bets and outs

[SeattleJake]

Still relatively new to this forum, but trying another one here...

Abdul Jalib had mentioned on his site (http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/), that a bet is worth at least 4 outs and often up to 20. This opened my eyes to new dimensions, and I related it to a similar concept of the tempo in chess – I always teach my students that a tempo is worth half a pawn, which although it may be worth less, accomplishes the point of getting them to think of the abstract idea in terms of a concrete value.

I got to thinking of the bet to outs relationship, and came to the thought that what you're really doing when you bet, is vying for the unclaimed outs on the board. If you have a set (7 outs) and your opponent has a flush draw (9 outs), when you bet you are claiming that the remaining cards (31 outs) are really yours. If your opponent raises, then they are claiming those outs, and you might have to call to see who is right.

I value your set to be worth about 21 outs in relative strength to other hands, with the flush draw worth still 9. Your bet therefore is a gamble for the 17 outs in question — basically, stating that you think they are indeed yours. If your opponent comes back over the top, then you need to reassess your situation based on being a 26 to 21 underdog. Note that you have a made hand, so you are not banking on just the 7 outs you have to improve, but your opponent's raise indicates that they may be stronger than you suspected.

Does this jive with other's understanding of the game?

[Pepsquad]

A rather complex way of saying

"You bet = I've got the better hand. He raises = NO! I've got the better hand"

isn't it?

Maybe I'm missing something from your post.

[Bad Lobster]

It's an intriguing idea--a new way to quantify the value of a bet--but I don't think it'll work. If my hand is ahead of yours and you have 9 outs, that means that if any of the other 35 cards falls, I win. That's 35 outs for me and I just don't see any sensible way that you can assign any of them to yourself.

[SeattleJake]

To an extent, that's what I'm talking about. You don't know if your opponent only has 9 outs. You can estimate that your set is the best hand, but you may be foolish to give it 38 outs worth. You can possibly give it 21 outs worth, but the rest would have to be claimed by betting. By betting you're telling everyone with a hand weaker than 23 outs worth to rethink their situation. This would include you -- if you checked and your opponent bet, then you'd have to rethink your situation.

And I know this sounds obvious, from the point of view that you have to rethink your situation whenever there's a bet, but it's more like a way to quantify exactly what you're getting from a bet/raise situation.

[Dov]

How did you get 7 outs for a set?

I understand what you are trying to say, but I think that the way it works is that it depends on when and how you bet, as well as the actual bet itself, and all of this relative to the pot.

For example:

I raise PF, get 2 callers, and have a flop of A72 rainbow. When I bet the flop I am saying that "I have AK". If it is bet to me, and I raise, I am saying "I have AK" or "I have a set" or "I have a 7 and don't think you have an A".

I don't think that betting buys me any outs unless I am getting a hand that shares one of my cards to fold, so that if I spike that card, I will still win the hand.

Example: I have AK and Opponent has A2. The flop is QT2. If I make him fold, then I have bought my A outs.

Many times I see games where a flop raise means "I want to play this pot heads up".

I don't think you can assign a value like you are trying to.

Dov

[SeattleJake]

7 outs to improve on a set, is for 1 to make quads, and 3 for each of the other two flop cards to pair and make a full house.

I like your examples. In the first say, "I have a 7 and don't think you have an A". When you bet then you are semi-bluffing, "I have AK". You have bought yourself a better hand. If you had just checked it and someone bet after, then you would fold - you have to give your opponent credit for having the outs that you don't think you have with your second pair.

In the second example you are doing the same thing, but instead of buying the unclaimed outs, you are buying the ones off the bottom pair.

I guess the point of it would be when you're on the fence about betting, and you're lacking the outs to justify a bet based on the pot odds; then a semi-bluff may still be in order when the outs you can buy (either the unclaimed ones or from an opponent) put you over the threshold.

In both cases above, if you're getting 5-1 pot odds on your hand, then it's not worth a call because you don't have enough outs. Yet they're both decent semi-bluffing opportunities. Betting first probably claims an extra 5 outs in both cases, making them good plays.