| Posted by: Goldog at December 5, 2007, 9:40 pm | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Zach, I'm not accusing you of anything. I see where you say you don't play this way, I'm just using your numbers to show how it simply won't work out +EV, implied odds or not. You can still play at my table but I won't expect to see Q5o
Just curious, if you don't play this way and you don't want to discuss real numbers, what is your point?
Not to yell at the donkfish? I'll yell at whoever the hell I want to.
And I don't even need to be right. In fact I'd rather be wrong!
Well, not really, NH sir.
goldog
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: vanquish at December 5, 2007, 7:22 pm | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Goldog
A little quick math using your facts.
Over 30 such hands you'll bet 6 units 30 times pre-flop. Lets assume 1 of 3 you will hit something. So, 10 times you will call 25 on flop. 1 of 10 times you will improve.
(30x6)+(10x25)=430 invested.
Where are these implied odds you speak of
Please come to my table.
goldog
[x] A+ use of smileys
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: zachvac at December 5, 2007, 11:25 am | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Goldog
A little quick math using your facts.
Over 30 such hands you'll bet 6 units 30 times pre-flop. Lets assume 1 of 3 you will hit something. So, 10 times you will call 25 on flop. 1 of 10 times you will improve.
(30x6)+(10x25)=430 invested.
Where are these implied odds you speak of
Please come to my table.
goldog
Did you read either of my posts at all? Just so you know my VP$IP with Q5o is 6.04 with a PFR% of 3.36%. Although I do lose overall with the hand, my net without the blinds is positive (meaning if I just folded every blind and hand I got Q5o I'd have less than now). This is over 149 times of having Q5o. I don't play that way, don't endorse playing that way, and if you believe I do you obviously didn't read what I wrote.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Goldog at December 5, 2007, 5:24 am | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
A little quick math using your facts.
Over 30 such hands you'll bet 6 units 30 times pre-flop. Lets assume 1 of 3 you will hit something. So, 10 times you will call 25 on flop. 1 of 10 times you will improve.
(30x6)+(10x25)=430 invested.
Where are these implied odds you speak of
Please come to my table.
goldog
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: zachvac at December 5, 2007, 12:57 am | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by WildBullshark
Most importantly, and something practically no one does while computing implied odds, is you didn't factor into your calculations that the two pair could be counterfeited or an ace hits on the river which is a close percentage to the Q5 hitting its outs in the hand anyway. The AA would be roughly 18.18% to win the hand after the turn, which isn't too much worse then Q5's 22.12% on the flop, not to mention that the Q5 is only 12.12% preflop (which in my opinion is a ery weak call). So, a lot of mistakes were made by the Q5.
Read the post I just posted, that should clear up the second part of this. For the first part, all of poker is based on when the money goes in. Q5 called 25 chips with a 22.12% to win. We are assuming that AA will call off his entire stack (forget the exact amount but significantly more than 25) with 18.18% to win. Actually, I'll recalculate it including that.
With this call, he is 10.6% to hit the turn. If h... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: zachvac at December 5, 2007, 12:47 am | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by dj11
Zach, you almost make sense, but that 16:1 odds number seems fetched from thin air. Since we don't have a theoretics poker physics lab here with guys who this sort of thinking , this could be so far over my head, and then certainly over most folks heads as to need telescope. Please clarify where that number came from.
IF poker were all about the math, then computers would play it and in the end all the computers would net zip. Poker numbers are a fraction of the info one wants to make decisions.
I think somehow, this notion, the way you put it, along with my donk factor solution of 8% belong together.
It's also interesting to me personally that you picked Q5. For a long time in my early online playing, I ascribed all sorts of magic to Q5. I think what happened was that before I knew any better, I played Q5 every time and probably won 5 or 10 hands with it in a row. It is just a footnote now, but a significant one.
If ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: WildBullshark at December 4, 2007, 10:36 am | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
I think implied odds are ery important, but people often try to justify horrible plays with weak hands through implied odds. Even most professional players don't use implied odds without marginally strong or drawing hands. You would really have to be playing an extremely deep stacked full-handed game and have a lot of information on your opponent to be calling based on implied odds with a pair of fives in that spot. Especially for the play to be profitable. You would have to put your opponent on a ery small range of hands if not an exact hand.
Most importantly, and something practically no one does while computing implied odds, is you didn't factor into your calculations that the two pair could be counterfeited or an ace hits on the river which is a close percentage to the Q5 hitting its outs in the hand anyway. The AA would be roughly 18.18% to win the hand after the turn, which isn't too much worse then Q5's 22.12% on the flop, not to mention that the Q5 is only 12.12% preflop (which in m... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: vanquish at December 4, 2007, 5:12 am | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by dj11
Since we don't have a theoretics poker physics lab here with guys who this sort of thinking
It obviously comes from the average temperature of the universe found by the Cosmic Microwave Background calculated at time of recombination. DUCY?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: dj11 at December 4, 2007, 2:54 am | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Zach, you almost make sense, but that 16:1 odds number seems fetched from thin air. Since we don't have a theoretics poker physics lab here with guys who this sort of thinking , this could be so far over my head, and then certainly over most folks heads as to need telescope. Please clarify where that number came from.
IF poker were all about the math, then computers would play it and in the end all the computers would net zip. Poker numbers are a fraction of the info one wants to make decisions.
I think somehow, this notion, the way you put it, along with my donk factor solution of 8% belong together.
It's also interesting to me personally that you picked Q5. For a long time in my early online playing, I ascribed all sorts of magic to Q5. I think what happened was that before I knew any better, I played Q5 every time and probably won 5 or 10 hands with it in a row. It is just a footnote now, but a significant one.
If your thought persists for another day or two, try... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: zachvac at December 4, 2007, 2:38 am | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris_TC
Yes, but how do you know that your opponent has an overpair? Since most players will c-bet almost all the time, you really have no idea about how far your opponent is willing to go with his hand.
Also, you shouldn't be in the pot with Q5o to begin with. Preflop, you're certainly not getting odds to call.
Right, I don't think you understand my point. The person playing Q5o is not a good player, but they unwittingly are making the correct play because of the poor play of the opponent. If you call your stack with AA, you are giving implied odds to any hand basically. That's all I'm trying to say, not that you should call with Q5o, but that if you have AA and you call all the way down, you shouldn't be surprised when you lose money overall to suckouts, because you are actually giving them correct implied odds, although the person with Q5o probably doesn't understand that. I don't know what kind of limits you play but I see that kind of ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Chris_TC at December 4, 2007, 1:55 am | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by zachvac
well I meant in the case of AA, and I specifically included that condition because many people I've seen play like that. I've seen people bet hard with TT in that scenario, and keeps pushing because they're thinking "that donk couldn't have called with an over card".
Yes, but how do you know that your opponent has an overpair? Since most players will c-bet almost all the time, you really have no idea about how far your opponent is willing to go with his hand.
Also, you shouldn't be in the pot with Q5o to begin with. Preflop, you're certainly not getting odds to call.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: ChuckTs at December 3, 2007, 8:49 pm | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Chris has a point; it all depends on what kind of players are and whether or not they're likely to stack you with as little as an overpair.
To take it to the end of the spectrum, if you look at HSP they're often stacked with like 500k at 300/600 blinds. That's huge, but you don't often see stacks without some massive bluff or two monster hands (see set over quads ) because the players are so good that they'd rarely stack with an overpair without a ery good read.
On the other hand, ery bad players might stack with as little as TPxK if they're poor enough.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: zachvac at December 3, 2007, 8:43 pm | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
well I meant in the case of AA, and I specifically included that condition because many people I've seen play like that. I've seen people bet hard with TT in that scenario, and keeps pushing because they're thinking "that donk couldn't have called with an over card". I'm talking about people who complain about poor play, and usually aren't that great themselves. The point is that playing badly, calling all the way, actually rewards the "bad" calls.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Chris_TC at December 3, 2007, 8:24 pm | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by zachvac
But really if we hit trips or 2-pair we end up winning the entire stack.
Big assumption there. I often fold overpairs (including AA) if I feel I'm beat. Somebody pushing all-in usually means exactly that.
Now, of course I know that most people will instacall with AA no matter what, but I still don't agree with your theory.
Looking at your example of a flop of 259 - what if the opponent has a pair of tens and a King comes on the turn? Or an Ace? What about a third heart? Will he really go broke with TT?
Or what if he simply c-bet a pair of sevens? Do you think he'll put his entire stack in the middle, or would he rather check-fold it down after you call on the flop?
There are a ton of situations where you won't be able to stack your opponent. In fact, I'd say that in most cases your opponent won't have a hand strong enough to go broke with. And even if he does, he might just have Aces Up or a bigger set...
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: zachvac at December 3, 2007, 5:02 pm | | Topic: A Deeper Look at Implied Odds Forum: Card Chat |
So everyone knows what implied odds are. You have suited connectors and are drawing without outs but you know your opponent has a monster and that if you hit you'll more than make up for the loss in pot odds with bets on later streets. But I'm going to look a little deeper.
Here's a standard situation. Let's say 1/2 blinds with stacks of 400, no units, all that matters is the proportion. Anyways, a few limpers limp in preflop, button has AA, raises 6x (12) to isolate, gets one caller (pot size around 30 now). Flop comes out 259, 2 hearts. He raises to eliminate the draws, bets 3/4 to 1 times the pot size (say 25). Guy calls (pot size 80 now), Q of diamonds comes. Again a pot size bet (160). This time he re-raises (he makes it 250 from 80, new pot size = 410, 170 to call), instead of calling he pushes all-in, putting his opponent on something like AQh, thinking that with TPTK + nut flush draw he could possibly have the best hand, so AA pushes all-in (pot size is 580 after call, I haven't been ca... | | Read Entire Entry |
|