Numbers every poker player should know

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody should know what any of those numbers are, unless it's to impress not very sharp people with useless trivia.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm pretty sure you're taking his post too literally.

I don't think he's trying to say to memorize the numbers, but rather to have a good idea of how often it will happen.

But, i don't think it's all that useful anyways. (as long as you're not totally braindead)

[vinyard]

As I am sure another poster will point out even these numbers are not very useful/accurate. You are counting flops like A95 rainbow here as an overcard flop. Technically it is an overcard flop but its also my ideal flop in that situation. The funtional percentages here are probably a couple of percentage points higher than your listed values.

Edit: Follow the tinyurl link eastbay has in his post and read Bozeman's two posts. He articulates what I was getting at well.

[valenzuela]

I totally agree with your position, knowing that with TT you wont see overcards 1/3 of the time is useful.
However I think that with smaller pocket pairs the number aint that important.

For the record, I don't think it's the point of your post that sucked (We need more numbers in this forum, and you might as well give the exact ones so that people can look at them and estimate it however the hell they want). I just hate that you had to make it a quiz, rather than just some nice info (and also that you had to sneak in whining about not getting your bonus).

If a new person comes to this forum, he's likely to click on a thread that says "numbers every poker play should know", only to find a list of unqualified numbers with a little whining sneaked it. He then has to scroll down through all the joke answers (which were inevitable given your reply) and a few cryptic responses from eastbay before he finds one correct, basically unmarked answer. Then, he'll find a bunch of debate over whether or not this info is even relevant.

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
As I am sure another poster will point out even these numbers are not very useful/accurate. You are counting flops like A95 rainbow here as an overcard flop. Technically it is an overcard flop but its also my ideal flop in that situation. The funtional percentages here are probably a couple of percentage points higher than your listed values.


[/ QUOTE ]

The inaccurate numbers were taken from King Yao's book "Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker." It's a good book if you are concerned with trivial matters like how math applies to hold 'em poker. The number of significant digits is more than anyone needs, and I thought that a quiz with a prize would be more fun than posting a table that anyone who wants to spend $24.95 on a book can see.

Sorry I brought it up.

[curtains]

sorry I agree with eastbay. Knowing the exact numbers is almost completely worthless and almost never applicable in any game situation. Of course it helps to have a general feel, but such a feel for hands like JJ-99 is pretty obvious. I'll tell you straight up that I don't know how often an overcard will come to my 77. I know the answer is very often, and I think thats about all I need to know.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
The inaccurate numbers were taken from King Yao's book "Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker."

[/ QUOTE ]
Waahhh! I have no idea of King Yao's intent with those numbers. That book is sitting next in my pile just below Psychology of Poker. That being said, those numbers ignore those flops that contain an over but also one of your own cards giving you a set. Personally I like having a set. You might not.
[ QUOTE ]
It's a good book if you are concerned with trivial matters like how math applies to hold 'em poker.

[/ QUOTE ] Honestly, what's the point of this reaction when somebody is attempting to point out a not insignificant oversight to your original post/point? If you don't think that excluding those cases where you hit a set should be excluded from that list for functional purposes then I wonder if you really are "concerned with trivial matters like how math applies to hold 'em poker."

[skipperbob]

[ QUOTE ]
Why you continue to be a favorite of people on this board is beyond me. That's my only comment

[/ QUOTE ]

How does it feel? [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[tigerite]

I just go by the mantra of JJ about half flops, TT about a third of flops and 99 about a quarter of flops where an overcard won't fall. And KK will come with an A exactly when I don't bloody want it to, that's for sure.

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The inaccurate numbers were taken from King Yao's book "Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker."

[/ QUOTE ]
Waahhh! I have no idea of King Yao's intent with those numbers. That book is sitting next in my pile just below Psychology of Poker. That being said, those numbers ignore those flops that contain an over but also one of your own cards giving you a set. Personally I like having a set. You might not.
[ QUOTE ]
It's a good book if you are concerned with trivial matters like how math applies to hold 'em poker.

[/ QUOTE ] Honestly, what's the point of this reaction when somebody is attempting to point out a not insignificant oversight to your original post/point? If you don't think that excluding those cases where you hit a set should be excluded from that list for functional purposes then I wonder if you really are "concerned with trivial matters like how math applies to hold 'em poker."

[/ QUOTE ]

What did the OP have to do with flopping a set (which is 11.8%)? The original list was only the % of time that the flop will not bring an overcard.

How this whole firestorm began with eastbay saying it's not important is beyond me. It's not important, but useful. I, obviously, made a huge mistake by using the word "should." I clearly should have used the phrase "may like to."

Edit: Why the hell does this thread over 1300 views?