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

[mosquito]

You have plenty of implied odds to call the raise PF.
You want 5+ seeing the flop if you can get it, but
with two loosies likely to go to the river, you do
not need that much.

Looking for a set on the turn (had you not flopped
one) would be borderline at best, if you could see
the turn for one bet.

Like how you played the hand otherwise, great!

[bighomage]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with your hand is that even if you flop a set, there are 2 outs for you opponent and, more importantly, 8 scare cards out there. You figure your opponent for AA, KK, or QQ... now what do you do when you flop a set and the flop or turn puts an ace, king, or queen on the board? For all you know, he just picked up a higher set... which could cause you to make an incorrect fold, or even worse, if he DID pick up the higher set and you think he's simply betting the overpair, you could lose a serious stack of chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually do think this is a valid point because the threat of a king or ace hitting with your 7 on the flop will seriously affect the confidence with which you try to build the pot post flop. I don't have a calculator in front of me so I can't figure out the odds, but an ace or king will hit the flop with that 7 a significant amount of times. For that matter, since he probably won't give up his hand, you should consider how often an ace or king will hit the board. This is important to think about when considering the implied odds.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with your hand is that even if you flop a set, there are 2 outs for you opponent and, more importantly, 8 scare cards out there. You figure your opponent for AA, KK, or QQ... now what do you do when you flop a set and the flop or turn puts an ace, king, or queen on the board? For all you know, he just picked up a higher set... which could cause you to make an incorrect fold, or even worse, if he DID pick up the higher set and you think he's simply betting the overpair, you could lose a serious stack of chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually do think this is a valid point because the threat of a king or ace hitting with your 7 on the flop will seriously affect the confidence with which you try to build the pot post flop. I don't have a calculator in front of me so I can't figure out the odds, but an ace or king will hit the flop with that 7 a significant amount of times. For that matter, since he probably won't give up his hand, you should consider how often an ace or king will hit the board. This is important to think about when considering the implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the flaw in your thinking is that an A or a K will hit the flop when it is UNKNOWN where 2 of those 8 cards are...I knew where two were. Additionally, I could say with about 75% certainty that pre-flop one of the additional A's or K's were gone as the two limpers liked to play hands with any one big card.

It just seems to me that you are all more worried about him hitting a two outer ONCE I hit my set and do you understand what the odds of set over set are? I mean that to me should factor in very little in my decision-making.

If I hit my set on the flop, I'm probably gonna win the hand at least 8, if not 9 times out of ten and certainly losing to a higher set would have been the last of my concerns (as opposed to a straight or flush).

[bighomage]

Ya, you're right. It doesn't make too much of a difference. But it is a small factor in your implied odds decision. I'm not saying it should swing your decision; I like the play. It's just that what the other guy brought up has some validity preflop, rather than just how you play the hand postflop. Nice hand by the way.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Third player, very tight, but weak. I had played next to him for over three hours and he'd raised three times in those three hours, twice with AA and once with KK. I had been very observant of him and vowed to stay out of hands with him when he raised... 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. He had limped in the previous 3 hours with JJ twice, AK suited or not on at least 4 occasions and AQ three tiimes.

[/ QUOTE ]
How many hands are you getting in per hour? It's pretty rare to get so many big hands and show them down. I don't think you can have such an accurate read on the player. Maybe the alcohol just kicked in, maybe he decided AQ is worth raising in this position/shorthanded, maybe he has KQ and saw that UTG+1 has KJ.

You don't know that the blinds will not reraise. They might have AA, and they might reraise with less, even if you think the raiser is so tight that KK should be played for set value.

If you flop a 7, you won't always get action. How much do you think you'll get if the tight player has QQ, and the flop is AK7?

If you flop a 7, you won't always win. You might end up behind a higher set. You might lose to a flush or straight. You may get counterfeited, e.g., flop 887, turn 8.

Nevertheless. I think it is clear that you had enough implied odds to call.

[BlindMessiah]

Hi,

I don't have much to say. Tho, it seems to me that you want the community to say to you: Wow man, your reading of the play is ggreeeattt! If you are sure of a play you made, don't ask questions about it.

[AaronBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, "losing poker" as you explained it sounds to me like being afraid of what can beat you, rather than looking at what you can win. I already knew I was behind, I was looking at the money I could win.

If someone offered you 10-1 on the fact a six-sided die might roll a 6 on one roll, shouldn't you take it? Sure, it could turn up 1,2,3,4 or 5, but the odds are better than the bet and you should take it(assuming you know the die is fair).

[/ QUOTE ]
No, by "losing poker" I meant that if you applied the same reasoning in many hands, you would lose more than you would win. It's not quite the same thing as implied pot odds, because that only considers the one hand. A play can have a negative expected value for the one hand, but earn it back later in its effect on your opponents. The traditional bluff is an example of that, although some theorists like Sklansky say even a bluff should have a positive expected value for the hand.

Yes, I would take 10-1 on a fair die coming up 6. I didn't enumerate the ways you could lose to suggest you fold, I meant it to be a rough calculation of implied pot odds. By calling you could lose small (fold after the flop), win big (hit the flop and rake in a big pot) or lose big (hit the flop and still lose). I agree with you that you had a decent probability of a big win, and that made up for the larger probability of a small loss. My point was the possibility of a big loss, in my opinion, tips the scales against this play. You got a flop among the best possible for you, and still had only a moderate positive expectation. I would have called knowing I would get this flop, but considering all the flops that you would fold, I think the implied pot odds were against you.

But it's not an exact science, you could well be right. After all, you were at the table and I wasn't. You know the players and the game. You might be a much better poker player who can make money in situations I can't. That would make your implied pot odds better than mine in this situation.

I suspect from your post that you like to play situations with lots of unknowns. I respect that. Lots of otherwise good players shy away from these, so there's money to be made. I know good players who don't mind getting in with the odds a little against them if there are lots of possibilities, figuring that in a wide-open situation, their playing skills will make up the deficit.

I don't think I'm afraid of such situations, although you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't seek them out either. I prefer to seek advantage in other ways.

[Sen. VernonTrent]

And you can take that to the bank.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

I don't have much to say. Tho, it seems to me that you want the community to say to you: Wow man, your reading of the play is ggreeeattt! If you are sure of a play you made, don't ask questions about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be right...I probably am looking for affirmation of the play. But the reason is b/c I'm not sure if my thought process is accurate and I'm trying to grow as a player, not to just have 20 or so people I don't know from Adam pat me on the back and say good job mate!

Anyway, I have learned a few things and there have been some great points in this thread.

But, I also am a little curious as it seems most of the negative feedback has been about ways I could have lost the hand as opposed to playing a hand with appeared to me to have a positive ROI.

I mean are these the same posters that say, well you shouldn't raise with AA or AK on the button if everyone else limps in b/c you COULD lose the hand, so why invest the extra money?

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, "losing poker" as you explained it sounds to me like being afraid of what can beat you, rather than looking at what you can win. I already knew I was behind, I was looking at the money I could win.

If someone offered you 10-1 on the fact a six-sided die might roll a 6 on one roll, shouldn't you take it? Sure, it could turn up 1,2,3,4 or 5, but the odds are better than the bet and you should take it(assuming you know the die is fair).

[/ QUOTE ]
No, by "losing poker" I meant that if you applied the same reasoning in many hands, you would lose more than you would win. It's not quite the same thing as implied pot odds, because that only considers the one hand. A play can have a negative expected value for the one hand, but earn it back later in its effect on your opponents. The traditional bluff is an example of that, although some theorists like Sklansky say even a bluff should have a positive expected value for the hand.

Yes, I would take 10-1 on a fair die coming up 6. I didn't enumerate the ways you could lose to suggest you fold, I meant it to be a rough calculation of implied pot odds. By calling you could lose small (fold after the flop), win big (hit the flop and rake in a big pot) or lose big (hit the flop and still lose). I agree with you that you had a decent probability of a big win, and that made up for the larger probability of a small loss. My point was the possibility of a big loss, in my opinion, tips the scales against this play. You got a flop among the best possible for you, and still had only a moderate positive expectation. I would have called knowing I would get this flop, but considering all the flops that you would fold, I think the implied pot odds were against you.

But it's not an exact science, you could well be right. After all, you were at the table and I wasn't. You know the players and the game. You might be a much better poker player who can make money in situations I can't. That would make your implied pot odds better than mine in this situation.

I suspect from your post that you like to play situations with lots of unknowns. I respect that. Lots of otherwise good players shy away from these, so there's money to be made. I know good players who don't mind getting in with the odds a little against them if there are lots of possibilities, figuring that in a wide-open situation, their playing skills will make up the deficit.

I don't think I'm afraid of such situations, although you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't seek them out either. I prefer to seek advantage in other ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite understand two things. Number one, you stated that, "You like to play in situations with lots of unknowns." What limit do you normally play? I don't think you've played a lot of low limit games b/c you should realize that the amount of available information compared to the amount of unavailable information is widely slanted to the unavailable side. I mean seeing guys regularly limp, re-raise with hands such as 9,7 suited and 10,7 offsuit isn't exactly something that allows you to put a guy on that hand.

I also don't see how you could say that with the flop I did get that I only had a moderate Positive Expectation. I think with that flop, regardless of the game conditions, but certainly this one the expectation of the hand at that point was the highest of almost any hand I'd played all night. At the moment the flop was dealt, I'm speaking. I mean what better could you get for EV when you flop a set with a weak tight calling station on your right whose cards you practically know, to a LAG UTG and a loose-weak limper in EP. Sure, the flop came with two diamonds. But you have to remember for them to catch a flush, they had to have been playing two diamonds (or possibly one with runner, runner turn and river) in the first place, which is possible, but certainly not likely given all the hand combinations that are available.

I don't normally seek out situations where I know I'm putting in the money the pot already behind, but I will say that identifying situations where there are chips to be won in a hand where I have Position and a high likeliehood of winning not only the hand, but a lot of chips if my hand hits, then you can guarantee I'm going to take advantage of that.