THE FORUMS


German ForumsGeneral DiscussionStrategyFrench Forum
Old Oct 04, 2005, 6:57pm   #21
FisherKing
Flop Artist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 57
Reputation: 0
FisherKing
Default

Quote:
Ok,

So the issue is drawing against the possible set.
AJS, I think the real issue is this: it makes no sense to semi-bluff when you know for a fact that your opponents will not fold. Pot odds aside, it makes no sense to donate to the pot just because you have a draw. There is nothing to gain by this, you can only lose more money than necessary.

BTW- the rule of thumb is that it is approximately 3-1 to make your flush with 2 cards to come, and 4-1 with one card.

4-1 twice is not 2-1!
FisherKing est déconnecté   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

Old Oct 04, 2005, 8:17pm   #22
Dougikins
Brunson
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 195
Reputation: 0
Dougikins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FisherKing
BTW- the rule of thumb is that it is approximately 3-1 to make your flush with 2 cards to come, and 4-1 with one card.

4-1 twice is not 2-1!
Wrong. You have about a 4:1 chance of hitting with one card, like you said. Then, you again have a 4:1 chance, approximately. Therefore, you're about a 35% to win the hand. That does not equal 3:1.
Dougikins est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 04, 2005, 8:37pm   #23
FisherKing
Flop Artist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 57
Reputation: 0
FisherKing
Default

Oops, I see know. I always think in percentages instead of X-X odds. I've been relating 3:1 to 1/3 or 1 in 3, and 2:1 to 1/2.

Silly mistake, I apologize Dougikins.
FisherKing est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 04, 2005, 8:52pm   #24
AJS
Doyle Look-alike
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Reputation: 0
AJS
Default

Quote:
it makes no sense to semi-bluff when you know for a fact that your opponents will not fold.
At the time of my decision I put McMizzle at a 50/50 to call/fold. He was a very tight straight forward player who was I thought was capable of folding TPTK to that much pressure.

Now for the part about putting more money in on a draw. Correct me if I am wrong but as long as the odds are there does it matter who puts the money in? Bigger risk, bigger reward. If for some reason he let me see the next card for free, AND I hit, I was pretty confident he would not pay me off for it. Two of us against him on a loose table, he would have to put one of us on the draw. So, drawing against the possible set aside, I think that paying forward on this was actually a good move. In other words if the pot odds were better (3:1 or better) it would have actually been a good move. Correct me if I am wrong.
AJS est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 04, 2005, 10:41pm   #25
Dougikins
Brunson
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 195
Reputation: 0
Dougikins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FisherKing
Oops, I see know. I always think in percentages instead of X-X odds. I've been relating 3:1 to 1/3 or 1 in 3, and 2:1 to 1/2.

Silly mistake, I apologize Dougikins.
Yeah, I had the problem for awhile, too. I also saw 3:1 as 1/3, when in reality it is 1/4. Odds can be confusing for awhile, but once you have them, they make things more interesting and fun.
Dougikins est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 05, 2005, 4:31pm   #26
FisherKing
Flop Artist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 57
Reputation: 0
FisherKing
Default

Quote:
At the time of my decision I put McMizzle at a 50/50 to call/fold. He was a very tight straight forward player who was I thought was capable of folding TPTK to that much pressure.
Looking back at the hand, the reraiser was already all-in, so obvoiusly you can't win by betting, so why throw extra money into a pot you have such a small chance of winning?

What does mcmizzle matter? getting him to fold just decreases your pot odds, you are still going to have to show down the best hand to win with someone already all-in.

Quote:
Now for the part about putting more money in on a draw. Correct me if I am wrong but as long as the odds are there does it matter who puts the money in?
The only way I can see it, is that heads up as it was at that moment, you know you are going to lose about 70% of whatever you put into that pot in the long run. I don't know what the exact odds are, but that's my very rough estimate of your odds at that point.

How could it be a good idea to go all-in when you know you are a huge underdog?
FisherKing est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 05, 2005, 5:07pm   #27
AJS
Doyle Look-alike
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Reputation: 0
AJS
Default

FisherKing,

Quote:
Looking back at the hand, the reraiser was already all-in, so obvoiusly you can't win by betting, so why throw extra money into a pot you have such a small chance of winning?
One of us are seeing this wrong "and I am not conceding yet".

The re-raiser was all in but McMizzle wasn't. If McMizzle was not in the hand calling the other all in would have given me 2:1 pot odds to catch my flush with two cards.

At the risk of repeating an earlier post: I push McMizzle all in (A)he folds I get my bet back leaving me with calling the first all in at 2:1. (b) he calls and now I again am getting 2:1 for my FL draw.
Either way 2:1 and I got McMizzle to put the money in where he likley would not have after the third FL card hit.
2:1 is 2:1 no matter how it gets there. Any other move (except folding) would have given me worse odds in my view.

Of course with this particular hand in question my mistake was not considering the possibilty of the made set which throws me down to 3:1 but like I asked in a previous post, If the situation was 3:1 it would of been the right move, right?

Quote:
What does mcmizzle matter? getting him to fold just decreases your pot odds, you are still going to have to show down the best hand to win with someone already all-in.
Pot odds same either way.

Quote:
The only way I can see it, is that heads up as it was at that moment, you know you are going to lose about 70% of whatever you put into that pot in the long run. I don't know what the exact odds are, but that's my very rough estimate of your odds at that point.
Not following you on this one.

Quote:
How could it be a good idea to go all-in when you know you are a huge underdog?
Ignoring the set issue: I wasn't, it was 2:1 to catch / 2:1 pot odds. I have conceded that not considering the set was a mistake and I am hoping to anyalize this same move if the odds were 3:1 which would account for drawing against a set.

note: I am not replying just for the sake of arguing either. It's these thorough reviews that cement ideas in my head and helps me make the right "split second" decisions later.
AJS est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 05, 2005, 6:34pm   #28
Dougikins
Brunson
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 195
Reputation: 0
Dougikins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmash
If you're going to look at the pot odds, you have to consider the fact that one of the players more than likely has a set (I would have figured it to be arcalusta, but nonetheless). In this case, the flush draw is a behind 75-25, as opposed to the standard 66-33 scenario for a flush draw. Therefore, for pot odds to apply you need the pot to be $60 to call a $20 bet....3-1, not 2-1...
I'm not so sure you're logic is correct here. If the opponent has trip 6s or 4s, any club will win in this situation, except the Jc. If they hold trip Js, again the Jc beats you. So, instead of 9 club outs, you have 8. Instead of a 35% chance of hitting on either the turn or the river, you have around a 34% of hitting. STILL around 2:1 winning odds here. If the guy who has trip Js pulls a boat with a 6 or a 4, it can't be a club, so you would've lost anyway. My point is that the winning odds change very slightly when going against a pair to a set. The pot odds still exist the same way because a flush beats a set.
Dougikins est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 05, 2005, 6:50pm   #29
AJS
Doyle Look-alike
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Reputation: 0
AJS
Default

Dougikins,
Quote:
The pot odds still exist the same way because a flush beats a set.
If you run the hands through the hand simulator; drawing two cards to a flush does change from 2:1 to 3:1 when the opponent has a set. (first time I used it, pretty nice, thanks TwoGun) This is due to the fact that even if you do catch your FL, you now have to consider the possibility of him also catching his FH therefore killing even more of the cards you are drawing too.

Same logic as "don't draw to a ST or FL with a pair on the board", just hidden in this case so creating gray area on the call, need some overlay better than the 2:1 pot odds.

Since we don't KNOW they have a set thats where the gamble comes. 2.5:1, or ... "do I feel Lucky?" what ever works of you.
AJS est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 05, 2005, 7:15pm   #30
Dougikins
Brunson
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 195
Reputation: 0
Dougikins
Default

I'm more talking of this specific hand. If the person hits their full house, you wouldn't have had a flush anyway, so you lose. IF you hit your 8 clean flush outs, you cannot lose in this hand.
Dougikins est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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. The time now is 2:24am. vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.