Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

First off, this may be the wrong forum, but I'm not quite sure if another forum is more appropriate than this. As you can see, I am a long-time 2+2er, but rarely post in this particular forum, though I read it regularly.

OK, so let me set the situation up. I'm at Caesar's Indiana, playing 3/6 Limit Hold 'Em, I play there once a month or so.

I'm on the button, six players are dealt cards. We just went from a full ten to six, as two are sitting out and two left the table.

UTG calls, he is a somewhat loose, but tricky player. I had been playing with him for about two hours. He liked to take flops, but had a check-raise semi-bluff on the turn in his arsenal, along with being rather agressive. He also liked to check-raise the river, when a scare card would come. However, he also seemed to do this when the scare card helped his opponent, instead of hurt him.

Second player also limps. This is a guy who played about every flop. He had been at the table for a couple hours also. He claimed to be a stud player, playing hold 'em for the first time and after observing his play, I do believe him. Not a bad player, but took too many flops. Also had a huge "Strong when Weak" tell in that he'd forcefully bet when weak. Liked to play to the river, no matter what.

Third player, very tight, but weak. I had played next to him for over three hours and he'd raised three times in those three hours, twice with AA and once with KK. I had been very observant of him and vowed to stay out of hands with him when he raised.

However, I look down and see pocket sevens. Normally I'd fold this hand, but I decided to call and let me explain why. Here's where i'm wondering if my thinking is flawed and did my results skew my reality. I knew when calling the raiser he had an overpair and most likely AA or KK. In fact, I discounted any other hand except QQ as I'd never seen him table that. He had limped in the previous 3 hours with JJ twice, AK suited or not on at least 4 occasions and AQ three tiimes.

My reason for calling is that I knew the SB and BB would call the raise as they had done so in those situations before with any two cards as far as I could tell. Further, I knew that the two limpers would also call. I also knew that at worst I may face a bet and a raise by the time it got to me on the flop (either UTG or +1 may bet if the flop hits them and pre-flop raiser would raise). I also thought that the SB and BB would go to the turn no matter what, along with everyone else.

So, my thinking was if I could catch a third 7 by the turn, there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-$70 in the pot and I would have possibly invested $12 to get there, two small bets pre-flop and flop. Additionally, I knew that if this pot got to the river, it would be huge. As I stated, at least 18, small bets by the turn or 9 big bets. Then, probably at least another 4 big bets on turn and river each, if not more. So, I was thinking the pot would be at least $100, if not more.

So, even though I knew I was behind, I figured I was getting around 10-1 on my money to catch a set by the turn and my implied odds pre-flop were huge...as I am 8-1 or so to flop a set. Is this thiking flawed?

Results in white as follows:

<font color="white"> </font> Flop came 7s, 6d, 9d. I had 7c,7d. UTG bets out, initial raise raises. Normally I'd raise here, but I felt a turn raise would be better. The two blinds bail and two limpers, call. Turn is a 3h. Initial raiser bets, I raise, UTG calls. River is the 6c. Initial raiser bets, I raise, UTG as he has done at least 5 times already fiddles with his chips, stares both me and initial better down, counts off a raise, smiles and raies. Initial raiser calls. I shrug my shoulders and raise. UTG FOLDS.. Can you believe that? Anyway, initial raiser calls with AA and I scoop a huge pot. <font color="white"> </font>

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

I'm not quite sure of your reasoning here. You wouldn't go heads up with 7 7 against an assumed Q Q or better. Okay, four other people in the pot help the situation in the sense that you have better than one chance in six of beating the Q Q. The trouble is, some of those hands may beat both of you. Even someone betting on nothing can catch something on the board.

I also see your point that you can fold quick if you don't get a 7 on the flop; and that you might win big if you do. But you could also lose big. After the flop, suppose someone held two diamonds? Or an 8? Even a high-card/9 could be trouble for you. The 3H makes things look better and, of course, the river 6 clinches it. But you could have lost big just looking at the flop. And this was among the best flops for you, with only two cards that improved your hand.

I think this is losing poker in the long run.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

If you feel condident this will not be raised behind you preflop I think it is fine.

If you don't hit your set or an OESD this is an easy hand to get away from.
Only possible trouble is your position relative to the uber-tight preflop raiser.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure of your reasoning here. You wouldn't go heads up with 7 7 against an assumed Q Q or better. Okay, four other people in the pot help the situation in the sense that you have better than one chance in six of beating the Q Q. The trouble is, some of those hands may beat both of you. Even someone betting on nothing can catch something on the board.

I also see your point that you can fold quick if you don't get a 7 on the flop; and that you might win big if you do. But you could also lose big. After the flop, suppose someone held two diamonds? Or an 8? Even a high-card/9 could be trouble for you. The 3H makes things look better and, of course, the river 6 clinches it. But you could have lost big just looking at the flop. And this was among the best flops for you, with only two cards that improved your hand.

I think this is losing poker in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aaron, I appreciate your advice, but first of all, you have 60 posts, which isn't a big deal. But, you really didn't explain yourself well at all.

It's not like I make this particular play all the time. In fact, I think this is the first time I've ever called a raise with an underpair KNOWING the raiser had an overpair. Nor do I think I ever would again. However, my original question was as I STATED, do the implied odds based on the table condition make the play feasible as this was the reason for my call of the raise.

It wasn't HU, so I don't even know why you would say that.


BTW, "losing poker" as you explained it sounds to me like being afraid of what can beat you, rather than looking at what you can win. I already knew I was behind, I was looking at the money I could win.

If someone offered you 10-1 on the fact a six-sided die might roll a 6 on one roll, shouldn't you take it? Sure, it could turn up 1,2,3,4 or 5, but the odds are better than the bet and you should take it(assuming you know the die is fair).

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you feel condident this will not be raised behind you preflop I think it is fine.

If you don't hit your set or an OESD this is an easy hand to get away from.
Only possible trouble is your position relative to the uber-tight preflop raiser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was confident (but certainly not sure) that there would be no raise behind me. The SB had not raised a pot in the hour he'd sat there. The other player was a local rock that I'd played with two other times and I was pretty sure he wouldn't raise it...very weak-tight.

Also, I felt good about my position, I was on the button. Additionally, I liked having the uber-tight player on my right who could bet my hand for me and I could lure in the two early limpers if I hit my set for big bets on the turn and river.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

Overall, I like the play a lot, because if you hit your set on the flop, you've got two turbo-lemmings sitting across from you who will build an enormous pot.

But Aaron's post has the nub of an interesting insight. Even with this ideal flop, you're not guaranteed to win the pot. Both the overpairs can chase two-outers for a set, and maybe one of them can chase a runner/runner diamond flush.

I assigned suits arbitrarily on twodimes.net, and you come out with a 77% chance of winning the whole thing after that flop if there's one guy with a faint shot at a flush. Say QQ includes the diamond queen. Then he's 13% and AA no diamonds is 10%.

So you're in great shape, but it's not quite 100%. Even if there's no runner/runner flush draw for either of the overpairs, your win percentage stays a whisker below 80%.

You had no way of knowing that you'd be up against both AA and QQ. Your odds would improve if there was only one overpair. Yet you want more than one opponent after the flop, and even a weaker continuing hand would have had an out or two. So your opening calculations need to be adjusted for the risk that you hit your set and someone else still musters up a better hand by the time the river comes. If that happens, I don't think you're getting away from the hand.

I think the play still works. But it's a much tighter calculation.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I like the play a lot, because if you hit your set on the flop, you've got two turbo-lemmings sitting across from you who will build an enormous pot.

But Aaron's post has the nub of an interesting insight. Even with this ideal flop, you're not guaranteed to win the pot. Both the overpairs can chase two-outers for a set, and maybe one of them can chase a runner/runner diamond flush.

I assigned suits arbitrarily on twodimes.net, and you come out with a 77% chance of winning the whole thing after that flop if there's one guy with a faint shot at a flush. Say QQ includes the diamond queen. Then he's 13% and AA no diamonds is 10%.

So you're in great shape, but it's not quite 100%. Even if there's no runner/runner flush draw for either of the overpairs, your win percentage stays a whisker below 80%.

You had no way of knowing that you'd be up against both AA and QQ. Your odds would improve if there was only one overpair. Yet you want more than one opponent after the flop, and even a weaker continuing hand would have had an out or two. So your opening calculations need to be adjusted for the risk that you hit your set and someone else still musters up a better hand by the time the river comes. If that happens, I don't think you're getting away from the hand.

I think the play still works. But it's a much tighter calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post and you are right that I did not take into account the fact that I could hit my set and still lose if the hand went to the river. But, I think arbitrarily assigning hands and cards to players in the game I was in or in general is not an exact science.

I also don't know where you got QQ at. I only saw one other hand at the river and that was the pre-flop raisers AA, I don't think anyone had QQ that I'm aware of.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

Thanks. I read the 7th paragraph of your original post too fast and conjured up a QQ hand out of it -- reading more slowly now I see you were actually making a different point.

Anyway, glad the hand worked out. They'll be muttering about your crazy/smart play for years.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

The biggest problem with your hand is that even if you flop a set, there are 2 outs for you opponent and, more importantly, 8 scare cards out there. You figure your opponent for AA, KK, or QQ... now what do you do when you flop a set and the flop or turn puts an ace, king, or queen on the board? For all you know, he just picked up a higher set... which could cause you to make an incorrect fold, or even worse, if he DID pick up the higher set and you think he's simply betting the overpair, you could lose a serious stack of chips.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with your hand is that even if you flop a set, there are 2 outs for you opponent and, more importantly, 8 scare cards out there. You figure your opponent for AA, KK, or QQ... now what do you do when you flop a set and the flop or turn puts an ace, king, or queen on the board? For all you know, he just picked up a higher set... which could cause you to make an incorrect fold, or even worse, if he DID pick up the higher set and you think he's simply betting the overpair, you could lose a serious stack of chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the question isn't about the play of the hand after the flop, or anything else that happened from the flop on. If I wanted that advice, I'd post it in the SS forum....it is soley the question of whether or not calling with 77 on the button in a SHORT-HANDED pot with what will based on table conditions almost certainly have 8-10 big bets in it by the turn, and probably at least 15 or more when the hand is over.

BTW, I would never incorrectly fold a set if an A or K came in this scenario, at worst I'd check-call it down, there is too much money in the pot to fold.

Again, you are worried about things that could happen to cause you to lose the hand, not win a lot of chips.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

You have plenty of implied odds to call the raise PF.
You want 5+ seeing the flop if you can get it, but
with two loosies likely to go to the river, you do
not need that much.

Looking for a set on the turn (had you not flopped
one) would be borderline at best, if you could see
the turn for one bet.

Like how you played the hand otherwise, great!

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with your hand is that even if you flop a set, there are 2 outs for you opponent and, more importantly, 8 scare cards out there. You figure your opponent for AA, KK, or QQ... now what do you do when you flop a set and the flop or turn puts an ace, king, or queen on the board? For all you know, he just picked up a higher set... which could cause you to make an incorrect fold, or even worse, if he DID pick up the higher set and you think he's simply betting the overpair, you could lose a serious stack of chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually do think this is a valid point because the threat of a king or ace hitting with your 7 on the flop will seriously affect the confidence with which you try to build the pot post flop. I don't have a calculator in front of me so I can't figure out the odds, but an ace or king will hit the flop with that 7 a significant amount of times. For that matter, since he probably won't give up his hand, you should consider how often an ace or king will hit the board. This is important to think about when considering the implied odds.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with your hand is that even if you flop a set, there are 2 outs for you opponent and, more importantly, 8 scare cards out there. You figure your opponent for AA, KK, or QQ... now what do you do when you flop a set and the flop or turn puts an ace, king, or queen on the board? For all you know, he just picked up a higher set... which could cause you to make an incorrect fold, or even worse, if he DID pick up the higher set and you think he's simply betting the overpair, you could lose a serious stack of chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually do think this is a valid point because the threat of a king or ace hitting with your 7 on the flop will seriously affect the confidence with which you try to build the pot post flop. I don't have a calculator in front of me so I can't figure out the odds, but an ace or king will hit the flop with that 7 a significant amount of times. For that matter, since he probably won't give up his hand, you should consider how often an ace or king will hit the board. This is important to think about when considering the implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the flaw in your thinking is that an A or a K will hit the flop when it is UNKNOWN where 2 of those 8 cards are...I knew where two were. Additionally, I could say with about 75% certainty that pre-flop one of the additional A's or K's were gone as the two limpers liked to play hands with any one big card.

It just seems to me that you are all more worried about him hitting a two outer ONCE I hit my set and do you understand what the odds of set over set are? I mean that to me should factor in very little in my decision-making.

If I hit my set on the flop, I'm probably gonna win the hand at least 8, if not 9 times out of ten and certainly losing to a higher set would have been the last of my concerns (as opposed to a straight or flush).

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

Ya, you're right. It doesn't make too much of a difference. But it is a small factor in your implied odds decision. I'm not saying it should swing your decision; I like the play. It's just that what the other guy brought up has some validity preflop, rather than just how you play the hand postflop. Nice hand by the way.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Third player, very tight, but weak. I had played next to him for over three hours and he'd raised three times in those three hours, twice with AA and once with KK. I had been very observant of him and vowed to stay out of hands with him when he raised... I knew when calling the raiser he had an overpair and most likely AA or KK. In fact, I discounted any other hand except QQ as I'd never seen him table that. He had limped in the previous 3 hours with JJ twice, AK suited or not on at least 4 occasions and AQ three tiimes.

[/ QUOTE ]
How many hands are you getting in per hour? It's pretty rare to get so many big hands and show them down. I don't think you can have such an accurate read on the player. Maybe the alcohol just kicked in, maybe he decided AQ is worth raising in this position/shorthanded, maybe he has KQ and saw that UTG+1 has KJ.

You don't know that the blinds will not reraise. They might have AA, and they might reraise with less, even if you think the raiser is so tight that KK should be played for set value.

If you flop a 7, you won't always get action. How much do you think you'll get if the tight player has QQ, and the flop is AK7?

If you flop a 7, you won't always win. You might end up behind a higher set. You might lose to a flush or straight. You may get counterfeited, e.g., flop 887, turn 8.

Nevertheless. I think it is clear that you had enough implied odds to call.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

Hi,

I don't have much to say. Tho, it seems to me that you want the community to say to you: Wow man, your reading of the play is ggreeeattt! If you are sure of a play you made, don't ask questions about it.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, "losing poker" as you explained it sounds to me like being afraid of what can beat you, rather than looking at what you can win. I already knew I was behind, I was looking at the money I could win.

If someone offered you 10-1 on the fact a six-sided die might roll a 6 on one roll, shouldn't you take it? Sure, it could turn up 1,2,3,4 or 5, but the odds are better than the bet and you should take it(assuming you know the die is fair).

[/ QUOTE ]
No, by "losing poker" I meant that if you applied the same reasoning in many hands, you would lose more than you would win. It's not quite the same thing as implied pot odds, because that only considers the one hand. A play can have a negative expected value for the one hand, but earn it back later in its effect on your opponents. The traditional bluff is an example of that, although some theorists like Sklansky say even a bluff should have a positive expected value for the hand.

Yes, I would take 10-1 on a fair die coming up 6. I didn't enumerate the ways you could lose to suggest you fold, I meant it to be a rough calculation of implied pot odds. By calling you could lose small (fold after the flop), win big (hit the flop and rake in a big pot) or lose big (hit the flop and still lose). I agree with you that you had a decent probability of a big win, and that made up for the larger probability of a small loss. My point was the possibility of a big loss, in my opinion, tips the scales against this play. You got a flop among the best possible for you, and still had only a moderate positive expectation. I would have called knowing I would get this flop, but considering all the flops that you would fold, I think the implied pot odds were against you.

But it's not an exact science, you could well be right. After all, you were at the table and I wasn't. You know the players and the game. You might be a much better poker player who can make money in situations I can't. That would make your implied pot odds better than mine in this situation.

I suspect from your post that you like to play situations with lots of unknowns. I respect that. Lots of otherwise good players shy away from these, so there's money to be made. I know good players who don't mind getting in with the odds a little against them if there are lots of possibilities, figuring that in a wide-open situation, their playing skills will make up the deficit.

I don't think I'm afraid of such situations, although you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't seek them out either. I prefer to seek advantage in other ways.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

And you can take that to the bank.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

I don't have much to say. Tho, it seems to me that you want the community to say to you: Wow man, your reading of the play is ggreeeattt! If you are sure of a play you made, don't ask questions about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be right...I probably am looking for affirmation of the play. But the reason is b/c I'm not sure if my thought process is accurate and I'm trying to grow as a player, not to just have 20 or so people I don't know from Adam pat me on the back and say good job mate!

Anyway, I have learned a few things and there have been some great points in this thread.

But, I also am a little curious as it seems most of the negative feedback has been about ways I could have lost the hand as opposed to playing a hand with appeared to me to have a positive ROI.

I mean are these the same posters that say, well you shouldn't raise with AA or AK on the button if everyone else limps in b/c you COULD lose the hand, so why invest the extra money?

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, "losing poker" as you explained it sounds to me like being afraid of what can beat you, rather than looking at what you can win. I already knew I was behind, I was looking at the money I could win.

If someone offered you 10-1 on the fact a six-sided die might roll a 6 on one roll, shouldn't you take it? Sure, it could turn up 1,2,3,4 or 5, but the odds are better than the bet and you should take it(assuming you know the die is fair).

[/ QUOTE ]
No, by "losing poker" I meant that if you applied the same reasoning in many hands, you would lose more than you would win. It's not quite the same thing as implied pot odds, because that only considers the one hand. A play can have a negative expected value for the one hand, but earn it back later in its effect on your opponents. The traditional bluff is an example of that, although some theorists like Sklansky say even a bluff should have a positive expected value for the hand.

Yes, I would take 10-1 on a fair die coming up 6. I didn't enumerate the ways you could lose to suggest you fold, I meant it to be a rough calculation of implied pot odds. By calling you could lose small (fold after the flop), win big (hit the flop and rake in a big pot) or lose big (hit the flop and still lose). I agree with you that you had a decent probability of a big win, and that made up for the larger probability of a small loss. My point was the possibility of a big loss, in my opinion, tips the scales against this play. You got a flop among the best possible for you, and still had only a moderate positive expectation. I would have called knowing I would get this flop, but considering all the flops that you would fold, I think the implied pot odds were against you.

But it's not an exact science, you could well be right. After all, you were at the table and I wasn't. You know the players and the game. You might be a much better poker player who can make money in situations I can't. That would make your implied pot odds better than mine in this situation.

I suspect from your post that you like to play situations with lots of unknowns. I respect that. Lots of otherwise good players shy away from these, so there's money to be made. I know good players who don't mind getting in with the odds a little against them if there are lots of possibilities, figuring that in a wide-open situation, their playing skills will make up the deficit.

I don't think I'm afraid of such situations, although you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't seek them out either. I prefer to seek advantage in other ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite understand two things. Number one, you stated that, "You like to play in situations with lots of unknowns." What limit do you normally play? I don't think you've played a lot of low limit games b/c you should realize that the amount of available information compared to the amount of unavailable information is widely slanted to the unavailable side. I mean seeing guys regularly limp, re-raise with hands such as 9,7 suited and 10,7 offsuit isn't exactly something that allows you to put a guy on that hand.

I also don't see how you could say that with the flop I did get that I only had a moderate Positive Expectation. I think with that flop, regardless of the game conditions, but certainly this one the expectation of the hand at that point was the highest of almost any hand I'd played all night. At the moment the flop was dealt, I'm speaking. I mean what better could you get for EV when you flop a set with a weak tight calling station on your right whose cards you practically know, to a LAG UTG and a loose-weak limper in EP. Sure, the flop came with two diamonds. But you have to remember for them to catch a flush, they had to have been playing two diamonds (or possibly one with runner, runner turn and river) in the first place, which is possible, but certainly not likely given all the hand combinations that are available.

I don't normally seek out situations where I know I'm putting in the money the pot already behind, but I will say that identifying situations where there are chips to be won in a hand where I have Position and a high likeliehood of winning not only the hand, but a lot of chips if my hand hits, then you can guarantee I'm going to take advantage of that.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with your hand is that even if you flop a set, there are 2 outs for you opponent and, more importantly, 8 scare cards out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize this statement combines both fore-sight and hind-sight analysis? You may want to seperate the 2 next time.

b

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

Depending on what the other players hold, you have about a 40% to 50% of winning the hand after seeing the flop, based on your analysis, and assuming no one started with a pair of 9's or 8 10. The flop makes the strong hand (A A, K K or Q Q) weak, but it's loaded with straight and flush possibilities. I'd feel better if the other four players were tight and could be expected to have high cards, pairs or suited connectors.

Say you have a 50% chance of winning, which I think is about the maximum reasonable figure. If you get beat, it's to a very good hand, someone who is likely to make it as expensive as possible for you. If you win, it's probably because there are no straight or flush hands, or other threes. How much money can you eke out of that?

And this is all assuming your not already almost beat. If there's a pair of 9's, an 8 10 and suited diamonds, your chance of winning is only 5% and it could be a very big pot.

I'm not saying it's a bad situation, your expectation is clearly positive. I'm just saying you got a great flop but you don't have a great expected value.

By situations with lots of unknowns, I meant lots of people in the pot who could be going for a lot of different kinds of hands. It's the kind of situation that makes implied pot odds almost meaningless. Some players love the anarchy, some hate it. After the flop, there's a good chance that the winner of this hand will be determined by the river card.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

So you want to call a raise cold figuring to play 77 for two bets getting 5:1 but surely up against a big pair whose going to pay you off...

Rule of thumb is you need 10:1 to call including implied odds. Since you are getting 5:1 PF you need another 5:1 implied post-flop. This means that you need to be sure the opponents will average investing 5 more BB in the pot when you flop a set.

Lets see. Flop is golden T72. AA bets, you raise, idiot calls cold, tight player calls. They both call the turn. AA pays you off. That's your 5BB. If you think you can routinely do better than that then call, otherwise fold.

I'd say you need to be confident in the determination of the loose players before you can call.

Be advised this play is much better if the raiser wasn't on your right, since you want loose calls before you raise. IN this spot you raise and face the loose folks with a double bet, which is definately not to your advantage.

Lets get rid of this idea of making 3 7s "by the turn". No, you need to FLOP 3-7s. If you figure to call a single flop bet then it costs 3sb to call and that screws up your implied odd royally.

- Louie

Not a very good play
 

I don't think I like this play very much at all, mainly because its limit poker. You don't get to punish your opponents enough when you DO make your hand to make it worthwhile to go into the hand knowing you're a huge underdog. Also, you stated that the two players that did call were relatively loose and tricky players that loved to play any two cards and see flops down to the turn at the very least. Against those players, a set of 7's is still a great hand, but hardly dominating. They could be playing 56s 10Js AQs, literally anything. So when your 7 hits, they could easily have a straight draw or a flush draw that you could be paying off big time, even if youre way ahead until the river. Set vs overpair is much more powerful in NL, when you can isolate the pot to 1-2 opponents, so less draws are avaliable and you can really punish them.

Now many people mentioned set vs overset, and that is indeed a big problem for you. You discounted them as playing scared poker, but you are in fact playing unsafe poker. Say the flop comes Q74. UTG bets out, initial raises, you play it the same way. Now the turn is a K. He bets out now you go for the raise, but he reraises, a normal move for AA or KK, now what do you do? If you just call, you just lost all that implied odds you were talking about. River you check-call and might win the pot from AA, but you lost a lot of your implied odds. The problem is with 2 tricky players with any two cards, and one guy with an overpair, you're in hot water. ANY flop with a combination of AKQ before the turn cripples your implied odds as you can no longer cap raising safely. ANY flop that hits you will most likely hit a draw for one of the tricky players. So your percentage to win the pot is never really high to begin with, and theres way too many opponents for you to make this a profitable play in the long run.

You seemed to be looking for people to tell you what a great play this was, but I'd say its a marginal play at best. I would also definitely call in this spot as you would, but only because I'm an action player and I'll take any flop that is very slightly +EV or -EV out of sheer boredom.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

Stew, It is the creative player that makes it big and not the rote player:
"But the difference between the stereotypical grinder and the romantic uber-poker-player is creativity and courage."

http://cardsspeak.servebeer.com/arch...he_matrix.html

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't HU, so I don't even know why you would say that.

[/ QUOTE ]I apologize, I wasn't clear. I know it wasn't heads up. My point was that the other four callers don't make the situation better, so if you wouldn't do it heads up, you shouldn't do it at all.

The key is these situations is whether things depend on you making a hand or one of your opponents making his hand. If you have 1 chance in 4 of beating each of five other players because you're drawing to an Ace-high flush, then you have almost 1 chance in 4 of beating all of them, because you'll either hit your flush and beat everyone, or miss it and beat no one. If everyone else is playing high cards, you can tell if there are full house threats. Moreover, you have a good chance of more than one of them putting large amounts in the pot, because one or more could have very strong hands and still lose to you.

But if the outcome depends on whether the other players make their hands, your odds of winning are much worse than 1 in 4, because each of them independently can beat you. Playing 7 7 against A A and four people going for straights, flushes or higher threes is a dubious proposition. Not just because your chance of winning is low, but because you only win if no one makes much of a hand, and then you don't get much money. If you lose, you lose to a very good hand that can afford to raise away. And with everyone going for something different, you're likely to face exactly one opponent, the worst situation for you.

Of course, you got your third 7, then a full house and lots of people stayed in, presumbly chasing threes, straights and flushes. But that won't happen very often.

The way I see it, you're going to fold on the flop about five times out of six. You need to pick up a 7, and if you see an A, K or Q, the tight player might have three of those. If he doesn't, someone else might. You say they'll play anything, but that doesn't mean they don't have high cards. Even if no one has threes, there could be enough high cards out there that lots of people are drawing to them. If you see two cards above the 7, you may fold as well, at least you can't afford to bet aggressively.

I know that's not a complete analysis, you could get 4, 5 and 6 of clubs, for example, but on the other hand a three-flush in another suit or triple connectors might make you nervous.

Once you hit your 1 in 6 shot, you've got a classic case of a favorite hand with about an even shot of ending up second-best. If you're second-best, you're going against someone who can raise with confidence; whereas you can't raise with confidence until you hit your full house and/or the board rules out straights, flushes and higher threes.

The only way this play makes sense to me is that you're so confident of your ability to steer through all these possibilties, sensing when someone has you beat and inducing calls when you have them beat, that you'd want to be in almost any pot with almost any cards.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

aaron, regardless of the fact that you only have 78 posts I think your analysis is right on. Frankly, anyone who begins a post rebuking a claim by noting how many posts someone else has is being defensive... but that is not the real issue at hand.

I am not totally against playing this hand, but I think that it is at best a pretty break-even proposition in the long run. How would you play if the board came all unders? would you fold then? How would you plaay if you hit an inside straight draw and were faced with one bet in a big pot (you probably should call given your opponents even though you are behind)!

In a multi-way pot if you are raised you lose a lot of your implied odds when facing the decision to call two bets cold, although the fact that multiple players are in the hand does in fact mitigate this to a degree. What I know is that a pair of sevens is a very vulnerable hand against 4 opponents. Even when you hit your flop you are often faced with difficult situations. A set is not a guaranteed win. In fact, the flop you saw was not ideal! An ideal flop would not put a straight on the board... or any over cards... but with 77 that is not possible!!! you either will have straight possibilities or over cards present (and overcards mean at least the possibility of over pairs). I am not advocating playing scared. I play aggressively when I make a hand even when the board is scary to get a feel for where my opponents are, but I do not like playing 77 for a raise against a field of opponents, one of whom you know has a big pocket pair.

-K_squared

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
aaron, regardless of the fact that you only have 78 posts I think your analysis is right on. Frankly, anyone who begins a post rebuking a claim by noting how many posts someone else has is being defensive... but that is not the real issue at hand.

I am not totally against playing this hand, but I think that it is at best a pretty break-even proposition in the long run. How would you play if the board came all unders? would you fold then? How would you plaay if you hit an inside straight draw and were faced with one bet in a big pot (you probably should call given your opponents even though you are behind)!

In a multi-way pot if you are raised you lose a lot of your implied odds when facing the decision to call two bets cold, although the fact that multiple players are in the hand does in fact mitigate this to a degree. What I know is that a pair of sevens is a very vulnerable hand against 4 opponents. Even when you hit your flop you are often faced with difficult situations. A set is not a guaranteed win. In fact, the flop you saw was not ideal! An ideal flop would not put a straight on the board... or any over cards... but with 77 that is not possible!!! you either will have straight possibilities or over cards present (and overcards mean at least the possibility of over pairs). I am not advocating playing scared. I play aggressively when I make a hand even when the board is scary to get a feel for where my opponents are, but I do not like playing 77 for a raise against a field of opponents, one of whom you know has a big pocket pair.

-K_squared

[/ QUOTE ]


You have made probably the best argument against playing the hand thus far and I certainly agree with your analysis and you make excellent points.

I certainly agree that playing this hand in this situation (on the button against a known raiser with an overpair) is a losing proposition. However, I felt that knowing all six players were going to take the flop certainly made the hand turn into a potential EV situation and the apparent weakenesses of teh two limpers that could be exploited made it a clear easy play in my opinion.

Certainly it's not something that I always sit back and think...OK two players limped, one player raised, oh I've got pocket sevens, I'd better call b/c I have odds to do so.

There's much more to it than that.

I do also want to make not of one error in your post, I lose absolutely ZERO IMPLIED odds when faced with a raise. Pot odds, yes, break-even pot odds, also YES. Pot Equity certainly decreases knowing there is an overpair out there. But, implied odds in my opinion increased as I saw the potential for a large pot, which is part of the reason I actually played the hand.

I clearly stated I had intended to see the hand to the turn for 3 small bets, possibly four, almost regardless of what came. Although, I think with the same flop texture not containing a seven, I would have clearly folded to the raise and re-raise. If unders had come, I would have also probably folded b/c there are only the 2,3,4,5,6 and any combo of three of those makes a straight possible with an Ace, so I probably would have gotten out of that too. But, then again, maybe the flop gets checked with a board like that, or at the very least it's one bet

One final thing, everyone keeps harping on set over set and I understand that's possible, but again the likeliehood of that occuring are so insignifigant, that it's negligible in my opinion. And, even if a flop came all one suit or 3 to a straight, I.E, 7,8,j or whatever. With a flopped set, I'm 2 - 1 to make a full house on the river.

Re: Not a very good play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I like this play very much at all, mainly because its limit poker. You don't get to punish your opponents enough when you DO make your hand to make it worthwhile to go into the hand knowing you're a huge underdog. Also, you stated that the two players that did call were relatively loose and tricky players that loved to play any two cards and see flops down to the turn at the very least. Against those players, a set of 7's is still a great hand, but hardly dominating. They could be playing 56s 10Js AQs, literally anything. So when your 7 hits, they could easily have a straight draw or a flush draw that you could be paying off big time, even if youre way ahead until the river. Set vs overpair is much more powerful in NL, when you can isolate the pot to 1-2 opponents, so less draws are avaliable and you can really punish them.

Now many people mentioned set vs overset, and that is indeed a big problem for you. You discounted them as playing scared poker, but you are in fact playing unsafe poker. Say the flop comes Q74. UTG bets out, initial raises, you play it the same way. Now the turn is a K. He bets out now you go for the raise, but he reraises, a normal move for AA or KK, now what do you do? If you just call, you just lost all that implied odds you were talking about. River you check-call and might win the pot from AA, but you lost a lot of your implied odds. The problem is with 2 tricky players with any two cards, and one guy with an overpair, you're in hot water. ANY flop with a combination of AKQ before the turn cripples your implied odds as you can no longer cap raising safely. ANY flop that hits you will most likely hit a draw for one of the tricky players. So your percentage to win the pot is never really high to begin with, and theres way too many opponents for you to make this a profitable play in the long run.

You seemed to be looking for people to tell you what a great play this was, but I'd say its a marginal play at best. I would also definitely call in this spot as you would, but only because I'm an action player and I'll take any flop that is very slightly +EV or -EV out of sheer boredom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the likliehood of set over set is very insigifigant to me.

Also, I never said anything about two tricky players. I said one player was tricky, but I should have been more clear in that he has FPS and not that he's a GOOD tricky player.

The initial pre-flop raise was certainly anything but tricky.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

hell no you didn't do the wrong thing.

big priority in poker: taking a chance and winning a big pot.

congrats on a good hand. [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

You played it exactly right. This is a standard bread and butter play at low limit holdem, in fact if you don't make plays like this you won't win. Playing like a rock at a typical loose low limit table is a recipe for slow grinding losses. My only comment is that you probably want to dump it on the flop if you miss your set. Your implied odds start getting very thin at that point.

Now, if you were playing 20-40 with a bunch of rocks, it's an easy fold. I think most of your advisors on this thread don't understand the correct strategies for small stakes hold'em.

Re: Not a very good play
 

[ QUOTE ]

Again, the likliehood of set over set is very insigifigant to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

And rightly so.

While that situation does come up from time to time, it's hardly a good enough reason to stay out of a pot in which you hope to flop a set.

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

I think few people replying here are playing a bit scared. Of course ugly things can happen when you flop your set, in this particular case, if our Hero wasn't already behind, he loses the pot about 50% to an OESD, a flush draw and a higher pocket chasing his set, if all that is simultaneously out there. But heck, why do you care? That would be 3 players paying you off for your coinflip win, I love it.

Or maybe a straight is already made. You still have about 1:2 odds to hit full house and take it down and enough players int the pot to make it +EV. Barring a higher set, these are about the worst thing that can happen to you, and all bring you money. And as it was already pointed out, a set over a set is such a rare occurence, it doesn't really matter.

Point being, a set has huge equity on just about any flop, and regardless of what people are drawing to, you are going to win a lot more than your 'fair' share. In most cases, you'll have everyone drawing very slim anyway.

I agree with Stew's play. He has the benefit of a good read and great position. The raiser will be betting into you on the flop and on the turn and most probably he'll pay you at least 3BBs to see the showdown. Given the pot size on the flop, you only need him to get at least even on your money. All is good.

-pix

Re: Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds
 

Let me elaborate on my logic since you were asking about implied odds.

You will hit your set on the flop about 1/8 of the time. When you do, your worst case victory scenario is the other players fold the flop to Villain, you check raise the turn, and Villian calls you down. That's risking 2 small bets preflop to win 15 small bets total, so marginally -EV.

Well that's because it's your worst case scenario, and it's what is more likely to happen in a tighter, higher limit game. At small stakes you can count on at least two players calling the flop ("it's a big pot"), and one calling the turn ("it's an even bigger pot"), and inexplicably folding the river ("I didn't have nothing anyways"). So in reality you are risking 2 SB to win 21 SB, which is +EV.

And I'm assuming that one of the lemmings didn't hit the flop for top pair or two pair, which mean's he reraising villain on the flop. Pot size 25 SB + easy.

If you only had a single limper before the raiser, it's probably a fold.

Villain only has two outs four times to make a higher set (since you took one of the flop cards to make your set). So you have a one in six chance of playing against a higher set (actually less, he might fold to crazy action if it gets to three way raising).

But you have a strong read on his hand, he has no clue to yours, so you can save bets when beat. If he hits an A or K on the river, for example and bets into you, you are probably calling. And you have a 1/15 chance of hitting quads when he hits top set, and boy will you get paid off then.

The key point is that if you have many callers who will call too much, and for two long, they are putting money in the pot at a huge disadvantage to you. That extra "almost dead" money is what provides you your implied odds to take the long shot to hit your set.

If your table doesn't meet this criteria, or you don't have enough limpers on a hand, then fold. And read SSH by Ed Miller, it explains all of this in depth.

Re: Not a very good play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[T]he likelihood of set over set is very insignificant to me.
***
I could say with about 75% certainty that pre-flop one of the additional A's or K's were gone as the two limpers liked to play hands with any one big card.
***
I would never incorrectly fold a set if an A or K came in this scenario, at worst I'd check-call it down, there is too much money in the pot to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to isolate this set-over-set situation and see if my analysis of it is valid.

I'll start with your assessment that exactly one of the A/K's is already spoken for, so that there are only five of them available for the flop. So, two chances (given that you flop your set) out of 47 cards (your pair, the other pair, the single A/K are known) to flop one of those five cards. That is, 1 - (42/47*41/46) = 20.35% chance that an A or K will accompany your seven on the flop.

So pre-flop, you have a 1-in-5 chance that you will face a post-flop scenario in which it's even money that your opponent has a higher set.

Viewed from the pre-flop perspective, that's a 1-in-10 chance of facing a higher set. But that's a little misleading, since the post-flop betting posture on which your your tactic depends will be significantly altered by the presence of that A or K.

Now, running from this one aspect of the hand would be playing scared. However, the significant (1-in-5) chance of ending up in a post-flop situation where it's a coin toss whether or not your opponent has a higher set, I think would have to be factored into your implied odds.

Add to that the possibility of QQ, which you acknowledged above, and the set-over-set scenario looms even larger. Which, I admit, may still not be determinitive, depending the other factors affecting implied odds.

Re: Not a very good play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[T]he likelihood of set over set is very insignificant to me.
***
I could say with about 75% certainty that pre-flop one of the additional A's or K's were gone as the two limpers liked to play hands with any one big card.
***
I would never incorrectly fold a set if an A or K came in this scenario, at worst I'd check-call it down, there is too much money in the pot to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to isolate this set-over-set situation and see if my analysis of it is valid.

I'll start with your assessment that exactly one of the A/K's is already spoken for, so that there are only five of them available for the flop. So, two chances (given that you flop your set) out of 47 cards (your pair, the other pair, the single A/K are known) to flop one of those five cards. That is, 1 - (42/47*41/46) = 20.35% chance that an A or K will accompany your seven on the flop.

So pre-flop, you have a 1-in-5 chance that you will face a post-flop scenario in which it's even money that your opponent has a higher set.

Viewed from the pre-flop perspective, that's a 1-in-10 chance of facing a higher set. But that's a little misleading, since the post-flop betting posture on which your your tactic depends will be significantly altered by the presence of that A or K.

Now, running from this one aspect of the hand would be playing scared. However, the significant (1-in-5) chance of ending up in a post-flop situation where it's a coin toss whether or not your opponent has a higher set, I think would have to be factored into your implied odds.

Add to that the possibility of QQ, which you acknowledged above, and the set-over-set scenario looms even larger. Which, I admit, may still not be determinitive, depending the other factors affecting implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you are correct that there is a 1 in 5 chance that an A or K will hit the flop, however, keep in mind, that has to coincide with me flopping a set to be potentially harmful (in other words, set over set scenario). If I don't flop a set, then there is no set over set problem.


However, you incorrect regarding the 1 in 10 chance that there will be set over set on the flop. There is a 5% chance that two people will FLOP a set on the same hand, which the last time I checked is 1 in 20 not 1 in 10.

Nevertheless, let's imagine I do flop a set and an A or K hits the board. Do you really think I'm going to play the hand scared that I could be beaten by a higher set? NO, and if anyone does, they are playing scared poker, plain and simple and at the lower-limits, they are not taking advantage of prime profit opportunites, by not trying to build a huge pot when they have flopped a set.

If I happen to lose somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-8 big bets b/c of set over set, then so be it...It's happened before. In fact, the last time I played at Caesar's, I had JJ on the button, raised a player who had recently sat at the table and I had no read who was in late position. 5-6 others saw a flop of Q,J,6...turn was a blank and river was a 6. No, he didn't have pocket sixes he had pocket queens. Fortunately, we were three-handed on the river, so I only lost four bets on the end, whereas it probably would have been more like 5 or 6.

That's just the way it goes, as I said, those things happen, but they DON'T happen a lot more than they do and if you aren't taking advantage of your profit-making potential when they do, then you are missing bets and missing bets in a low limit game is problematic as it is difficult to compete with the rakes and tokes the way it is.

Oh yea, one other thing, I still don't know why you keep bringing up QQ, if you would have read the whole thread I said I did not think anyone had QQ, but it's certainly possible, as is every other hand.

The only thing that I had speculated on was that I was pretty sure the player to my right was raising with either and only pocket Aces or Kings.

Re: Not a very good play
 

Set over set already has all this controversy, yet you did not address many of my other points. Straight draws hit with your 7 with a tricky player in the pot, and if they have a draw you know they will call it in a multiway pot and could hit bigtime. If you're willing to chance being dominated, and coin flip at best with other hands with the hopes of catching a set, you might as well played suited connectors the exact same way. Huge underdog, but huge payoff if you hit. I don't think its a very good play, but it's not a bad one either.

Re: Not a very good play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't know why you keep bringing up QQ, if you would have read the whole thread I said I did not think anyone had QQ. The only thing that I had speculated on was that I was pretty sure the player to my right was raising with either and only pocket Aces or Kings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stew, you were the one who brought up, in your original post, the possibility that the raiser had QQ:

[ QUOTE ]
I knew when calling the raiser he had an overpair and most likely AA or KK. In fact, I discounted any other hand except QQ as I'd never seen him table that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You allude to what would happen if the seven didn't flop:

[ QUOTE ]
keep in mind, that has to coincide with me flopping a set to be potentially harmful (in other words, set over set scenario). If I don't flop a set, then there is no set over set problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

My entire analysis, of course, was premised on the presence of a seven on the flop. That's because the point of my post (and yours) was, What must be factored into implied odds? When computing implied odds, you have to examine what the betting scenario will be, post flop, if you make your set. That scenario includes the possibility of the villain's pair making a set. Again, that factor may not be determinative, but it can't simply be dismissed. As you said,

[ QUOTE ]
I would never incorrectly fold a set if an A or K came in this scenario, at worst I'd check-call it down, there is too much money in the pot to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your betting posture would be affected by the presence of an A or K (it would make you consider calling when you otherwise wouldn't), which of course impacts pre-flop computation of implied odds.

As for the odds of a set beating a set:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a 5% chance that two people will FLOP a set on the same hand which the last time I checked is 1 in 20 not 1 in 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, we have to assume the presence of a seven on the flop, because the entire point of this exercise is to construct a made-set, post-flop betting dynamic. Given your set, you have a 1-in-5 chance of facing a situation in which it's even money that your opponent has a higher set. The chance of ending up in that situation is what's important, not the pure chance, from the pre-flop perspective, of your opponent making his set.

You said in your last post,

[ QUOTE ]
let's imagine I do flop a set and an A or K hits the board. Do you really think I'm going to play the hand scared that I could be beaten by a higher set? NO, and if anyone does, they are playing scared poker

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually reckless poker, simply ignoring an even-money chance that you are facing a higher set. You had it right in your earlier post, a check-call would be more like it.

Re: Not a very good play
 

[ QUOTE ]
So pre-flop, you have a 1-in-5 chance that you will face a post-flop scenario in which it's even money that your opponent has a higher set.

Viewed from the pre-flop perspective, that's a 1-in-10 chance of facing a higher set. But that's a little misleading, since the post-flop betting posture on which your your tactic depends will be significantly altered by the presence of that A or K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your odds of that particular opponent hitting a higher set are closer to 14-1 preflop. The opponent has 2 outs twice, but about 1/3 (2/6 cards) of the time the other high card opponent has one of villains outs.

Since A or K hits the flop 20% of the time, about 65% of the time your opponent holding AA/KK missed their set. Another way to look at it is that an Ace on the flop is more likely to show up if your opponent has KK, than a K.

Re: Not a very good play
 

Actually I was basing my analysis on Stew's familiarity with the table and his feel that exactly one of the other A/K's was accounted for. Stew has been insisting that the pure chance of villian hitting his set on the flop, as viewed from the pre-flop perspective, is pretty low, and you correctly agree with him; however, you and he both miss my central point.

Stew's 1-in-5 probability of facing an even-money 2nd-best-set scenario on the flop skews his pre-flop implied odds calculation. Stew has admitted that he would have to consider calling in that situation. This leaves only an 80% chance that his optimal post-flop betting scenario will materialize, and that only takes into account the set-over-set implications for his implied odds, leaving out the straight and flush draw implications which others have alluded to.

The conclusion being that going in with 77 against AA or KK, even with the table conditions he describes, is not supported by the implied odds he claimed in his original post.