First to Act Post Flop - Counting outs

[YoureToast]

Statement: If you are first to act postflop, the number of standard outs that you have should be increased by the quotient of X divided by 2.5, where X equals the percentage chance that everyone behind you will fold.

Please discuss.

[theRealMacoy]

you gotta be kidding me.

in the off chance this is not some attempt at humour....do the math:

following your formula

if there was 25% chance of your opponents folding divided by 2.5 = 10
so according to your "formula(?!)" you add 10 outs?

unless this is some kind of bizarro poker, somehow i don't think so.

or maybe, i am the one in bizarro land?
"discuss"

cheers,
the Real Macoy


ps. perhaps you might re-frame your thinking more in terms of something like pot / fold equity, rather than adding outs?

[theRealMacoy]

thought a little more....the ideas of whether people will fold and actions you might take are related, although not to my knowledge directly as you state (by adding outs)...

you need to count your outs seperately first, then decide what action to take based on the pot odds at that point or the implied odds you are getting (compared to the chance you will hit your hand). semi-bluff raises and betting out to protect your hand are two of the possible actions. in some situations you want to eliminate opponents (e.g., large pots, you have top pair against mulitple opponents, etc.). thus if you know your opponent(s) might fold to a raise (or check raise), this can increase your chance of winning even if you do not have the best hand at the moment.

rarely pure bluff on the flop, especially versus multiple and/or loose opponents. deciding to bluff on the end can be based on a comparison of how often you think your opponent will call/fold with the pot odds you are getting.

once again, you may better off thinking in terms of your pot equity with regard to what actions to take, especially when you make a hand, rather than adding outs based on whether you think people will fold or not.

hope this makes some kind of sense...please refer to SSHE for elaboration, or some more experienced players can jump in here...

i am sure there are previous threads for pot equity

cheers,
RM

[YoureToast]

No joke. And I saw your subsequent post.
My purpose is to put pot equity principals such as you discuss in more concrete and simple terms (by using the concepts of outs and pot odds).

Heres an example:

You have 78s in the BB.
Theres a bet and a raise preflop.
You call (forget about whether this call is the correct play).
Opener calls.
3 to the flop for 6 small bets.

Flop is TJ2 (rainbow, all of different suits than yours).
You have a gutshot draw.
You have 4 outs and 6:1 pot odds.
Not enough to justify a call in and of itself.
But if you believe there is just a 10% chance of the players behind you folding, your call would be justified (you add 4 outs to your gutshot 4 for a total of 8 outs).

Here's why:

Play it out 10 times, bet each time:
1 time, they both fold. Investment 1, Gain 6
1 time (a slight overstatement but you get the point), you hit gutshot. Investment 1, Gain 6 (preflop) (not taking into account further implied odds)
8 times, one or both of your opponents calls and you don't hit your gutshot. Investment 8, Gain 0.

Total Investment 10 small bets, Gain 12 small bets.

Raise the fold probability to 20% and your getting better than 3:2 on your money.

Obviously, this does not take into account the chance of being raised. I'd like to hear how you'd adjust this concept to take this problem into account.

I believe thinking about pot odds when your first to act in a heads up or 3 handed pot can be very useful.

[elmitchbo]

that actually did make some sense. i think of it as a semi-bluff, and a probe bet at the same time. HOH talks about situations like this... in a heads up situation if you bet out half the pot and your opponent folds 1 time out of 3 its a break even bet even if you lose when he calls. if you occasionally win, then it takes even less folds for the bet to make sense. if you get raised then you know you're probably beaten and you can get out, which will actually save you more than if you checked and called.

before reading that i would almost always checked if i didn't catch the flop. now, if i raised before the flop i almost always put in a bet after the flop if i'm first to act. it gets enough folds to make it worthwhile. i'm not sure how many outs that worth, but it's worth a few at least. probably closer to 2 outs than 4 in the example you gave.

[ToneLoc]

The idea is interesting, but confusing. Outs refer at the cards that will win the pot on the next card, ie when you are called.
To that you try to add "outs" (corresponding to a call scenario) and folding probability (obviously implying a fold)...
Seems like dubious methodology to me, and I think if you want to do things properly you have to use pot equity calculations.

J.

[YoureToast]

I use (and you should use) outs to determine whether a call (or bet in this case) is justified by the pot odds. That is the sole purpose of knowing how many "outs" you have. Yes, I am mixing the two concepts and that is intentional. To me, thinking about pot equity during a hand is unintuitive and impractical. Thinking about outs and corresponding pot odds requirements is much simpler, and probably more accurate.

I came to the conclusion that 10% fold chance equals 4 outs because 4 "standard" outs gives you about a 10% chance of hitting your card. Fairly simple, and, I believe, correct.

[theRealMacoy]

[ QUOTE ]

Raise the fold probability to 20% and your getting better than 3:2 on your money.

Obviously, this does not take into account the chance of being raised. I'd like to hear how you'd adjust this concept to take this problem into account.

I believe thinking about pot odds when your first to act in a heads up or 3 handed pot can be very useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, i believe these things are related (whether to bet and the chances of a fold); however anytime you simplify you are losing information. here are some thoughts...

in NL HE your ability to bet a larger amount and force your opponent to fold is greatly increased over limit play (you give them much poorer pot odds to call). the ideas mentioned above thus would not be as effective in limit play (e.g., a probe bet of the pot or half the pot).

in the example you gave you are actually talking about a semi-bluff (as mentioned above). this is a play when you have multiple ways to win and more cards to come. two of those include when your opponents fold and when you make the best hand later on. if you your opponents are calling stations and will not fold then this play becomes inneffective as you lose one of your ways to win. this is similar to what you are describing. one risk of semi-bluffs from late position is a raise, thus you would decrease your frequency of this play against aggressive players. there are many factors to consider when you semi-bluff: number of opponents, aggressive/passive opponents, your position, how strong you think your opponents are, the chance you will make the best hand.....

the greater the number of oppenents you have the chances of a bluff being effective (on any street) is decreased geometrically. your example of increasing the chance of two opponent both folding to %20 seems highly unlikely in limit play (especially after the flop). if you consider these to be independent events then you mulitply the chance each player has of folding to get the chance they will both fold. thus the two players would need to fold an average of %45 each to have a %20 chance they both fold. actually, these are not independent events as often if one folds the other might call due to that event, giving you worse odds of them both folding.

in a small stakes game of limit HE your opponents are particularly likely to continue on to later streets. especially those who have put in raises before the flop. thus considering pure bluffing as effective on 3rd or 4th street is going to cost you money (especially against more than one opponent). your opponents would need to be very tight players to both fold on the flop after betting pre-flop (especially with the board texture you gave in your example).

pot odds and subsequently pot size are major factor in all decisions. your pot odds determine your actions. period. even deciding to bluff on the river should be informed by your pot odds. your outs tell you your chance to make your hand, and given it is the winner, help calculate your pot equity. thinking in terms of pot equity is just a further application of pot odds and outs. if you can calculate one, then the other is easy.

...regarding your example...
i would check for a free card (assuming you are in last position). this is due to the following factors: the small pot, your small number of outs (e.g., no overcards) your opponents either have strong hands or are aggressive players or both (given the pre-flop action) thus will be unlikely to both fold to one bet on the river, your opponents also might check-raise. also, with a small pot and a drawing hand you wnat to keep people in the pot to pay you off if you hit. a semi-bluff raise here may cause one person to fold or even another to raise.


your idea has an intuitive appeal, no doubt.
however, i think you are better off to consider these factors seperately, which will allow you to make better decisions. simplifying things may be initially helpful but will not allow you to adapt as the situation warrants.

sorry for the rambling thoughts. hopefully this was helpful.

cheers,
the Real Macoy

[YoureToast]

I'll reply in more detail later.
Appreciate the post.
However, you have misjudged my intent. The only question here is "whether you can justify making a bet when you are first to act" -- I perceive those who have checked to have acted. In other words, my question here is narrower than you perceive -- I am only talking about situation in which you are first to act (in the blinds). I think the question of whether to bet on the end after its been checked around is a similar, but slightly different question.

With that said, my intent is not to insist that counting outs in this manner is the "only" thing that is relevant. Just as we all make judgments about whether our true outs are good or not, here too you would need to make judgements about the validity of your decision. "Outs" and "pot odds" are just factors in this assessment, so while I agree with your points, you sort of missed my point.

You mentioned that what I'm talking about is a "semi bluff". You are absolutely correct. So maybe my statement would be better framed like this: "In deciding whether to semibluff from first position, you should add 4 outs for every 10% chance there is that everyone behind you will fold and calculate whether pot odds justify a bet given these outs."

In other words, I am trying to put some empirical data behind a decision we all make everyday. The more people that have to fold, the more difficult it is to assume they all will fold, thus the percentage decreases. This is self-evident. The statement is probably only relevant in heads up or 3-handed play, which, in my game -- Party 15/30 -- is a frequent, I mean very frequent, occurrence.

[theRealMacoy]

[ QUOTE ]
so while I agree with your points, you sort of missed my point.

[/ QUOTE ]


you point is only now actually discernable after 4 posts.



[ QUOTE ]

The statement is probably only relevant in heads up or 3-handed play, which, in my game -- Party 15/30 -- is a frequent, I mean very frequent, occurrence.

[/ QUOTE ]


Dude!
if you had only told us all the relevant info from the beginning! at least now you know what you are actually asking.

given you now have an actual and specific question and a specific limit in mind i suggest asking it, including formula, in the mid/high stakes HE forum. you should get an answer much more relevant to the limit you play.

cheers,
the Real Macoy