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

[steve968574]

[ 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.

[DesertCat]

[ 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.

[steve968574]

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.

[steve968574]

Also, given what I have said above, the cards Stew had to worry about on the flop were danger cards, not his opponent's actual outs. So he has 5 cards to worry about (all available A/K's), not just the two that will in fact make a set for his opponent.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, given what I have said above, the cards Stew had to worry about on the flop were danger cards, not his opponent's actual outs. So he has 5 cards to worry about (all available A/K's), not just the two that will in fact make a set for his opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't have to worry about these five cards, since he's ahead 60% of the time they flop. Even if he checks and calls he's going to get more money from an opponent betting his bare pair, than he loses to one who flops a higher set.

And since it's a loose game, he's going to get more money from all the other callers as well, all combined are likely to be less than 20% to win the pot, but will end up putting in the majority of the chips.

[steve968574]

[ QUOTE ]
Ace on the flop is more likely to show up if your opponent has KK, than a K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. An A or K on the board actually identifies villain's pair somewhat.

Looks like I'll have to back off from what I said above.

[oreogod]

[ 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 ]


I hope you're slowing down if an A or K flops or shows up on the turn AND hes going crazy.

If you have him on AA or KK and one shows up, and hes trying to get everything he can in the pot, it might be a good idea to take the foot off the gas.

I do realize if a K shows up he most likely has AA, vice versa. So in this case I think its pretty important to pay attention to his betting if one of those cards pops up. To just be, "Hey, come on pappy, here comes my 20th raise, you got the cojones to pop me again?"...kind of thinking would be bad, that would be a little reckless. And yes, thats an extreme example, but hopefully u get my point.

As for implied odds preflop, u go in for 2 as long as u can make up 20 you're good, doesnt look like it will be a problem here if you hit. If u hit, its the flop that makes this hand intresting.