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

[Stew]

First off, this may be the wrong forum, but I'm not quite sure if another forum is more appropriate than this. As you can see, I am a long-time 2+2er, but rarely post in this particular forum, though I read it regularly.

OK, so let me set the situation up. I'm at Caesar's Indiana, playing 3/6 Limit Hold 'Em, I play there once a month or so.

I'm on the button, six players are dealt cards. We just went from a full ten to six, as two are sitting out and two left the table.

UTG calls, he is a somewhat loose, but tricky player. I had been playing with him for about two hours. He liked to take flops, but had a check-raise semi-bluff on the turn in his arsenal, along with being rather agressive. He also liked to check-raise the river, when a scare card would come. However, he also seemed to do this when the scare card helped his opponent, instead of hurt him.

Second player also limps. This is a guy who played about every flop. He had been at the table for a couple hours also. He claimed to be a stud player, playing hold 'em for the first time and after observing his play, I do believe him. Not a bad player, but took too many flops. Also had a huge "Strong when Weak" tell in that he'd forcefully bet when weak. Liked to play to the river, no matter what.

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.

However, I look down and see pocket sevens. Normally I'd fold this hand, but I decided to call and let me explain why. Here's where i'm wondering if my thinking is flawed and did my results skew my reality. 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.

My reason for calling is that I knew the SB and BB would call the raise as they had done so in those situations before with any two cards as far as I could tell. Further, I knew that the two limpers would also call. I also knew that at worst I may face a bet and a raise by the time it got to me on the flop (either UTG or +1 may bet if the flop hits them and pre-flop raiser would raise). I also thought that the SB and BB would go to the turn no matter what, along with everyone else.

So, my thinking was if I could catch a third 7 by the turn, there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-$70 in the pot and I would have possibly invested $12 to get there, two small bets pre-flop and flop. Additionally, I knew that if this pot got to the river, it would be huge. As I stated, at least 18, small bets by the turn or 9 big bets. Then, probably at least another 4 big bets on turn and river each, if not more. So, I was thinking the pot would be at least $100, if not more.

So, even though I knew I was behind, I figured I was getting around 10-1 on my money to catch a set by the turn and my implied odds pre-flop were huge...as I am 8-1 or so to flop a set. Is this thiking flawed?

Results in white as follows:

<font color="white"> </font> Flop came 7s, 6d, 9d. I had 7c,7d. UTG bets out, initial raise raises. Normally I'd raise here, but I felt a turn raise would be better. The two blinds bail and two limpers, call. Turn is a 3h. Initial raiser bets, I raise, UTG calls. River is the 6c. Initial raiser bets, I raise, UTG as he has done at least 5 times already fiddles with his chips, stares both me and initial better down, counts off a raise, smiles and raies. Initial raiser calls. I shrug my shoulders and raise. UTG FOLDS.. Can you believe that? Anyway, initial raiser calls with AA and I scoop a huge pot. <font color="white"> </font>

[AaronBrown]

I'm not quite sure of your reasoning here. You wouldn't go heads up with 7 7 against an assumed Q Q or better. Okay, four other people in the pot help the situation in the sense that you have better than one chance in six of beating the Q Q. The trouble is, some of those hands may beat both of you. Even someone betting on nothing can catch something on the board.

I also see your point that you can fold quick if you don't get a 7 on the flop; and that you might win big if you do. But you could also lose big. After the flop, suppose someone held two diamonds? Or an 8? Even a high-card/9 could be trouble for you. The 3H makes things look better and, of course, the river 6 clinches it. But you could have lost big just looking at the flop. And this was among the best flops for you, with only two cards that improved your hand.

I think this is losing poker in the long run.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure of your reasoning here. You wouldn't go heads up with 7 7 against an assumed Q Q or better. Okay, four other people in the pot help the situation in the sense that you have better than one chance in six of beating the Q Q. The trouble is, some of those hands may beat both of you. Even someone betting on nothing can catch something on the board.

I also see your point that you can fold quick if you don't get a 7 on the flop; and that you might win big if you do. But you could also lose big. After the flop, suppose someone held two diamonds? Or an 8? Even a high-card/9 could be trouble for you. The 3H makes things look better and, of course, the river 6 clinches it. But you could have lost big just looking at the flop. And this was among the best flops for you, with only two cards that improved your hand.

I think this is losing poker in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aaron, I appreciate your advice, but first of all, you have 60 posts, which isn't a big deal. But, you really didn't explain yourself well at all.

It's not like I make this particular play all the time. In fact, I think this is the first time I've ever called a raise with an underpair KNOWING the raiser had an overpair. Nor do I think I ever would again. However, my original question was as I STATED, do the implied odds based on the table condition make the play feasible as this was the reason for my call of the raise.

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


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).

[RiverDood]

Overall, I like the play a lot, because if you hit your set on the flop, you've got two turbo-lemmings sitting across from you who will build an enormous pot.

But Aaron's post has the nub of an interesting insight. Even with this ideal flop, you're not guaranteed to win the pot. Both the overpairs can chase two-outers for a set, and maybe one of them can chase a runner/runner diamond flush.

I assigned suits arbitrarily on twodimes.net, and you come out with a 77% chance of winning the whole thing after that flop if there's one guy with a faint shot at a flush. Say QQ includes the diamond queen. Then he's 13% and AA no diamonds is 10%.

So you're in great shape, but it's not quite 100%. Even if there's no runner/runner flush draw for either of the overpairs, your win percentage stays a whisker below 80%.

You had no way of knowing that you'd be up against both AA and QQ. Your odds would improve if there was only one overpair. Yet you want more than one opponent after the flop, and even a weaker continuing hand would have had an out or two. So your opening calculations need to be adjusted for the risk that you hit your set and someone else still musters up a better hand by the time the river comes. If that happens, I don't think you're getting away from the hand.

I think the play still works. But it's a much tighter calculation.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I like the play a lot, because if you hit your set on the flop, you've got two turbo-lemmings sitting across from you who will build an enormous pot.

But Aaron's post has the nub of an interesting insight. Even with this ideal flop, you're not guaranteed to win the pot. Both the overpairs can chase two-outers for a set, and maybe one of them can chase a runner/runner diamond flush.

I assigned suits arbitrarily on twodimes.net, and you come out with a 77% chance of winning the whole thing after that flop if there's one guy with a faint shot at a flush. Say QQ includes the diamond queen. Then he's 13% and AA no diamonds is 10%.

So you're in great shape, but it's not quite 100%. Even if there's no runner/runner flush draw for either of the overpairs, your win percentage stays a whisker below 80%.

You had no way of knowing that you'd be up against both AA and QQ. Your odds would improve if there was only one overpair. Yet you want more than one opponent after the flop, and even a weaker continuing hand would have had an out or two. So your opening calculations need to be adjusted for the risk that you hit your set and someone else still musters up a better hand by the time the river comes. If that happens, I don't think you're getting away from the hand.

I think the play still works. But it's a much tighter calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post and you are right that I did not take into account the fact that I could hit my set and still lose if the hand went to the river. But, I think arbitrarily assigning hands and cards to players in the game I was in or in general is not an exact science.

I also don't know where you got QQ at. I only saw one other hand at the river and that was the pre-flop raisers AA, I don't think anyone had QQ that I'm aware of.

[RiverDood]

Thanks. I read the 7th paragraph of your original post too fast and conjured up a QQ hand out of it -- reading more slowly now I see you were actually making a different point.

Anyway, glad the hand worked out. They'll be muttering about your crazy/smart play for years.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.