it was... but excellent point about shorthanded play and not having to worry about bunching effect (or i guess negative bunching) ... and in general i am curious about abdul (and others) assertion that shorthanded is similar to everyone folding in full table except for card distribution that came. it strikes me there might be other differences too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that Sklansky said you have to defend your blinds more often, not because people are raising with worse hands, but because you hit the blinds more often and have more equity tied up. So, that is another difference.

Re: Aces in deck; never seen this analysis?
 

prose, good post...

i am waiting for someone to write a definitive shorthanded article or book... i've read tons of stuff but nothing has satisfied completely.... one thing i have found shorthanded is that people wake up to your aggressiveness pretty fast and then you don't win big pots so rake becomes an issue... need a big bankroll for shorthanded too.

would love to see a shorthanded starting hand chart. although some will say it's pointless, but i think i want to see a basic template based on average conditions (wilson software 5 player advisor is pretty good, and the version i have doesn't adjust to tightness/looseness of table (it is adjusted for # of players).