Odds to call flush draw

This may have been covered in an earlier thread somewhere but I don't feel like searching for it so here it goes.

Your in BB with a stack of 15k+ late in an MTT and your already in the money.
Blinds 500/1000
Stacks are seat 1-13k+(UTG), seat 2-17k+, seat 3-21k+, seat 4-9k+, seat 5-11k+, seat 6-10k+,seat 7-30k+ and SB-25k+ respectively, seats 1,3,7 limp and SB completes.
You look down to see Ad3d, flop comes Kd2d10c, seat 1 pushes all-in.
My question is this, how many callers would you need to make this a proper call?
I have been in a similar position b4 and would think something like "Just two more callers please to make this an easy call for me"

I would need atleast 2:1 odds to call. You have a favorable position as you have 12 outs because of your overcard unless your opponent is drawing to a open ender (where if you get the ace on the turn, you can still river him with a flush).

You need to remember that you might have to call more chips on the turn or the river if you're not all-in and the possibility that someone is holding 2 of your outs.

I would put UTG on a King (maybe lucky two pair), with a small possibility of having a set. He probably wouldn't play a flush draw this way unless the buy-in of the tournament is low and you know him to be a donk.

Getting it all in with two or more opponents on the flop with a draw to the nut flush is $$$.

Oh my how the blind have been led astray.....

My friend, when u are considering putting all your chips in, forget pot odds and EV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These methods of calculation are to be applied to your play longterm. When you are putting all your chips in the middle you might want to have the best hand now or the best hand (implied to the end of the hand). In this scenario you have neither. You are going to put your entire tourney on a 3 to 1 draw???????

I fully understand how pot odds, implied odds, and EV work, but they can often be thrown out the window when u are facing an all in. If this decision was for 15 or 20 % of your chips, pot odds would be enough. In this case pot odds are leading you astray.

If you get 3 to 1 on your money it is because 1 or more players in the hand ARE MISPLAYING THIER HAND. You are likely one of them..... You are getting in with the nut draw, but anyone defending a made hand is outplaying you and all others who are chasing that flush for all thier chips.


Oh how I would love to be they guy defending a made hand in your scenario.

You should spend some time playing cash games. In these games, following pot odds to the letter is suicide. What I mean is: you always want to be getting good pot odds to call, but good pot odds arent near enough to make the call good.

No. No, you don't.

This clash was inevitable.

I could explain the mathematics behind these the principles to prove to you that I do understand them...

First I'll try to explain myself using a hypothetical situation...

I walk into the casino with $500. I sit down and my 1st hand dealt is KTd. I am in middle position. A few players try to limp including myself. The button player raises to $25 and I make a loose call mostly in order to build a loose table image early. Seats 1&2 (blinds) as well as seat 3 call.

The flop comes 8d 3c Ad.

Seat 1 immediately goes all in for say $700.

Seat 2 thinks awhile and calls. Same deal for Seat3.

My turn to act.

Let us say I put seat 10 on a pair of aces with a facecard kicker.

I sort of expect a call from but not real sure.

I have the nut flush draw.

Lets look to conventional poker wisdom when deciding whether I should call.

PO says I am getting better than 3 to 1 (possibly 4 to 1 with button player) and therefore justifies a call on a 3 to 1 draw.

In light of the fact that 1 player is very likely drawing to an inferior flush, our PO goes down a bit but our IO increases more than enough to make up for it. In fact we are looking to triple up or better on this hand with all the action in front of us.

Therefore, IO is massive and justifies a call here.

It is ingrained in every good poker player that EV is positive here even if they have never heard the term "expected value".

PO, IO, & EV all say go here. The only catch is that you will potentially need 3-4 $500 buy ins to acheive the "expected value" in the end.

An unlucky player could drop $2000 before hitting the big draw.

Or he could "incorrectly" fold this hand and save his $500 for when he actually has the best of it.

The cash game scenario is the friendlier one... I used it because that is the game I play.

So you have been in this huge, longshot tourney for 4 hours. You have survived all this time. A player would be out of his mind to get all in on a hand like the one desribed in the original post.

The call may be the right one if u have 4 tourneys running at once. Or if you have 5 times the initial buy in (for cash games) in your pocket. But in the scenario originally posted, and the one I just posted above, the call is incorrect.

Mr. Paulsson throw me an example of how I am incorrect so I can discuss it with you as opposed to discussing it with myself.

Flop is Jd8d7h.

You have KdTd. Your opponent moves all-in and flips up QQ.

Do you fold or call? Who has the better hand?

There are no implied odds if you and your opponent are all in, only pot odds. Implied odds refer to money behind that you could potentially win. No such money exists here, as it is now all in the pot.

Pot odds alone dictate your decision in all in situations.

If you put one opponent on a lower flush, one on tptk, and one on a set, then it's possible that you only have five outs to win. You should make your calculations on that, not on the full nine outs for the nut flush draw hu.

Also, you actually have the opposite attitude regarding tournament vs cash game play here. In a cash game you should ALWAYS make the +ev play, as that play is by definition +$ev. In a tournament survival also factors in, such that you might fold +chipEV situations in order maintain your potential cashing (+real money EV) chances.

NOT the other way around.

If you are overplaying your bankroll by being unable to afford to lose the $500 you brought to the cash game, then that's a separate problem. It shouldn't matter in the least that an "unlucky player could drop $2000 before hitting the big draw": if they win $2500 when they do hit, that's +$500.

rofl. At first I thought you gave an example of a primary draw. I guess I get a bit more credit than that.

*If you dont already know how difficult it will be to answer this question because of lack of info, you will when im done.

*The chance of my ever having seen this flop are very (fraction of percent) low. My opponent would have had to grossly misplay his hand.

Q1: Which is the better hand.
A1: Looks like a coin flip to me (not much more than 2% either way)

Q2: Did I call or fold (you didnt mention what any of the action was).
A2: I folded to his preflop raise (most likely; based on lack of info.)

Implied Q3:Assuming I saw the flop (Maybe he got stupid and limped) Do I call a value bet?

A3a: Yes, if I put him on QQ (which would be impossible as far as I know)(he did limp after all)

A3b: No, if I put him on better than 1 pair or a better flush draw (which I likely do on a limp pot and with a large bet)

Implied Q4: Do I call an all in bet on the flop?
A4: No, Not only are PO no good. I am not invested in the pot. I would also be putting him on a better hand here. (2pr,set,better draw)


Would I like to play a hand like this for my entire buy in (cash game) or my late game stack (tourney)? Absolutely not.

Do I avoid these situations at the casino? Yes, probably %90 of them.

*Before I continue: I apologize for my offensive tone in earlier posts. (It is a problem that I have always struggled with.) We got off on entirely the wrong foot, which is entirely my fault.

I am not trying to devalue the use of PO in poker theory. I just think that PO is an ingredient in making a good call; a secondary one.

Before examining PO you must determine what you are willing to risk based on the size of your bankroll. I would not play any of the 3 scenarios we have discussed for a large pot using my 1st buy in on a given day (cash game) or when my tourney is on the line.

In fact, with my 1st buy in I nearly always avoid anything less than a 3 to 1 favorite. This is absolutely necessary when you play cash games. Players who fail at this concept are the ones cycling through the game at a pace of 3 ppl per hour.

In my world, players who apply only PO & EV to thier decisions bust and leave before my tight ass can get any of thier buy in.

I am longwinded.... Throw me another theoretical situation (maybe some more details) Let's make a useful discussion out of this...

Some very good comment here and I could agree and disagree with a lot of it.

Going back to the initial question should explain my point.

Should you call or not with when you `seem` to be drawing to the nuts in the later stages of a MTT?

This goes back to the old "when to fold AA preflop" question.

EV, PO, etc, etc, IMO should go out of the window here if you move up the places and it makes a significant difference to your winnings.

So, if it was going to make no difference (i.e. The prize is the same for the next 10 places and I am just hanging on in there, but in the money) I would call and gamble.

If moving up makes a massive difference in winnings, there is an argument to fold, hoping that one or two get knocked out.

I would need to know more about the prize structure

You don't have to "put" him on anything. He flipped up his cards. You KNOW that he has QQ.

KdTd is 53% chance to win on this flop (www.pokerstove.com). KdTd, no matter how you slice it, is the better hand. If both go all-in and QQ wins, it was the king-ten hand that suffered a beat.

Another cash game scenario:

100 BB stacks, I move all-in with AK, you have KK. According to you, you will "nearly always fold here" if it's your first buy-in.

... and that's just horrible. It's awful poker.

The reason we have big bankrolls is so that we can afford to actually play winning poker. Folding pocket kings preflop because a guy went all-in with AK is not winning poker. Ever.

I have never folded KK before the flop. Not sure I wanted to admit that...I have paid off AA a few times too.

I have no idea how u got to that conclusion or what to even make of your last post.

I don't want to trade slander with you. If your posts have no substance we have no fruitful discussion.

AG: you said "Pot odds alone dictate your decision in all in situations."

This is precisely where we disagree. I have been playing professionally for over 4 years and have found that this doctrine is simply not enough. In fact, I struggled through my 1st year learning precisely that lesson the hard way.

If the statement were true than any dummy could make a killing playing this game. That is absolutely not the case. I have personally only met a handful of players who are doing it. (Lemme tell ya, I don't remember the last time I played a coin flip hand with one of them for my whole buy in.)

Have you never folded in a situation where you were getting good PO in favor of a better situation to come?

Could you program a CPU to beat up on tough cash games?

To stay on point: Since I have been doing this a long time, let me tell you what happens when you make all plays based on PO. You take in such a small amount of $ per hour that you have to play 60 hours per week to make ends meet. I did it for a long time.

My average hourly rate for the 1st year I played was $9. It took a year to make what I was making when I left my real job. I was also never able to get into higher buy in games because my swings were too high. My hourly rate for 2007 was $31. I am playing at higher limits. But I got to that point by applying what you would call a "pre pot odds" filter in certain situations.

I would never suggest playing hands that offer poor pot odds, but I am suggesting avoiding some hands/draws that do offer good pot odds. In favor of situations which are statistically superior regardless of pot odds.

Another question: which situation is favorable?

You look down at AA from the BB as the entire table is folding to an early position raise. Your call will bring you heads up against the preflop aggressor.

or

any of the situations we discussed above...

You can certainly get better pot odds from the latter situation, but if I have to choose I will always take the former. In my world, taking $500 as a 3 to 1 favorite is much more welcome than looking to win $2000 as a 3 to 1 dog.

You said, and I quote:

"In fact, with my 1st buy in I nearly always avoid anything less than a 3 to 1 favorite. This is absolutely necessary when you play cash games. Players who fail at this concept are the ones cycling through the game at a pace of 3 ppl per hour."

Pocket kings are only 2:1 versus AK, so a hand that you would be naturally inclined to fold. I bring this obvious example up to illustrate how silly this concept is.

AG is absolutely correct. Pot odds, and pot odds alone, are what dictates how to play in an all-in situation. If you fold because you want to save your money, the better move is to just not play poker at all. That way, you don't have to risk any of it. Poker, as constructed, means that you're betting money with some risk of losing it. If you would rather have QQ than KdTd on a flop of Jd8d7h when all the money goes in, then you would do well to listen to what some of us are saying.

It's unfortunate that you consider my posts to have no substance.

If I offer to flip a coin with you ten times, and every time it comes up heads I pay you $525, and every time it comes up tails you pay me $500 are you saying you would decline?

No ag I am not saying that.

Furthermore, I am not saying any of the things that paulsson is claiming. He made up the AK vs. KK out of the blue. I have no idea where that came from.

The only claim that I am making is that in many cases a play (particularly for all your chips) needs filtering beyond application of pot odds.

To give you some perspective: I have played at every casino in a 100 mile radius of my home. I only like 1, the 1 where the money is easiest. I drive 50 minutes each way several times a week when there is are casinos 10 min. and 20 min. from my house respectively. I wear completely different cloths and and carry an entirely different persona while at the casino. I look and act like a tourist. I act loose while playing tight. I go play when the game is at it's weakest and I won't be caught dead there when it is at it's toughest.

I have found a niche where I can work 3 days a week and make way more than I have ever made at a job in my life. For the last few years I have done whatever it takes to avoid a 9 to 5.

Some is done at the table and some is done off the table. Avoiding dicey situations in the name of the game. PO doesnt handle it all for you. Additional filters are needed.

1. Pocket kings are about 2:1 to win vs. ace-king preflop.
2. You said you fold anything worse than a 3:1 favorite.
3. I deduced that you would fold pocket kings if I pushed you all-in and showed you ace-king.

I thought I had explained what I meant very clearly.

you put in only 1,000 in chips, why would you call that? on a draw...

wait till u get ur hands and move all in then.

i see no reason why u would call this, and more callers mean u have more chance to lose, if u got only 1 caller u could win with an ace allso.

but there is no good way to play here because if the cards draw bad u lose and its a "bad" dissicion maybe and if u hit ur flush your lucky so its hard to find a good way.

if you are allready in the money u can try it, u got allready money and if u win u get off the oxygen. so low stack = call but if u got enough behind i would be patient and fold

"You said you fold anything worse than a 3:1 favorite."


No I didn't. I said "with my 1st buy in I nearly always avoid anything less than a 3 to 1 favorite"

The statement was in the context of putting all of my chips in play. I do not apply this to a $10 raise before the flop.....

If you are willing to commit all of your chips to a pot as a 3 to 1 dog and with no pot equity, simply because you are getting good pot odds, you are not playing solid poker.

If you think that PO is GOD and there is no value in getting in with the best of it, I cannot help you.

I give my wife $1k a week. I do not run around with $3k in my pocket so I can afford to play every hand that gets reasonable PO in a $500 game. The players who do that are paying my bills...

If I have 66, and 7 players shove all in preflop in front of me, I muck my hand. I do not count the action, apply pot odds, and call with a hand that is only likely to win 1 in 8 times.



"you put in only 1,000 in chips, why would you call that? on a draw...

wait till u get ur hands and move all in then."


EXACTLY!

So I repeat, because you don't read:

1. Pocket kings are about 2:1 to win vs. ace-king preflop.
2. You said you fold anything worse than a 3:1 favorite.
3. I deduced that you would fold pocket kings if I pushed you all-in and showed you ace-king.

"No pot equity"? Do you even understand the word? My pot equity, per definition, is 25%. That's what it MEANS when you say 3:1. You claim that you understand these things, but you clearly don't.

If you insist that these two are oppositing statements, I repeat my assertion that you don't know what you're talking about.

What if you had aces and 7 people pushed all in preflop in front of you? Are you really going to commit all your chips to a hand that is only going to win one time out of three?

well, drawingneardead, good luck in your casino play. it should be pretty obvious by now that you make a nice living by playing ultra-conservative, -EV poker sometimes. i am certain that some people around here would like to know which casino you play at regularly.

seriously, saying you know what implied odds are, and then discussing what your implied odds are when you either have to put all your chips in or fold right now... you need to do some reading. and please, don't go on telling us how we are wrong and you are right. point to a single authority that would support your points instead... if you can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drawingneardead ...If (F_Paulsson's) posts have no substance we have no fruitful discussion....

^^ i would have totally put that in my sig if it wasn't forbidden these days.

Both drawings and FPs are compelling arguments as I see both sides to this discussion.
Drawing is refering to how your odds of winning a draw decrease with the amount of players in the hand(I think) But IMO, this look at it is extremely weak/tight(but for some, this is a strategy that works well), but then again this look he has on a drawing hand is from the perspective of a ring player.
FPs on the other hand is from the perspective of a tourney player which the OP is referring to in which case the call is going to happen with 3-1 or more pot odds.
Great discussion BTW

I've played a grand total of 5 tournaments in the past six months, I think. My viewpoint is sternly set and fixed in ring games. If two players push all-in in front of me and I hold the nut flush draw, I'd have to have a good reason to fold. Clearly I'm not calling with Qh9h on a AhAsKh board since my outs are tainted and I'm drawing dead often. But on an unpaired board, I'm not afraid to put my chips in with an edge.

That's what it comes down to. How big of an edge you're willing to push. If you're passing on edges to "live another day" you're playing at a level that either you or your psyche can't handle. Worst case scenario, it's both.

This discussion resembles one that took place a year or so ago, where a casino player (who claimed to be a winning professional) explained that if he was getting ready to go home and had had a big winning night, and then was dealt aces and someone who had him covered pushed all-in in front of him, he would fold. He didn't want to risk that much money.

You may think this is a silly comparison, but these situations are not, at their core, different. It's a matter of degree, not a matter of "same or different." What edge are you willing to take? He wasn't willing to take a large edge because the money meant too much to him (or rather, his wasn't psychologically willing to risk going home a loser for the night, this is called being "risk-averse"). I won't knowingly pass up on even a small edge in a regular cash game because doing so won't really "reduce variance" it will only reduce profit

If seven players move in in front of me, I will call with 66.*

/FP

* Perhaps counter-intuitively, this works out more to my advantage if my players are competent. If seven competent players all move in, my edge is greater with 66 than it is if they have just random hands. With the risk of sounding Sklansky-esque: Do you see why?

Well, you actually ARE saying that, only we are talking about odds in poker instead of coins.

This, IMO, is a great discussion!!!

I don`t think either side of the argument is either wrong or right.

I suppose that is what is great about poker?

I would think that technically FP`s argument is correct.

However, as I said earlier, this is very similar to "when to fold AA preflop" (please don`t start to go into much detail about this!!!)

The point I am trying to make is that although what FP is saying is correct, and I`m sorry if I got this wrong FP, but if you work with PO, EV, etc, over a period of time you will come out a winner. That period of time, however, could by anything from one day to 50 years.

On the other hand, to take drawings point, and I`m sure something is in Dan Harringtons book about this, sometimes you have to fold even when you know you are ahead (AA preflop, final table, everyone all in, you to act. If you call you could move up to 3rd place, if you fold you will move up to at least 3rd place - u could argue fold here, even though you are fav) and I know there are split pot possibilities, but not likely.

Great discussion guys, but don`t fall out - you are all knowlegable poker players and it is great for me to read your perspective on various situations

No. This isn't an "argument" is a correction of a misunderstanding that isn't getting through.

Actually, the great thing about poker is that people can't seem to grasp fundamental concepts like this, and yet continue to play (and continue to think they play well).

Argument, with this statement, means "A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.

No point in going overboard with my comments. In life not everyone will agree with what you say, no matter how flawed you know or think their view point is - accept it!!!

This is one of the better discusions i have read here, with a lot of input from some some of the better players and analyzers. It's why I stay at this site. But..... if it was ME going into a cash game and only had the initial 500 bucks to play with< I'd fold....east chicago is a 1 hr. drive and I'd hate to have been at a casino for only 20 mins. and have to drive rite back!! I'd wait for a better hand< unless you got another grand or so in ur pocket. If it's all I had with me, I'd start out at on of the 100 dollar buy in tables and see what happened there. Of course if your playing at resorts casino, they don't have a 100 dollar buy in no limit table. With all the expert advise from all you very knowledgable people, MY advice for MY situation is best!!! still really enjoying the discussion tho for other situations when they come up.

To me ring play seems to be about not worrying about whether or not you win individual hands, but ensuring that in the long term you make money.

Given that online with multitabling the long-term (in hands) starts to assert itself in a relatively short period of time (in days) it's got to be correct (assuming the bankroll) to play +EV poker which includes putting money in while behind, because the individual hand really doesn't matter. If it does then move down a level.

In tournies of course $EV does not equal chipEV and strange situations can occur.

If you drive to a casino and can't afford a downswing of a few buyins then the decision is affected by time and bankroll as a factor, but to suggest that you should be folding hands where you have equity online is as daft as turning down AGs coinfip scenario (which is as he said the exact same thing).

And to refer to your post where you suggest that you would turn down a situation where you are 2:1 favourite with your first buy-in (ie try to get all in with at least 3:1 advantage).

Please either concede you didn't mean that or explain how it works in practice cause I presume you are folding a hell of a lot of hands where you are way ahead.

And a professional player should never put themselves in the situation that they can't afford to make money. I can fully understand that some people go to Vegas and want to try out poker, and that they may sit down at a table without really being able to keep playing if they lose their buy-in. If that's the case, they're not really there to make money, they're there to have fun. How to best spend your time and have fun isn't something I'm going to argue.

I have to share this article, though, because it's brilliant (as is everything Tommy has written): Enough is Not Enough

Dang - best thread in weeks. Thanks for the great discusion.

I sure hope drawingneardead doesn't abandon this thread.

IMO his points are valid, as are his detractors.

If, according to both FP, and AG, the game should be played strictly according to a +EV evaluation, then surely a bot will win always, as it will never suffer distractions or mood swings or misclicks.

If, as drawingnerardead proposes, we use the info from the +EV evaluation to temper our decisions, even with a stated goal leaning toward survival, we will tend to do less, to much less, self harm. Which backwardly is a +EV frame of mind.

DON"T ABANDON THIS drawingneardead!

PS, I'm not taking sides here, it's great mental fodder, to say the least.

As for the bankroll issue. I suggest both sides assume both sides have a healthy respect for money, and don't get so sidetracked about it.

Perhaps as a slight variation on the OP, a consideration of just a draw to the flush (non-nut) might be an interesting deviation.

Great discussion, please keep it up guys.

FP (and perhaps AG), can you clarify how you would play this early in a 9-player SNG and say 6-7 players move all-in ahead of you (and why)?

And here I thought I was the only one who lived in their own little world.

Getting all your $$ in with hands that have positive expectations is definitely the way to make the most money (I hope that DND isn't refuting that). Now if you show up at your local B&M with your last $500 you may not want to put it all on the line with only a 3% edge, but that's because you're practicing bad BRM, not because it's the right play to fold.

Oh, and DND how are you getting ANY action if you're folding anytime you're less than 3:1? I'd have thought that all those superior B&M players, with their complete understanding of game theory, would have figured you out by now.

+EV poker is far from robotic and there's no such thing as always win.

Poker is one long game from the day you start til the day you stop. If you consistently make the best decision you will come out ahead in the long run. The results of hands or sessions cease to be relevant.

FP is calling in a ring game because the odds of flopping his set are 7.5:1. However, you probably need all eight or nine players to move in, as flopping a set isn't going to win by the river vs that many players enough to justify the call at getting only 8:1 on your money (sometimes you will lose to straights, flushes, and higher sets).

In a sng tournament it's an easy fold, as you will essentially be in the money simply by folding. Here we can easily see the difference between '+real $ ev' decisions and '+ chip ev' decisions that occur in tournaments but not in ring games.