SSHE Book Club Discussion - Part Three: Postflop Concepts (1st Half)

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
if you have two suited cards and three more are on the board, chances are great that no one else has two more, let alone a higher one than both yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the probablity is low. However that does not mean this cannot happen. The suited cards are randomly distrubuted through the deck. It is completly possible, however unprobable, that 4 opponents also hold two cards of the same suit completing a flush.

As a wise friend told me while discussing this topic, "you cannot remove cards from the deck", it would interfere with the law of averages when determing your probability to improve your hand to a flush. However we CAN discount outs to accomodate the possibility that if Hero hits his draw, he will still loose to a bigger hand.

But since there is little chance in the scenario that the origional poster asked about that the Hero can be drawing dead to a hand that beats it, there is no need to discount 9 outs. It is impossible to determine with the incomplete information we have been provided if the "magic cards" are held by one or more of your opponents, hence they should not be discounted.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[Luv2DriveTT]

Good post AKQJ10, however you did not factor in that we do not have enough information to assume that pairing the board in the scenario you posted would reduce the value of the hand if the paired card is a [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

A good example can be found on page 99 of the the book. I don't think it applies unless we have evidence that one of your opponents is trying to improve to a full house.

Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] - you hold

9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] - the board

How many outs do you have to improve your hand? There are 4 tens that will improve the hand, but 3 of them fill give you the nuts, while the 4th might give someone a flush. You also have 6 more outs to a possible winner (the 3 Queens and the 3 Jacks).

So lets recap.

3 outs - Guarenteed winner
7 outs - possible winner. It is also possible that Hero may be drawing dead.

In the scenario as shown I would discount the 6 pairing outs to 1 out per card, and the T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] would be discounted to .5 outs. This would therefore give the Hero 5.5 outs to improve to the winning hand.

On a related note, the only chapter that left me wanting more was Finding Hidden Outs. The hidden outs exercises were fantastic, but I would have liked them applied in a real world scenario where we cannot see our opponents pocket cards. For those of you who hvae not yet read TOP, what Ed is essentially showing us in practical use is David Sklansky's theorum of poker.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

PS: I hope I did a good job of explaining myself... this was tougher than I expected! Oh, and as usual... ignore my spelling. Someday Spellcheck will be added to Internet Explorer, until that time you must all suffer.

[twankerr]

I can't ever see discounting flush draw outs enough to make a difference in wether a call enough or not. The only true problem is when the board pairs, and you have to have a feel for that situation, based on the action, wether or not the board pairing will create someones full house.

The board pairing on the turn is, of course, much more problematic than the board pairing on the river because someone with trips will now have outs against you.

My largest problem on the flop is considering a strong hand that has a re-draw to the non-nuts.

arty Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
<font color="666666">4 folds</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="666666">1 fold</font>, CO calls, Button calls, SB calls, BB calls.

Flop: (10 SB) Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="blue">(5 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, CO folds, Button calls, SB calls, BB calls.

How strong of a hand do I have? I just don't see how I can play this hand aggressively (despite the fact that I did) and come out profitable.

[darvon]

Let me first state that I think SSH is a great book and I am very pleased at my purchase. Let me also state where I am in my poker development. I hadn’t really played any poker before seeing the WSOP on ESPN last fall. I new the general concepts and had played some type of poker maybe a half dozen times in my life. Almost a complete Newbie. ESPN hooked me and I started down the path in Jan 2004. I am a light/hobby player, playing about 5-10 hours in the winter weeks and hardly at all in the summer, as I live in Michigan and we make use of summer when we have it.

I have about 7500 hands in PT. I read WLLH then ITH then skimmed a few parts of a few others, then SSH. I have a reasonable math background.

As best as I can tell, I am probably in the low part of the spectrum on experience and expertise as far as the target market for SSH. My learning, like most, goes in layers. I am in the black in my BB/hr, but that’s mostly from fixing my pre-flop mistakes. Most times I know what to do pre-flop, but can be uncertain at times in post-flop. I have been at this level for long enough that I am ready to put in the study to upgrade my post-flop play.

I am not competent enough at this time to have an intelligent comment on the accuracy of the advice given in the book. To me, it feels like Ed is right on the button for optimal play at my levels, Party .5/1, which are loose passive. However, I am having continual problems assimilating the info. Perhaps it is because I am actually not sufficiently advanced to use this book. I need some guidance.


Ed talks about ways to analyze a hand/situation in order to make betting decisions. He first starts with Pot Odds and Counting Outs. These are simple and like good first level tools have made several simplifying assumptions.

Pot Odds/Counting Outs assume:

1) My out card will give me a win 100% of the time.
2) The amount I will win with this decision is the current amount of the pot.
3) The amount of my bet that I am deciding on is simply one bet if I call now (or 2 if I raise or cold call).


Ed shows how to calculate Pot Odds and outs. The math is simple and straightforward.

He then, like all good disciplines, upgrades our technique by removing some of the simplifying assumptions and using more sophisticated analysis techniques.

Implied Odds, Reverse Implied Odds, Partial Outs, Backdoor Outs, Hidden Outs. These are all sophistications of the basic Pot Odds/Count Outs technique for making FOLD/CALL/RAISE/BET decisions.

Ed gives some description of these, but does not go into how to calculate Implied or Reverse Implied Odds. He gives some examples of Partial Outs and Backdoor outs. These may span the useful situations, but I am unsure.

These are either methods trying to figure out what is the probability of winning the hand, given the information currently available, or methods to make a decision given that probability.

However, I don’t know how to do this and other than Pot Odds, Ed doesn’t give me the methodology to do it. He defines the terms, and gives examples, but not methods. Is it because SSH-users are assumed to know those methods? I simply don’t know. I DO know that I don’t know how to calculate my winning probability and SSH assumes I do, sort of.

If SSH assumes I know how to calc (or estimate – I am not a stickler, close is good enough for me) the probabilities of winning, why does it seem to go thru partial explanations of such things as Partial Outs? A backdoor flush is about 1.5 outs. OK. Let me make a chart. Outs that make sets or trips count 1. What’s the out to top pair worth? 1/3? 1/2? Unsure. I understand that one may simple be satisfied with some estimates, indeed I would be. But knowing only an estimate is different than being totally unsure.

Again, if I am already supposed to know this from other sources, that’s OK. I can buy an additional book. But SSH needs to make it clear to me and other readers if SSH is trying to teach me to count outs or simply alluding to the technique.

I find these issues throughout the book. On pg 186 you have Ah Ac with a flop of 9c 7c 3s. Ed talks about what he recommends to do in this situation. He states he would expect to win about 50% of the time. Where did this number come from? Counting Outs would give me the 2 A outs and 1.5 for the backdoor flush. That’s about 14%. How I am supposed to know its 50%? He shows in a footnote that this number is reasonable by example opponent hands. I am sure it is reasonable, actually I am sure it is correct, but how am I supposed to calculate/estimate it? His whole approach for this example is grounded in Pot Equity, but to calc/est Pot Equity I have to know the probability of winning. I am totally lost.

There are other areas. In multiple areas Ed breaks down the scenario into MONSTER, VERY STRONG, STRONG, MARGINAL, POOR. This leads me to assume that we will learn to categorize scenarios and then execute the techniques recommended for each type of hand. In Post-Flop:Made Hands, as in many sections, Ed has copy dealing with a dozen-ish examples. This can be used to give a methodology by simply having a dozen examples. If this is what is intended then a chart would be much easier to teach from and more than a dozen examples would make things much easier. But again, am I missing something? Does SSH expect me to know how to break hands up into 5ish categories and SSH is just putting their labels on the 5 groups for easy discussion? Again, I don’t know if SSH is trying to teach me or just alluding to something I should already know.

Another example where SSH alludes to something that I don’t know how to do is in the Post Flop: Made Hands section.

With MONSTER hands the chart on pg 114 recommends to build the pot. VERY STRONG says to protect. STRONG says rarely fold and protect. MARGINAL says either bet/raise or fold, depending. POOR says generally fold.

OK. I understand generally fold. I even understand bet/raise or fold, depending. But whats the difference between “rarely fold and protect” and just “protect”. Actually Ed does me a great service by having a chapter on protecting, because I was very vague on what to do when protecting. And what is the difference in a loose passive game between “build the pot” and “protect” I truly don’t know.

Again, this feels like SSH is expecting me to already know this, except for the PROTECT section. I could really use some examples of the diff between BUILD and PROTECT in loose passive.

All in all, the strategies in SSH are intriguing to me. They will significantly change my style and seem optimal to me. In that regard, I seem to be the type of player that SSH is directed towards. But I am confused throughout the book as to whether SSH is trying to teach me methods or just allude to methods that I should already know. If they are trying to teach me, some sections work great, some could use some enhancement for readers like me and some don’t even seem to make the attempt, which leads to my confusion.

[Cerril]

For the most part you don't have to discount your outs unless you can actively put them in other peoples hands, or if you think that your flush might not be best.

Past a certain point you've got a guaranteed call anyway, so there isn't much need to worry about whether you've got 9 outs or 12. When you should worry is when the flop is something like 4s8sJh and you're holding 2s3s and it's raised and reraised behind you with additional callers. In situations where you're vulnerable to redraws or drawing to a second best hand (you suspect you're up against 2pair, a set, or a better flush draw) - depending on the likelihood you can probably devalue your flush draw by half or more, depending on the action, number of callers, and tendencies. Once your flush draw gives you the odds of a gutshot or worse and it's up to you to call two more bets with a possible cap, you may not have odds to continue.

A better example though is the situation where you have something like the T of the suit with a three flush flopping eight high. You have to discount flush outs because there's a very real chance you're behind even if you make your hand, moreso than needing to be up against another two card flush. In those cases I'll tend to discount my flush outs by half, more if there was a lot of betting preflop and a lot of betting on the flop.

[Cerril]

My primary comment here is that I feel his treament of equity is a little slim. Pot odds let you figure out where to call or fold, equity is where betting and raising come in, which is really the main source of profit for a good TA-A. The coverage of it in the concepts situation is pretty clear, but I would have been a lot happier if it had continued into the hand evaluation section and kept the terminology.

It would have been pretty reasonable to assign equity ranges to hand groupings and postflop typings (Very Strong, Strong, etc.) and to try to get players thinking in terms of equity as well as pot odds.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
but does not go into how to calculate Implied or Reverse Implied Odds. He gives some examples of Partial Outs and Backdoor outs. These may span the useful situations, but I am unsure.

These are either methods trying to figure out what is the probability of winning the hand, given the information currently available, or methods to make a decision given that probability.

However, I don’t know how to do this and other than Pot Odds, Ed doesn’t give me the methodology to do it. He defines the terms, and gives examples, but not methods. Is it because SSH-users are assumed to know those methods? I simply don’t know. I DO know that I don’t know how to calculate my winning probability and SSH assumes I do, sort of.


[/ QUOTE ]
Theory of Poker

[ QUOTE ]
I find these issues throughout the book. On pg 186 you have Ah Ac with a flop of 9c 7c 3s. Ed talks about what he recommends to do in this situation. He states he would expect to win about 50% of the time. Where did this number come from? Counting Outs would give me the 2 A outs and 1.5 for the backdoor flush. That’s about 14%. How I am supposed to know its 50%? He shows in a footnote that this number is reasonable by example opponent hands. I am sure it is reasonable, actually I am sure it is correct, but how am I supposed to calculate/estimate it? His whole approach for this example is grounded in Pot Equity, but to calc/est Pot Equity I have to know the probability of winning. I am totally lost.


[/ QUOTE ]
What hands are you losing to that would have called you here pre-flop? Not many.


[ QUOTE ]
All in all, the strategies in SSH are intriguing to me. They will significantly change my style and seem optimal to me. In that regard, I seem to be the type of player that SSH is directed towards. But I am confused throughout the book as to whether SSH is trying to teach me methods or just allude to methods that I should already know. If they are trying to teach me, some sections work great, some could use some enhancement for readers like me and some don’t even seem to make the attempt, which leads to my confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a beginners book by any means. I would recommend you read TOP and WLLH or ITH first and then migrate to SSH.

[johnnybeef]

this is an obvious fold situation. you are likely dominated in this pot considering that the only redraws you have would be a king or a spade. drawing to trips with a flush and an overcard on the board is a losing play, enough said on that subject. the other card that you can catch to improve your hand is a spade. given a bet and a raise, there is a better than average chance that the ace of spades is out ther. furthermore, if the ace of spades does hit giving you the nut flush, there is a good chance that someone raised with two pair on the turn, giving them a boat on the river. there are just far too many hands that can beat yours and the pot just isn't big enough in this situation to forgoe all of those possibilities.

johnny

[Etric]

In general I think this is a poor hand. You have a pocket pair much higher than middle pair and a one card flush draw to the non-nut flush. If a diamond comes, anyone holding A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] or K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] beats you. If you miss your draw, any made flush or Q beats you. If someone has the A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] or K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and another has a Q you are drawing almost dead. It reminds me of a hand in SSH on p136 (A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] with a board of K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]), but your hand is worse because you have fewer outs and more overcards can come to your pair. It also reminds me of the hand just underneath that as well (9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], board is A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]).

In your example, you are up against the button and 2 blind defenders. I would have bet, as your opponents are playing weakly and the pot is large and short handed.

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]

I find these issues throughout the book. On pg 186 you have Ah Ac with a flop of 9c 7c 3s. Ed talks about what he recommends to do in this situation. He states he would expect to win about 50% of the time. Where did this number come from? Counting Outs would give me the 2 A outs and 1.5 for the backdoor flush. That’s about 14%. How I am supposed to know its 50%? He shows in a footnote that this number is reasonable by example opponent hands. I am sure it is reasonable, actually I am sure it is correct, but how am I supposed to calculate/estimate it? His whole approach for this example is grounded in Pot Equity, but to calc/est Pot Equity I have to know the probability of winning. I am totally lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
The probability of improving your hand and winning the pot are not the same thing. They are only the same when you are sure that you're not ahead currently. With aces on a board like this, there is a very good chance you are ahead currently, and about a 50% chance you'll be by the river.

And when you asked how much to discount top pair outs; Ed didn't give a number because, when discounting outs to any sort of hand, it varies depending on the situation. For example, if you have A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on a board of 9
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], with 4 players still in the pot, your queen outs are very dubious, particularly the Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], which shouldn't be given any out value at all. On the other hand, your A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on a board of 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], you can probably give your queens each a full out.