Are my odds better than they seem?
 

Here's a hand I played in a tournament recently, I'd like to hear your comments on my analysis.

The blinds are 25 and 50(pot=75). With two loose limpers ahead of me, I decide to limp from a middle position with A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img](pot=225). There's a limp behind me followed by a +250 raise on the button from a tight, somewhat predictable player(pot=575). Both loose limpers fold, and the action is on me. Judging by a tell I have on the player, combined with his tendency to only raise his big pairs with so many people limping into the pot, I put him on KK or QQ. It costs me 250, so the pot is laying me about 2.33:1 odds, and my hand will beat KK or QQ about 33% of the time(2:1), so I call(pot=825), but not for the reasons most people would.

Yes, the pot is laying me 2.33:1 on a 2:1 shot, but my odds are 2:1 assuming that I only win as often as my cards allow me to. When I made the call, I took into account the odds that I could bluff my opponent, so I figured my +EV was higher than it should be.

Here's how it worked out... The limper behind me folds, and out comes the flop.

FLOP: Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

I'm either way behind(against a set) or drawing to five outs. Either way, I didn't come out in the lead on the flop. I check to the raiser, and he bets 400, laying me about 3:1. Based on my read of his betting patterns(he would have checked his set), I decide he has KK, so I have five outs... or do I have more?

My full outs were:

3 aces + 2 tens = 5

But then I considered my bluffing outs... three queens and nine hearts. If a queen comes, I can represent trips, and if a heart comes, I can represent the flush. So far, I've been checking to the raiser when I felt I was behind or when I was on a draw, so I was confident I could represent either hand with a check-call on the flop. I think any one of these cards can win for me about 75% of the time(since bluffing can't be 100%), so I count them as 9 outs.

3 queens + 9 hearts = 12 * 0.75 = 9

In my mind, I have 14 outs to win this pot. With 14 outs, my odds of improving on the turn are 2.2:1, and the pot is laying me 3:1, so I call(pot=1625).

TURN: 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

I like this card alot, I just need to decide how to play it. I decide that a bet smaller than half the pot would be a good choice because this player has already seen me make small value bets on the turn and river on previous hands(where I knew I had my opponent beat, but my opponent couldn't lay down because of the small bets). I bet 600, representing the flush, and I can tell by his visible disappointment that he hates the bet. Meanwhile, I'm considering the odds in my head... I believe there's around a 75% chance he will fold here(because he knows I will bet the river), but if not, I still have a few outs.

I still have the aces and tens, but the A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] may be no good(if my opponent holds the K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]), so I count them as 1 out. Add the other 2 aces and the other ten, and I have 4 outs, giving me about a 9% chance of improving(10.5:1 or so). It's not looking good, but since I assess my chances of winning the pot right there at 75%, I'm not so worried.

He calls. (pot=2825)

RIVER: 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

BOARD: Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Well now my only chances of winning are representing the flush. With a pot of 2825, and my opponent having about 1600 remaining in his stack, I decide to bet 1200. He's really not happy here, but unfortunately for me, he was on some kind of "my kings just got cracked" semi-tilt. He tells me, "If you have the hearts, you win." and he shoves the rest of his stack in. Needless to say, the table was shocked when I said I had nothing and mucked my hand, but that's not the point.

The way the hand was played, he could have only beaten a bluff, because I wouldn't have played top pair or a pair of tens or sixes like that. I would have been long gone with a pair of tens, and I would've continued to play passively on the turn with top pair(when the [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] fell), because I didn't represent a hand like AQ with a raise preflop(and my opponent represented a big hand). Also, I'm not going to be in there with a pocket pair unless I trip up on the flop(since he thought I had a boat), so he can't put me on a hand like JJ or 77. I'm not going to check-call the flop with those hands, much less bet out the turn and river with them. In other words, with creative postflop play, I increased my odds of winning against the big pair significantly, though the results weren't there on this particular occasion.

So are my odds better than they seem throughout this hand? Or should I eliminate counting my bluff outs, or stop considering my chances of bluffing at some point while calculating preflop odds? I believe thinking along the lines of maximizing my chance to win each and every pot that I get involved in, even without the cards, is a +EV play in the long run. That's not to say I'm playing to win pots, because Sklansky wouldn't agree with that philosophy. But I'm coming to find out that in poker, no-limit especially, each pot has alot more dead money in it than people are aware of.

Re: Are my odds better than they seem?
 

Coincidentally, I was considering this question this morning. You should not count bluffing outs as outs, and here's why:
If you hit a T, you win the pot.
If you hit a heart, you have an opportunity to make a profitable bluff. Say he folds 50% of the time to a half-pot bet. Great bluff, but the EV is equal to about 1/4 of the pot. So what you're winning is not really the pot, but a smaller prize.

Re: Are my odds better than they seem?
 

Fold preflop after a tight player raises behind your ATs.

You put your opponent on too tight of a range of hands.

You counted cards as bluffing outs that were not outs, since you bet twice after one such card hit and your opponent didn't fold. Potential scare cards are not worth nearly as much as cards that actually make a hand.

Re: Are my odds better than they seem?
 

You're right, and I'm actually working on the math to see how the play would work out over time. I counted the bluff outs as partial outs because I didn't think they would be successful all the time, but I am sure I overestimate their true value.

Re: Are my odds better than they seem?
 

I did put him on a tight range of hands, but I've played with this player many times, so I was pretty confident of my read. I've seen him turn over many AK's and AQ's at the showdown in an unraised pot, because he is the type of player who thinks he shouldn't raise AK because he might not hit the flop.

As I said to the person who posted above you, I probably overestimated the value of the bluff outs. Maybe I could have given up on the river, because the final bet probably didn't have a very good +EV.

I'm just thinking my odds are better than they seem in many situations because players are either afraid of what cards their opponents may hold or players raise with a hand like AK and miss the flop, leaving them in a situation where they can't call a big bet.

Re: Are my odds better than they seem?
 

Can you explain me why you only get 1/4 of the pot? Is there something I don't understand, how am I supposed to calculate the value of the bet vs the value of the pot?

Re: Are my odds better than they seem?
 

I would say this is a case of over-thinking the situation & trying to be too clever. For one thing, I disagree that there was a 75% chance of the opponent folding once a scare cards comes up.

And before the flop, you said your EV was higher than the pot odds indicate, because you could bluff some percentage of the time. But can't your opponent bluff too, when you hit the better hand?

And when you were making your decision to call before the flop, shouldn't you take into account the rather large sum of money that you'll lose if your bluff gets called?

Re: Are my odds better than they seem?
 

[ QUOTE ]

...shouldn't you take into account the rather large sum of money that you'll lose if your bluff gets called?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good point. If OP is going to count bluff cards as outs, he also needs to factor in his future bluff bets to get his true effective odds.

Re: Are my odds better than they seem?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did put him on a tight range of hands, but I've played with this player many times, so I was pretty confident of my read.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seemed certain that he had KK rather than AA or QQ or AQ or AK or J9. How many thousands of hours have you logged with this guy? How sure are you that he will never change the way he plays?

[ QUOTE ]

I'm just thinking my odds are better than they seem in many situations because players are either afraid of what cards their opponents may hold or players raise with a hand like AK and miss the flop, leaving them in a situation where they can't call a big bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't succeed if you make him wet his pants. Your bluff succeeds if he folds. Apparently, you didn't have a good read on what it would take to make him fold. Maybe in the time you were observing him, he observed you bluffing every scare card hand after hand.

Whether you believe it or not, your analysis was poor. Your play was poor. You threw away a lot of chips when the card you thought was good hit. Did your odds feel better than they seemed?

Re: Are my odds better than they seem?
 

Thanks for the criticism. I'm sorry if my play offended you, but what's done is done. We obviously don't think along the same lines. If my posts are that upsetting, I'd appreciate it if you just didn't reply.