TQs BB. Standard?

I see nothing wrong with the raise. You are raising for both you flush and straight potential. Unfortunately neither really materialized on the flop.

I see no problem with the way you played this.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
What are we looking at here, about 5 outs?

2 for the Ts
1.5 for the Qs
1.5 for the backdoor straight?

Perhaps discount another full out because of the flush potential?

4 outs on that board? Does that sound about right...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give us like 1.95 for the two tens, cause you know, ATo beats us here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'd give us 0.25 for the Qc and 0.80 for each of the other Q's: 1.85 outs... that's 3.8 outs.

I can't remember, but I think a BDS is 1 out. We may be splitting or "splitting by three" (is there a word for that?) the straight though, so I'd give us something like 0.65 for it rather than 1.

All-in-all, that's about 4.65 outs.

Turn: This is a good fold.

Flop: I think consensus on this board will be to bet. I'm not sure that it'd be correct to do so, though.

Edit: Warning: the numbers that I'm using are rough and not based on any real knowledge of poker probaiblity. Also, just want to say that I think post-flop play is probably very good.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Who says were behind on the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

OOC, what's the probability that one of them has a jack?

I _think_ that we'd find this out using a poisson distribution, but I'm not sure how to do that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think these numbers come close to estimating your preflop equtiy. Q10 is a hand that is easily dominated and if someone is limping with QJ or KQ or K10 it destroys your equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often would you say that this would happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess it would really depend on how bad the limpers are and how passive they are preflop. I'm too tired to even attempt to do any math right now, but if wanted to humor me I'd appreciate if you'd give it a shot.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 16.8630 % 15.69% 01.17% { QdTd }
Hand 2: 14.1779 % 13.05% 01.13% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 3: 14.2672 % 13.13% 01.13% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 4: 14.1690 % 13.04% 01.13% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 5: 14.2151 % 13.07% 01.14% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 6: 14.1696 % 13.03% 01.14% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 7: 12.1382 % 11.41% 00.72% { random }


that is a razor thin value raise.

so i guess it comes down to whether raising will likely improve your relative situation postflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

For purposes of argument, I actually like Schwartzy's number better.

However, let's say that we have a "pokerstove equity" of 19%...

Two things hurt here:

1) If we don't get to the river we aren't allowed to use that whole pokerstove equity, right, so we have to take a discount...

2) Being out of position sucks. Check your pokertracker for what your BB/100 is when you're UTG. If that number is negative, then you may want to reconsider raising here.

So, there's my snotkicking done with... I think we have to be a little more conservative when it comes to figuring out our actual equity in the hand than what pokerstove tells us.

We need to be able to make money post-flop with this hand in order to justify playing it. If your UTG bb/100 isn't very high, then you probably aren't going to be making money post-flop with this hand. Also, if your UTG VPIP is really low, then you're furthermore entering pots while UTG with hands much better than QTs, and _still_ losing money. Therefore a check here starts to make a lot more sense, but I'm not sure what the numbers would have to look like before you'd check rather than raise.

Edit: One thing is good though. We're also allowed to deny our opponents their pokerstove equity through betting into them and making them fold stuff like AK before the river, etc.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think these numbers come close to estimating your preflop equtiy. Q10 is a hand that is easily dominated and if someone is limping with QJ or KQ or K10 it destroys your equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often would you say that this would happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess it would really depend on how bad the limpers are and how passive they are preflop. I'm too tired to even attempt to do any math right now, but if wanted to humor me I'd appreciate if you'd give it a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point here is that it probably doesn't happen too often, or our pokerstove equity would be much less than it currently says it is. Therefore we don't have to worry so much about that. Also, miller says that domination for suited hands doesn't matter as much in multiway pots.

--Dave.

[Entity]

Nice hand.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think these numbers come close to estimating your preflop equtiy. Q10 is a hand that is easily dominated and if someone is limping with QJ or KQ or K10 it destroys your equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often would you say that this would happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess it would really depend on how bad the limpers are and how passive they are preflop. I'm too tired to even attempt to do any math right now, but if wanted to humor me I'd appreciate if you'd give it a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point here is that it probably doesn't happen too often, or our pokerstove equity would be much less than it currently says it is. Therefore we don't have to worry so much about that. Also, miller says that domination for suited hands doesn't matter as much in multiway pots.

--Dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but I do think that as the VPIP of the limpers goes down then our equity goes down as well. Even Eskimo's second equity calculation assumes 5 really really bad limpers. And I also agree that domination is not as big of an issue for a hand like this that plays well multi-way, but as a default, for me at least, it is big enough of an issue, combined with having to play the hand OOP (which you explained nicely below) that I don't raise preflop. But playing OOP is the overriding factor IMO as well.

[Jake (The Snake)]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember, but I think a BDS is 1 out. We may be splitting or "splitting by three" (is there a word for that?) the straight though, so I'd give us something like 0.65 for it rather than 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one misconception a lot of people have is that all backdoor straights are created equal (not saying you do David, just trying to point something out).

A quick way for doing backdoor straight estimates is figuring out how many outs give you how many outs.

Here, for example, we have:

4 Kings give us 8 outs
4 Aces give us 4 outs
4 8's give us 4 outs
4 9's give us 8 outs

Then multiply them together and divide by 47 to give us a very close approximation. 32+16+16+32 = 96/47 = 2.04 backdoor straight outs.

Then you can reduce from there for splits, reverse implied odds, etc.

I think .65 is too low, I'd guess about twice that.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, a LONG time ago we had a discussion where I talked about checking AJo in the BB vs 6 limpers, and you said that since I had a PF pokerstove edge I should push it now. I said that I was commonly going to have to fold before the river and thus checking was correct, as my "actualized WTSD" was less than my pokerstove equity.

---

You say NH here, so I assume you mean the preflop too (I like the postflop personally).

OOC, why do you like the raise? I mean, I know you're good, so you're probably right, but if it's okay, I'd like to hear it. I'll take a guess:

Although our WTSD will be lower than our PFE (preflop equity), we're going to, more commonly than not, have opportunities to make +EV decisions postflop and allow our opponents to make -EV decisions. Because of the post-flop side of things making this a +EV hand, we should consider raising now.

I mean, this is probably as close as I can get to the correct answer right now. Any help is appreciated.

--Dave.