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

[bernie]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize this statement combines both fore-sight and hind-sight analysis? You may want to seperate the 2 next time.

b

[AaronBrown]

Depending on what the other players hold, you have about a 40% to 50% of winning the hand after seeing the flop, based on your analysis, and assuming no one started with a pair of 9's or 8 10. The flop makes the strong hand (A A, K K or Q Q) weak, but it's loaded with straight and flush possibilities. I'd feel better if the other four players were tight and could be expected to have high cards, pairs or suited connectors.

Say you have a 50% chance of winning, which I think is about the maximum reasonable figure. If you get beat, it's to a very good hand, someone who is likely to make it as expensive as possible for you. If you win, it's probably because there are no straight or flush hands, or other threes. How much money can you eke out of that?

And this is all assuming your not already almost beat. If there's a pair of 9's, an 8 10 and suited diamonds, your chance of winning is only 5% and it could be a very big pot.

I'm not saying it's a bad situation, your expectation is clearly positive. I'm just saying you got a great flop but you don't have a great expected value.

By situations with lots of unknowns, I meant lots of people in the pot who could be going for a lot of different kinds of hands. It's the kind of situation that makes implied pot odds almost meaningless. Some players love the anarchy, some hate it. After the flop, there's a good chance that the winner of this hand will be determined by the river card.

[Louie Landale]

So you want to call a raise cold figuring to play 77 for two bets getting 5:1 but surely up against a big pair whose going to pay you off...

Rule of thumb is you need 10:1 to call including implied odds. Since you are getting 5:1 PF you need another 5:1 implied post-flop. This means that you need to be sure the opponents will average investing 5 more BB in the pot when you flop a set.

Lets see. Flop is golden T72. AA bets, you raise, idiot calls cold, tight player calls. They both call the turn. AA pays you off. That's your 5BB. If you think you can routinely do better than that then call, otherwise fold.

I'd say you need to be confident in the determination of the loose players before you can call.

Be advised this play is much better if the raiser wasn't on your right, since you want loose calls before you raise. IN this spot you raise and face the loose folks with a double bet, which is definately not to your advantage.

Lets get rid of this idea of making 3 7s "by the turn". No, you need to FLOP 3-7s. If you figure to call a single flop bet then it costs 3sb to call and that screws up your implied odd royally.

- Louie

[godofgamblers]

I don't think I like this play very much at all, mainly because its limit poker. You don't get to punish your opponents enough when you DO make your hand to make it worthwhile to go into the hand knowing you're a huge underdog. Also, you stated that the two players that did call were relatively loose and tricky players that loved to play any two cards and see flops down to the turn at the very least. Against those players, a set of 7's is still a great hand, but hardly dominating. They could be playing 56s 10Js AQs, literally anything. So when your 7 hits, they could easily have a straight draw or a flush draw that you could be paying off big time, even if youre way ahead until the river. Set vs overpair is much more powerful in NL, when you can isolate the pot to 1-2 opponents, so less draws are avaliable and you can really punish them.

Now many people mentioned set vs overset, and that is indeed a big problem for you. You discounted them as playing scared poker, but you are in fact playing unsafe poker. Say the flop comes Q74. UTG bets out, initial raises, you play it the same way. Now the turn is a K. He bets out now you go for the raise, but he reraises, a normal move for AA or KK, now what do you do? If you just call, you just lost all that implied odds you were talking about. River you check-call and might win the pot from AA, but you lost a lot of your implied odds. The problem is with 2 tricky players with any two cards, and one guy with an overpair, you're in hot water. ANY flop with a combination of AKQ before the turn cripples your implied odds as you can no longer cap raising safely. ANY flop that hits you will most likely hit a draw for one of the tricky players. So your percentage to win the pot is never really high to begin with, and theres way too many opponents for you to make this a profitable play in the long run.

You seemed to be looking for people to tell you what a great play this was, but I'd say its a marginal play at best. I would also definitely call in this spot as you would, but only because I'm an action player and I'll take any flop that is very slightly +EV or -EV out of sheer boredom.

[HandHack1]

Stew, It is the creative player that makes it big and not the rote player:
"But the difference between the stereotypical grinder and the romantic uber-poker-player is creativity and courage."

http://cardsspeak.servebeer.com/arch...he_matrix.html

[AaronBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't HU, so I don't even know why you would say that.

[/ QUOTE ]I apologize, I wasn't clear. I know it wasn't heads up. My point was that the other four callers don't make the situation better, so if you wouldn't do it heads up, you shouldn't do it at all.

The key is these situations is whether things depend on you making a hand or one of your opponents making his hand. If you have 1 chance in 4 of beating each of five other players because you're drawing to an Ace-high flush, then you have almost 1 chance in 4 of beating all of them, because you'll either hit your flush and beat everyone, or miss it and beat no one. If everyone else is playing high cards, you can tell if there are full house threats. Moreover, you have a good chance of more than one of them putting large amounts in the pot, because one or more could have very strong hands and still lose to you.

But if the outcome depends on whether the other players make their hands, your odds of winning are much worse than 1 in 4, because each of them independently can beat you. Playing 7 7 against A A and four people going for straights, flushes or higher threes is a dubious proposition. Not just because your chance of winning is low, but because you only win if no one makes much of a hand, and then you don't get much money. If you lose, you lose to a very good hand that can afford to raise away. And with everyone going for something different, you're likely to face exactly one opponent, the worst situation for you.

Of course, you got your third 7, then a full house and lots of people stayed in, presumbly chasing threes, straights and flushes. But that won't happen very often.

The way I see it, you're going to fold on the flop about five times out of six. You need to pick up a 7, and if you see an A, K or Q, the tight player might have three of those. If he doesn't, someone else might. You say they'll play anything, but that doesn't mean they don't have high cards. Even if no one has threes, there could be enough high cards out there that lots of people are drawing to them. If you see two cards above the 7, you may fold as well, at least you can't afford to bet aggressively.

I know that's not a complete analysis, you could get 4, 5 and 6 of clubs, for example, but on the other hand a three-flush in another suit or triple connectors might make you nervous.

Once you hit your 1 in 6 shot, you've got a classic case of a favorite hand with about an even shot of ending up second-best. If you're second-best, you're going against someone who can raise with confidence; whereas you can't raise with confidence until you hit your full house and/or the board rules out straights, flushes and higher threes.

The only way this play makes sense to me is that you're so confident of your ability to steer through all these possibilties, sensing when someone has you beat and inducing calls when you have them beat, that you'd want to be in almost any pot with almost any cards.

[k_squared]

aaron, regardless of the fact that you only have 78 posts I think your analysis is right on. Frankly, anyone who begins a post rebuking a claim by noting how many posts someone else has is being defensive... but that is not the real issue at hand.

I am not totally against playing this hand, but I think that it is at best a pretty break-even proposition in the long run. How would you play if the board came all unders? would you fold then? How would you plaay if you hit an inside straight draw and were faced with one bet in a big pot (you probably should call given your opponents even though you are behind)!

In a multi-way pot if you are raised you lose a lot of your implied odds when facing the decision to call two bets cold, although the fact that multiple players are in the hand does in fact mitigate this to a degree. What I know is that a pair of sevens is a very vulnerable hand against 4 opponents. Even when you hit your flop you are often faced with difficult situations. A set is not a guaranteed win. In fact, the flop you saw was not ideal! An ideal flop would not put a straight on the board... or any over cards... but with 77 that is not possible!!! you either will have straight possibilities or over cards present (and overcards mean at least the possibility of over pairs). I am not advocating playing scared. I play aggressively when I make a hand even when the board is scary to get a feel for where my opponents are, but I do not like playing 77 for a raise against a field of opponents, one of whom you know has a big pocket pair.

-K_squared

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
aaron, regardless of the fact that you only have 78 posts I think your analysis is right on. Frankly, anyone who begins a post rebuking a claim by noting how many posts someone else has is being defensive... but that is not the real issue at hand.

I am not totally against playing this hand, but I think that it is at best a pretty break-even proposition in the long run. How would you play if the board came all unders? would you fold then? How would you plaay if you hit an inside straight draw and were faced with one bet in a big pot (you probably should call given your opponents even though you are behind)!

In a multi-way pot if you are raised you lose a lot of your implied odds when facing the decision to call two bets cold, although the fact that multiple players are in the hand does in fact mitigate this to a degree. What I know is that a pair of sevens is a very vulnerable hand against 4 opponents. Even when you hit your flop you are often faced with difficult situations. A set is not a guaranteed win. In fact, the flop you saw was not ideal! An ideal flop would not put a straight on the board... or any over cards... but with 77 that is not possible!!! you either will have straight possibilities or over cards present (and overcards mean at least the possibility of over pairs). I am not advocating playing scared. I play aggressively when I make a hand even when the board is scary to get a feel for where my opponents are, but I do not like playing 77 for a raise against a field of opponents, one of whom you know has a big pocket pair.

-K_squared

[/ QUOTE ]


You have made probably the best argument against playing the hand thus far and I certainly agree with your analysis and you make excellent points.

I certainly agree that playing this hand in this situation (on the button against a known raiser with an overpair) is a losing proposition. However, I felt that knowing all six players were going to take the flop certainly made the hand turn into a potential EV situation and the apparent weakenesses of teh two limpers that could be exploited made it a clear easy play in my opinion.

Certainly it's not something that I always sit back and think...OK two players limped, one player raised, oh I've got pocket sevens, I'd better call b/c I have odds to do so.

There's much more to it than that.

I do also want to make not of one error in your post, I lose absolutely ZERO IMPLIED odds when faced with a raise. Pot odds, yes, break-even pot odds, also YES. Pot Equity certainly decreases knowing there is an overpair out there. But, implied odds in my opinion increased as I saw the potential for a large pot, which is part of the reason I actually played the hand.

I clearly stated I had intended to see the hand to the turn for 3 small bets, possibly four, almost regardless of what came. Although, I think with the same flop texture not containing a seven, I would have clearly folded to the raise and re-raise. If unders had come, I would have also probably folded b/c there are only the 2,3,4,5,6 and any combo of three of those makes a straight possible with an Ace, so I probably would have gotten out of that too. But, then again, maybe the flop gets checked with a board like that, or at the very least it's one bet

One final thing, everyone keeps harping on set over set and I understand that's possible, but again the likeliehood of that occuring are so insignifigant, that it's negligible in my opinion. And, even if a flop came all one suit or 3 to a straight, I.E, 7,8,j or whatever. With a flopped set, I'm 2 - 1 to make a full house on the river.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I like this play very much at all, mainly because its limit poker. You don't get to punish your opponents enough when you DO make your hand to make it worthwhile to go into the hand knowing you're a huge underdog. Also, you stated that the two players that did call were relatively loose and tricky players that loved to play any two cards and see flops down to the turn at the very least. Against those players, a set of 7's is still a great hand, but hardly dominating. They could be playing 56s 10Js AQs, literally anything. So when your 7 hits, they could easily have a straight draw or a flush draw that you could be paying off big time, even if youre way ahead until the river. Set vs overpair is much more powerful in NL, when you can isolate the pot to 1-2 opponents, so less draws are avaliable and you can really punish them.

Now many people mentioned set vs overset, and that is indeed a big problem for you. You discounted them as playing scared poker, but you are in fact playing unsafe poker. Say the flop comes Q74. UTG bets out, initial raises, you play it the same way. Now the turn is a K. He bets out now you go for the raise, but he reraises, a normal move for AA or KK, now what do you do? If you just call, you just lost all that implied odds you were talking about. River you check-call and might win the pot from AA, but you lost a lot of your implied odds. The problem is with 2 tricky players with any two cards, and one guy with an overpair, you're in hot water. ANY flop with a combination of AKQ before the turn cripples your implied odds as you can no longer cap raising safely. ANY flop that hits you will most likely hit a draw for one of the tricky players. So your percentage to win the pot is never really high to begin with, and theres way too many opponents for you to make this a profitable play in the long run.

You seemed to be looking for people to tell you what a great play this was, but I'd say its a marginal play at best. I would also definitely call in this spot as you would, but only because I'm an action player and I'll take any flop that is very slightly +EV or -EV out of sheer boredom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the likliehood of set over set is very insigifigant to me.

Also, I never said anything about two tricky players. I said one player was tricky, but I should have been more clear in that he has FPS and not that he's a GOOD tricky player.

The initial pre-flop raise was certainly anything but tricky.

[vexvelour]

hell no you didn't do the wrong thing.

big priority in poker: taking a chance and winning a big pot.

congrats on a good hand. [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]