Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Limit Texas Hold'em > Micro-Limits
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-12-2005, 08:59 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Gutschot chase correct according to pot odds?

Grunch:

I'm completing 100% of the time with any 2 here pf.

flop - easy c/c as played.

turn - I c/c here as well.

riv - c/r with a non-diamond 8, c/c a T, c/f most everything else.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-12-2005, 09:00 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Gutschot chase correct according to pot odds?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You also have over card outs on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with the overcards is that if you hit them you are quite possibly making someone else's straight, so you have to discount them a bit from 6 pure outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

true true. I usually go with 4 to 4.5 in this situation. (for the overs)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 4-4.5 is far too many. It's a multiway pot, and I wouldn't credit the nines with even one out here: they complete the straight for anyone with an 8. Let's say that the turn is the 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], instead of the K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]: we still wouldn't call when our 9 hits on the river. The ten is good for 1.5 or thereabouts.

He has the odds to chase just his gutshot to the stonecold nuts, and when he hits, he will get action from anyone with a bare nine. The overcards really don't enter into the equation very much on this coordinated board.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-12-2005, 10:23 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Gutschot chase correct according to pot odds?

That is why I did not include the outs for overcards.

And 75 : 5 are in cents compared to the potsize.
145 : 10 are the pot odds on the river.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-12-2005, 11:04 AM
benkath1 benkath1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13
Default Re: Gutschot chase correct according to pot odds?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You also have over card outs on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with the overcards is that if you hit them you are quite possibly making someone else's straight, so you have to discount them a bit from 6 pure outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

true true. I usually go with 4 to 4.5 in this situation. (for the overs)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 4-4.5 is far too many. It's a multiway pot, and I wouldn't credit the nines with even one out here: they complete the straight for anyone with an 8. Let's say that the turn is the 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], instead of the K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]: we still wouldn't call when our 9 hits on the river. The ten is good for 1.5 or thereabouts.

He has the odds to chase just his gutshot to the stonecold nuts, and when he hits, he will get action from anyone with a bare nine. The overcards really don't enter into the equation very much on this coordinated board.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, nh.

I guess that's why I suck so bad.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-12-2005, 12:00 PM
Songwind Songwind is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Burnsville, MN
Posts: 239
Default Re: Gutschot chase correct according to pot odds?

*grunch*

Fold preflop. SB at 5/10c is less than half a bet, and 9To is not a strong holding to be playing in early position.

Flop: You definitely have the odds to call this bet. Hugely multiway hands are where these middle connectors play well.

Turn: Down to 3.5 outs now, since 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] completes the flush draw, so some of the time you will make your hand and lose. 42.5:3.5 is 12.1:1. Still have the odds to call.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-12-2005, 12:32 PM
bozlax bozlax is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 365
Default Re: Gutschot chase correct according to pot odds?

n00b, you're not by any chance related to David_C, are you? My head hurts. Why do you call 15:1 75:5, but then use the simpler notatation later in your dissertation?

This is a really simple hand. Don't worry about implied odds until the pot odds aren't right to call.

Preflop is fine.

On the flop you've got around 11-12:1 to hit your hand on the turn, but you don't have 13 opponents, so you can't bet for value. When it gets back to you, tho, you're getting 15:1 from the pot, so you call. Why would you discount an 8? Oh, you think an 8 is in someone's hand. That's ridiculous. You can't read hands with that kind of precision, so either you're being influenced by the results or you've got MUBS. Either is bad.

On the turn, you're at around 14:1 (correctly removing the 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] from your outs) and the situation hasn't changed from the flop. Check/call one back.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-12-2005, 12:41 PM
bozlax bozlax is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 365
Default Re: Gutschot chase correct according to pot odds?

[ QUOTE ]
true true. I usually go with 4 to 4.5 in this situation. (for the overs)

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule of thumb, folks around here usually give 1.5 outs per overcard. You're not discounting for other people's draws, you're discounting for domination, reverse-domination, etc. In this case, I'd go even lower (maybe 1 out each) because of the possible completed draws.

Luckily, you don't need those outs...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-12-2005, 12:45 PM
bozlax bozlax is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 365
Default Re: Gutschot chase correct according to pot odds?

[ QUOTE ]
And 75 : 5 are in cents compared to the potsize.
145 : 10 are the pot odds on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, you want to get used to thinking in terms of bets, not dollars and cents. It makes the math easier.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.