Speculative dead cards.

[peritonlogon]

The purpose of this post is to ask for examples of situations where one can either
1) deduce dead cards that are opponents hole cards or
2) where usually a particular card is dead;

Thus either making a draw or hand better or worse.

I wish I had a hand to illustrate this idea other than the obvious examples of

3 strait (JQK) vs. an A completes and a T raises.

I've run into a few spots where more subtle examples exist,
and it recently occurred to me that every hand there may be spots where I can start considering certain outs of mine or my opponents as partially dead and, possibly up my EV very substantially.

Another spot is, for example, on 5th I have a flush draw with 2 dead diamond and my opponent has paired his door card and made what I KNOW to be a set of 9s. But his up cards do not contain a diamond. Therefore, since I know that there is a 50% change his third 9 is a diamond rather than that unkown card having a 20%-25% change of being a diamond, so rather than giving myself credit for a full 7 outs I reduce it to around 6.5 outs, which depending on the pot size may move my hand from a call to a fold.

This particular idea is discussed with some depth in a Holdem book I recently bought called "Weighing the Odds in Holdem poker." I was hoping that with the help of some talented 2+2 posters a plethera of situations could be hammered out and debated and more profitable spots could be found.

[beta1607]

This is something I have been thinking about recently and I would like to see some discussion on it. Is the book you refer to King Yao's book?

[lstream]

Funny you should mention this - I have been working this concept into my play recently. So far, I have only used it to help decide if I should continue on a straight draw, but I expect there are other situations too. The concept needs to be combined with a read on the other players and whether you give them credit for the hand they are representing.

I will watch for hands and post when one of these hands comes up. When thinking about this, I found it interesting that the idea was not covered in SCSFAP (at least from what I can recall)

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
This is something I have been thinking about recently and I would like to see some discussion on it. Is the book you refer to King Yao's book?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

[Bartholow]

Yeah, this definitely comes up a lot. I can't think of general examples aside from the sort of thing you've already mentioned. There is a brief allusion to the idea is 7CSFAP on page 51, talking about 89T vs a raising queen. I think in general they consider it part of the general high level logic that you should employ. I'll also keep an eye out for hands that are illustrative.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
When thinking about this, I found it interesting that the idea was not covered in SCSFAP (at least from what I can recall)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's mentioned in passing on p. 53 the section about 3 straits on 3rd.
But the idea of using it on flushes for example could prove very powerful. If you think an opponent with an ace up has split aces, if his up card is the suit you need then you can add, I think, 1/4 to 1/3 of an out, and if it is not of your suit you should subtract, I think, 1/4 to 1/5 of an out. Since, in the first instance there are 42 unknowns, but 41 cards are unknow in as far as they're of your suit, and. And in the second, instead of there being a say 9/42 or 21% chance of their one of the cards being of your suite, there would be an even 33%. Which Could add up to something big if other deductions could be made around the table.