|
|
#21
05-25-2005, 09:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Some math for the river call.
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I didn't expect to get this much conversation. Good discussion. Some of you think I should fold the river (including milesdyson, whom I routinely see giving very good advice). But I think I need to be in on this river (we'll leave the interesting debate on whether to raise aside for the moment). Let's say that anyone with a diamond on the flop will call to the river. There are four players on the river. The chance that a diamond was dealt in those eight cards is 82.1%. So, my flush is good 17.9% of the time, more than enough to call getting 15:1. Even if you factor in the smalll likely-hood of a full house, this is enough to call. Nak Edit: Not to mention the possibility that diamonds have already been folded, which improves that 17.9% winrate. [/ QUOTE ] Actually your odds are slightly better since you don't count your own cards in the calculation. However you can't count diamonds folded out in your calculation. 
|
|
#22
05-25-2005, 09:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some math for the river call.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Wow, I didn't expect to get this much conversation. Good discussion. Some of you think I should fold the river (including milesdyson, whom I routinely see giving very good advice). But I think I need to be in on this river (we'll leave the interesting debate on whether to raise aside for the moment). Let's say that anyone with a diamond on the flop will call to the river. There are four players on the river. The chance that a diamond was dealt in those eight cards is 82.1%. So, my flush is good 17.9% of the time, more than enough to call getting 15:1. Even if you factor in the smalll likely-hood of a full house, this is enough to call. Nak Edit: Not to mention the possibility that diamonds have already been folded, which improves that 17.9% winrate. [/ QUOTE ] Actually your odds are slightly better since you don't count your own cards in the calculation. However you can't count diamonds folded out in your calculation. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, I should have explained my calculation. My calculation takes into account the five diamonds that I can see. Nak
|
|
#24
05-25-2005, 09:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some math for the river call.
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I should have explained my calculation. My calculation takes into account the five diamonds that I can see. Nak [/ QUOTE ] Exactly, your calculation should calculate what are the chances that one of the six cards you cannot see is a diamond.
|
|
#25
05-25-2005, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some math for the river call.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sorry, I should have explained my calculation. My calculation takes into account the five diamonds that I can see. Nak [/ QUOTE ] Exactly, your calculation should calculate what are the chances that one of the six cards you cannot see is a diamond. [/ QUOTE ] Ooohhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see. Yes, that was a silly mistake, thanks for pointing it out. I redid the calculation. In the six cards there is 71.5% likelyhood of there being a diamond, which means my flush is good 28.5% of the time. Nak
|
|
#26
05-25-2005, 10:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some math for the river call.
the problem with that analysis, although correct, is that it kind of needs to be bayesian, in the sense that you need to know the probability of a diamon GIVEN that everyone called the turn and someone new woke up on the river. I think it's very very high. there's also the obscure but significant chance of a boat.
|
|
#28
05-25-2005, 10:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some math for the river call.
[ QUOTE ]
the problem with that analysis, although correct, is that it kind of needs to be bayesian, in the sense that you need to know the probability of a diamon GIVEN that everyone called the turn and someone new woke up on the river. I think it's very very high. there's also the obscure but significant chance of a boat. [/ QUOTE ] Good point, but his bet could mean SO many things. I still don't think it pushes the likelyhood up 93% or whatever, do you? (In this case he had 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]) If he were a very tight player, then it might. He is loose and seeing a lot of rivers. Nak
|
|
#30
05-25-2005, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Just call down like a donkey\" Thanks SSHE (No Content)
[ QUOTE ]
holy crap. I am astonished anyone would fold this pf. you'd need to knock me unconscious to get those 4s out of my hand before I see a flop here [/ QUOTE ] I find this interesting, because up until, well, yesterday I would have folded this... It's funny, though because when I have been folding these pre-flop there's been a nagging in my brain wanting to call it but I talk it down, 'You could call it if you knew it was going to be just two, but you don't know there won't be another raise.' I certainly didn't have any issue calling them in the blinds. I wish I could find my SSH.. I think it's time for a refresher. KO
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
