F'n guy makes terrible call & ....

...kills me. i get A/J and make it 15 to go. 3 callers. flop comes J/6/7 rainbow. i bet 15. one fold and this guy i play with who is a complete nut raises to 40. i've seen him play and he bluffs alot and bets his draws super strong to get free cards so i go all in for 206. the pot is now about 312. he needs to put in another 166 to call, which he does with 4/5. so basically he's getting about 2-1 on his money with odds of 3-1 to make his hand. fraser(EV boy) never would have made the call....

anyway, he gets his 8 on the river. the most pissed i'd been in a long time playing poker. i was 65.8% to win when all the money went in..

hi headcheese,

First of all, sorry about the bad beat. Wanted to toss out a germ of an idea I'm working on. Was wondering if you ever read any discussion of it.

When we calculate odds, post flop; we are basically calculating them on the amount of cards that we know that are in our hand and on the board. All odds that I've seen are based on that concept.

However, in a 9 handed ring game, what's left in the deck, post flop is 30 cards The question is, is there a better way to figure out what those remaining cards are based on the number of hands played or folded pre-flop?

If I hold pocket aces, but I'm called by 5 guys, well chances are that at least one of those guys has one of my aces, or I should at least adjust my expectations on the hand. If I'm called by one or two people, odds are I probably have a better chance of hitting trips than the odds would seem to suggest, if I calculate the odds by the conventional method. Any of this make sense?

yeah it was a bad beat but i guess i'm "supposed" to want guys to make "mistakes" against me like that even though the purpose of my bet was to make him fold. if he keeps making stupid calls(neg. EV) like that he "shouldn't" be a long term winner...i did get all my money back from him later in the game.

i always try to consider what cards the other players might be holding in my dicisions, but since they are really "unknown", the only way to figure odds is by going on what you know which is only your hole cards and the board. its not perfect but its the best tool you have to figure the odds.

judo - great concept. For example A guy I play with in low stake cash games never plays anything other than A high or a pair above 8 (i.e. folds religiously). When I have an A against him my kicker becomes so much more of a factor in my decisions than it normally would.

he had close to right odds for call

closer to 2-1 than 3-1.

also when he shows that hand people know he is hard to run over with what appears to be a loose call

hey wrecker,

aren't the odds of an open ended st8 completing about 1 out of 4? he was only getting about 2 to 1 on his money by calling my bet right - 166 to win 312?

am i wrong?? and would you have played it the same if you were him? how would you have played it if you were me?


I could be wrong (in fact, I probably am), but I think it's close to 3-1 to make the straight, but he also could make trips or two pair, which brings the odds up.

There are 8 cards that make his straight. Conventional way we compute odds its 8/45 +8/44 or approximately 36% to hit it. roughly 3-1

BUT if there was still 8 outs left in the deck with 30 cards left it would be 8/30 +8/29 which is around 54%. He would be the favorite to make his draw under these circumstances. As long as he thinks there is no less than 6 left in the deck, he's got to call.

Now we can't ever know with certainty what the cards left in the deck contain, but if we could figure out fairly close to what was remaining in the deck considering how the other players played their hands, we could get a better reading of what our true odds were.

he had 8 "realistic" outs(not counting runner runner 2 pair or trips which would be such a long shot its not ever worth considering) which meant the odds of him completing his hand were 2.17 to 1. that meant he had a 31.5% chance to complete his hand or once out of every 3.17 in simular draws. to call my bet meant that he was only getting only 2 for 1 on his money - doubling his money with only 31.5% chance to win. i was all in so there were no implied odds. he already had 55 of his chips in the pot but he wasn't "pot commited". it was a negative EV play anyway you slice it. i don't see how you could see it any other way? if you beleive in the "numbers", it was a mistake to call.

No question its a bad call, based on how you compute the odds.

I'm just looking to see if there's a better way to figure out the texture of the remaining 30 cards to get a better handle on what the odds are. If you could get it within 1 card, it would be more correct assuming those cards distributed over a 30 card deck than a 45 card deck (assuming you had a good sense of your opponent's hand)

Can we get a better sense by how many players are in a hand, and the way the hands were played as to the texture of the deck, post flop? Sort of like how a card counter looks at a blackjack deck. Is the deck rich of low cards or high cards etc.?

What do you think? Is there a way to solve that problem?

8 outs with 2 cards to come is about 32% closer to 2-1 than 3-1.

You got your money in with the best of it which was correct, his call was only a little negative, but actually at that point especially early in the game he should make that call.

When people see that 4-5 they will be wary of trying to run him out of a pot, he will also make more money because people will not give him as much credit for having a good starting hand, when he does have one.

The implied odds for later in the game makes this a decent call on his part if he can take advantage of his now "loose" image.

Hi TorontoMike,

I agree. You might be able to get a general idea if there are multiple players calling raises and double raises or if you have lots of early and middle position folding about the general texture of the deck, but on average it would probably be extremely difficult.

I was just wondering if anyone ever gave thought to it. If you could get a general "sense" of the odds of the number of cards left in the deck that you need to make or break your hand, it could probably work better.

If nearly everyone played a Sklansky type of Holdem, I think you could get a fairly accurate assessment of the cards left. That's not reality.

Just throwing it out there to see if any of the mathematically inclined individuals ever put any thought into trying to figure out a better method of odds computation than is currently used by the majority of poker players.

i see your point wrecker - if he had tightened up after that hand he might have made additional money off his loose call image but he didn't. he continued to play loose and i got all my money back by giving his raises no respect and going after him hard knowing he'd call with draws and top pair/weak kicker, which he did. he was like an ATM machine. he left the table with only 100 bucks and i got all my money gack from him.

the problem is that in the games i play in many people aren't very observant and so many players come and go so fast that making really expensive loose calls or simular moves to set yourself up for later in the game usually won't pay off. most of the players aren't sophisticated enough to catch on to subtleties - like feeding pigs caviar.

judo - you have to consider what other might be holding when making decisions, but the only way to figure odds, however imperfect, is the the old fashioned way....


wrecker wrote:

"8 outs with 2 cards to come is about 32% closer to 2-1 than 3-1."

so he's 31.5% to make his hand and geting only 2-1 on his money. for that call to be correct mathematically, considering the pot odds(excluding any benefit from advertising being loose), he would have needed 13-14 outs - then it would at least have been a "coin flip" - and even then, if you think you have some skill why risk your whole stack on a coin flip when you could wait for better spots?

so you would have made that call wrecker?

wait, i'm getting confused here...wouldn't he need pot odds of at least to 3 to 1 on his money to justify the call from a purely mathematical perspective? am i figureing this right? where is fraser when you need him?

and judo, you may be onto something:

you probably have a better chance of hitting trip 2's with a pair in a pot where the whole table calls a raise as most would have folded a single 2 and any other card to any raise so the other two 2's would probably still be in the deck. the opposite might me true if you hold AA against 9 players all calling a raise....

AJo vs 45o on a J67rainbow board is a 1.9:1 favorite. He can win $478 with a $166 call so he's getting 2.9:1. Easy call, IMO.

HEADCHEESE- your math is off, maybe you are calculating with 1 card to come?

His call is only slightly off mathmatically, but the implied situation of benefits later in the game could make this a definite call or a close one, depending on how much benefit he will get from showing bad cards.

14 outs with 2 cards to come is even money.

I may of played his hand differently but when it came down to it his mistake was only a small math one not a large one like you think.

His Math is wrong. Headcheese is not realizing that 33% for something is 2:1 odds, not 3:1 odds. The fraction is 1 in 3, 2 times against it, 1 time for it.

Brighton your math is wrong also. The $166 that he has to call with should not be included in the pot when considering the pot odds. He is putting up $166 to win the $312 already in the pot, which comes out to a bit less than 1.9:1 ratio on his call.

Bottom line, he was getting 1.9:1 odds to call on a hand that he was a 2.1:1 dog in. Not horrible, but perhaps he shouldnt have raised to $40 unless he was sure you were going to fold. The $40 didnt pot commit him, but it made calling a reasonable option.

Like Wreckker said, action creates action. The more people see him play like this, the more likely they will want to play big hands with him in the future, times when he could be playing the nuts. However, he could also just be an idiot. This call isnt really enough to make an arguement one way or another.

Arbiannight-well said.

Green brother and you know poker!

Too stoned when I,m on here to give well thought explanation as you did. You are defintely right in what you said.