Odds to call flush draw

"So basically what you're telling me is, more money equals less pain"

^^^this is why I am such a bankroll nit.

FYP

Tourney play has a beginning a middle and an end! Yeah yeah, I know your arguements already. Not the point.

The nature of a tourney is that it will be a distinct subset of the greater set of poker hands and thus suffer a likely greater deviation from the norm. My limited understanding of ICM gets involved in this particular hand situation, and ICM itself will temper a purely +/- EV evaluation.

In this hand hero is the shortstack, and to him his chips mean everything. Stack sizes reversed and this call is much easier, as it is not life threatening, but in this case it isn't just about chip accumulation, it is about life or death itself.

I think of interest here would be the play if it were to the non-nut flush, where I believe the exact same odds would apply, but certainly the comfort level would not be the same.

To be honest I think that all the tourneys you play are one long game and the result of any individual one is equally irrelevant. Yes variance is bigger and the significance of an individual hand is huge, but making correct $EV decisions in tournies (as opposed to chipEV) will result in consistent winning in exactly the same way as ring. It's just that the long run is a fair bit longer.

when you go on and on about implied odds in an example that has villian all in, you kinda lose your street cred.

So as a 7.5 to 1 dog, I get 9 players committing thier $500 buy in to a big pointless "whole table all in" scenario. BTW This may happen online but is a theoretical situation for all real word purposes.

I am getting good PO to make this call every time. But no player worth thier stack would make it once in the real world.

By your logic now I need 8 x $500 to play (the tables I play every time) correctly. This is a GOOD month's bread for me. Now apply typical poker swings and I am logging negative weeks.

Not an option for me as I have a $1500 a month house payment. Historically, on the few occasions where I could not make my weekly payment to my wife, she immediatly begins to wonder if I should go back to working a 9 to 5 and playing for extra cash on weekends.

There was a time when my bankroll was closer to what you call correct. When I was playing $100 & $200 buy in games... If bound by your logic, I would still be playing those games, grinding 60 hours a week to make the same money.

The day I walk into a casino with $4k is the day I move up to $1k MAX, which is tough to find around here (reliably). I could have a $200K bankroll if I chose so, I would be counting it in my in-law's basement, where I would be living.


To recap, I never claimed it as a good idea to disregard PO for any reason. In the real world we have to control swings, to keep this as a viable JOB... Also we limit our play to minimize our weaknesses and maximize our strengths.


Someone mentioned a "single authority". The only ones that I know are other live game players. They will never know anything about this type of discussion. Should someone attempt to speak of these matters at the casino, I will promptly take them to the other room and ask that they shut thier mouth. Protecting the feeble mindset of my customers is key....Note that my customers include players who cannot get away from draws because of good PO.

Perhaps you see the game as more complex than it really is. In live games, even at higher stakes, players give great odds to better players. This is primarily caused by the type of correct, yet incomplete, logic that I am defying in this thread. Because I can get in as a 3 to 1 favorite (for all of a players chips) as much as 3 times per hour, I don't get in as a 3 to 1 dog (for all of my chips) EVER. Good poker is getting to make these hands @ low risk. Great poker is getting all the money after making the winning hand!

In a casino, you're dealt about 50 hands an hour, I'd guess? And you manage to get all your chips in once about every 15 or 20 hands as a 3:1 favorite?

Assuming a generous 45 hands an hour can you describe these situations where you get to potentially stack someone as much as once every 15 hands (at 3 to 1)??

And this disparaging of the internet as not real is getting tired. The worst play I've seen has been live and I've spoken to people who have been playing live 20 or 30 years to whom the notion of counting outs is a revelation. Bankroll management is the same live or online. You are playing underrolled and are therefore playing weaktight. Shockingly people do this online as well.

FP and me.

It's like mindreading.

DND states;

"Because I can get in as a 3 to 1 favorite (for all of a players chips) as much as 3 times per hour, I don't get in as a 3 to 1 dog (for all of my chips) EVER. Good poker is getting to make these hands @ low risk. Great poker is getting all the money after making the winning hand!"

Ignore what you consider an exaggeration. His point here is very good. It sort of boils down to;

Why should I get involved here when I have faith that a better situation will arise?

His whole demeanor, as far as I have read is one tending toward non confrontation unless he's looking at some pretty damn nice cards. While this might not elevate him to the 'Next Coming of Doyle' level , I do imagine that his read on the situation is good, especially for him.

This brings up the possibility that he is readable at a table, and thus exploitable, but truly, he presents his case well enough that I tend to think he understands that possibility.

I still think about the bot though. A properly programmed bot, playing only +EV situations. Since EV situations are calculatable, the bot should win. This hypothesis should be supported by both FP and AG, after all they, and now rex, are arguing that point.

The big caveat here is probably that situations that require an EV evaluation just don't occur all that frequently, though in theory every hand will have some EV evaluation, few of us would think along those lines while we muck 72o.

So is this a deadlock? Stalemate?

I said it earlier but playing a +EV game is not just about maths, it's about context, reads and many, many other things including pot and implied odds.

It's not about stagnant and unimaginative poker which can be expressed with a few algorhythms.

What is being argued is that attempting to make +EV decisions is a bad idea and that getting your money in as a favourite isn't enough. This is only true if bankroll considerations come into play.


And people do make EV calculations with 72o, that's why they lay it down. They think, if I play this hand a million times I'll lose a fortune. They don't express the maths of course, but that is the whole point, the player who understands EV well can do this not just for 72o and AA but for JJ with a raiser in front and three to act.

**results may vary...

Once per hour is enough to make the case...



"You are playing underrolled and are therefore playing weaktight."


Not weaktight. Known today as TAG. In longer standing circles, this is known as PAG (passive-aggresive). All solid players have an element of PAG play, even if they don't realize. It is a fundamental of poker theory.

Weaktight players get felted by LAG players. LAG players get felted by me.


"While this might not elevate him to the 'Next Coming of Doyle' level"

Correct. No pipedreams here...

If I transition to tournament play my strategy will change. The design of tourney play is what turns me off, not the way ppl play them.

The difference between the way top pros play and the way they claim to play is staggering. In tough games DB plays PAG. As seen on High Stakes Poker. A few stand out players stick to LAG play in tough games, Sammy Farha is a good example. Not very many players can do what he does, including most top pros. Many players who try (jamie gold) get felted in these tough games.

We all do what serves us. My games are tough. Passive-Aggresive play rules tough cash games. LAG is designed for tourney play, and does not fare well in my type of game.

I didnt want the discussion to go this way. I don't want LAG players to know that thier play is 2nd best in tough cash games. I never wanted to debate LAG vs. TAG because I make my living on the lack of understanding surrounding this issue.

The only avenue of thought that I am contesting here can be summed up in this quote:

"Pot odds alone dictate your decision in all in situations." (from AG's post)


The avenue of thought is correct, yet incomplete.

I never planned to make it a credibility issue, as I don't doubt the credibility of FP or AG. They called my credibility into question (over & over).

My credibility should not be an issue with regards to this %100 correct & complete assertion:

PO is one of several tools used to make decisions at the poker table. Not the only tool.

FP & AG (as credible as they are) claimed the opposite. I think there are statements on both sides that could be wisely retracted, but my main point is not on of them.

The main ideas on both side of this dicussion are correct, but only mine is complete.

Sorry about double post.

I am arguing that PO is not enough.

I am also arguing that +EV play is very subjective, and that refusing to make plays with correct PO can be the +EV play.

Not bankroll situations so much as stack size situations. Don't forget pot investment situations.

These factors are applied along with PO (sometimes before PO) and TOGETHER add up to what you would call +EV play & what I simply call winning poker.

Even if it's once an hour, I'm still interested in the kind of hand that gives you 3 to 1 odds to stack someone. Can you give us an example of a situation?

Double post myself now

I would dispute you are playing TAG if you are turning down small edges in Ring games in search of bigger ones. My understanding is that a TAG game is about solid starting selection in order to take advantage of small edges in a big way when they occur. This is related to the other thread where you talk of limping AK on the button. A TAG would look to exploit AK v AQ etc and range of flops that may connect with others. The passive preflop approach removes a big chunk of AK equity.

Defending a strong hand(preflop) or a flopped made hand, against a flush draw is 3 to 1. (ish)

Against OE straight more like 4 to 1. etc...


Look to the example we were originally debating. A guy with a hand as bad as tptk is better than 3 to 1 to win (implied, as we dont know the hole cards of all the players). If tptk is defending that hand, he is correct in making the draws overpay to play thier hand to the river. The player(s) on the draw are incorrect to play the scenario. Because there is an inordinate amount of action here, we can deduce that someone is overplaying thier hand (maybe 2 players)(likely the reason the player on the nut draw is getting good PO).

He is considering an ill-advised call here because PO is good. OGF (I am making this acronym up for other governing factors) are screaming for a muck here. He is not invested in the pot. He has worked this tourney to hard to end it in a stupid 4 way all in. His stack size is 1/4 of what it needs to be to make this call.

My original assertion was that OGF outweigh PO here. About the time I made that assertion I got jumped by 2 very credible members who mistakenly think that PO is the only governing factor.

I am going to keep asserting the original debate at the end of my posts. I want new ppl to this thread to focus on the debate instead of taking shots at my cred....


EDIT (Addressing your 2nd post)

I assure you I play TAG. This is how I take LAG players to school...

It doesn't take much deception to get a LAG players buy in. LAG players love to overplay thier hands. I mix my play with conventional methods (usually early in my night), like all good TAG players do. I also use nonconventional deviations, specifically to get solid LAG players (and any other TAGs) to overplay more. These methods are great for breaking rocks (the WT players that I was accused of being) as well.

Thier downside is that they are very risky in a sea of LAG, which my games typically are.

They can speak for themselves, but I am pretty certain that is not what did or would say

I'll leave you to it.

Yes. I found it suprising as well. But here it is:

AG said:

“Pot odds alone dictate your decision in all in situations."

Upon my contestation:

FP said:

“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."


Giving me the opportunity to say....

Read it and weep.

"In an all-in situation" being the operative term I think

There's a lot more been discussed here than that.



Also they are both quite right which helps.

can't be bothered to go back to the exact context of the above remarks but they are absolutely correct pertaining to cash games.

tourneys have other considerations such as bubble play.

camn i love this thread.. best since i came heree! but, i do believe he said he came in with onkly 500 bucks and it is all in! AG.... you said you are in the money about 27% of the time if i remember rite. what would you do in this situation,. i'm asking you because of your hi in the money results. (and you always give such great insight to the game)

As is normal...

The brightest among will now question PO as the only governing factor.

The weakest of mind will rally to defend the (inherently incomplete) status quo.

About the same results I would get if I went into a country music forum and asserted that the USA is not the "most free country in the world".

For the best. If everyone saw the light it could potentially hurt my bottom line.

For the last time I will impress upon you:

Position, relative stack size, bankroll, implied potential income, pot odds, and implied odds are all governing factors in decision making at the poker table.

If you have never been prevailed upon to fold a hand that is getting good pot odds, you are not considering all things.

Some of my assertions result from the game I play specifically, and the methods I have used to make money in those games.

If you still think that PO is GOD, your game will continue to suffer.

When you are drawing, I hope it is me that is defending...

So we are weakminded.

Lovely.

On the plus side at least you are not being patronising.



You've read the bits you want to in this thread and ignored the bits you don't. This will no doubt go on forever so I'll leave you to it

Unrelated question DND. Why do you choose to play live instead of online?

Golden Archives please.

Not smirking/laughing back there, are you Lodog?

I swear I was gonna stop posting on this thread....

So many reasons. I do not believe that a CPU can throw random cards. I do not trust the casinos, they can manipulate card generation. Take a couple thousand flops in live games and you will see the difference. It is difficult to explain, but patterns can be seen in CPU generated boards. I am adverse to b&m casinos that use pokerpro and other CPU systems as well as online games. These casinos don't carry all the problems that online casinos do, but the issue with generating random cards is there. I have this type of casino 10 min. from home and I got about 80 hours in. As many old pros will tell you, the cards just don't come out right...

A big chunk of poker strategy is missing, as you must know. I use alot of psychological cues that are not apparent against online opponents. Body language is huge. You know all this already, not sure the point of the question. I will continue.


In live games, players have more to lose than money. Players are inclined to play better to avoid embarrassment. They do play better, but more predictably as well.

Online poker is alot like a bad home game. Advanced plays don't work on players who arent astute. Have you ever had a bad player call you down with tptk when you were betting a flush card, just to have him admit that he never noticed the possibility of a flush?

I learned to play limit hold em as a kid as it runs in the family. By the time Online casinos popped up all over, I had great experience and was very well studied (TY Mr. Sklansky). So the 1st time I played an automated system I had already mastered statistical poker, that is I knew the odds of any given situation. So I had already memerized basic statistics and when those stats didnt hold up in the face of automated card generation, I decided never to risk money on the systems. This happens with many live players.

I hate to be telling online players this:

Poker is a game of primarily 2 aspects; the mathematical aspect and the psychological aspect.

The mathematical aspect can be mastered by an astute player in a matter of months. The psychological one takes a lifetime. Online players do not develop that aspect. In fact, they become PO following robots. Unable to even see the entire game, let alone exploit.

Using myself as an example: I could tell you the chances of making a backdoor flush, or boating up from a set or 2pair, before my balls dropped. At the same time I am years from mastering the nuances of the psychological aspect of the game. All my weaknesses lie on that side, just like all accomplished players.

Moving on.....

Players don't play well online. The action is ridiculous, mostly because of the same incomplete avenues of thought I have been trying to refute here. One player makes a bad call...Then another because he got the right PO with the 1st bad caller....So the next one calls. Soon you have the 5 way all ins that you find online, and would have the regulars at the casinos in stitches.

Defending a made hand in online cash games is like defending a made hand in a home game with 8 rookies. You are better to not defend, and to play hands while planning for the river. Bad poker.....

Anyone want to tackle this question?????

Since drawingneardead is, as Irexes noted, not actually responding to what people say but rather to what he thinks they said or what he wished they said I'm directing this post to all other people who may believe he has a point and explain where he goes wrong:

His assertion that pot odds "can often be thrown out the window" when you're facing an all-in is ridiculous.

When deciding to lay down a hand that he knows has positive expected value so that he can afford to keep playing, he's giving up profit. In his specific case, maybe that works out to the best. Maybe he has a small bankroll and his only way to sustain a living out of it is to buy-in for large parts of it and pray that he doesn't go bust that night. For casino play, where there aren't that many tables going at once and not every limit has action, this could be a point. But, and this is key, his opponents gain from it. He's the one being outplayed, not the other way around, when he declines a 3:1 shot in a 4:1 pot.

As for this:

"Position, relative stack size, bankroll, implied potential income, pot odds, and implied odds are all governing factors in decision making at the poker table."

I agree with four of them, disagree strongly with bankroll having to be one (read the Tommy article I linked - hey, he's a live player. Maybe you trust him) and I think "implied potential income" sounds like a made up phrase.

And that's the principle argument. If your bankroll even enters your mind at the poker table, something's wrong.

It is made up. As all poker terminology is. It is money that I can make using the stack in front of me (if I dont give it away as a 3 to 1 dog because I am getting good pot odds).

Heres another one: conditional probability

Figure that out and lmk what you think.

Great players entertain the validity of thier own ideas. They use these ideas to become better than everyone else. Do you think this game is entirely figured out. Do you think that application of pot odds (one of the most basic fundamentals in poker) can make you a great player? Basic is all that you seem to have.

If you can't explain it through pot odds than it can't be explained????

Are you capable of thinking beyond basic poker theory?

Examine the previously mentioned terminology and lmk..

absolutely not made up. and very well defined, to boot.

nobody argues your main point, that other factors than pot odds come into play on the table. we do argue one point only: when and only when the question is "do i put all of my chips in?" things like position, stack size, and implied odds simply do not matter. believe it.

your bankroll considerations are much like refusing to play the coin-flipping game AG proposed somewhere because you only have the money for 1-2-3 payments left. you would be right, but that doesn't mean the game is not profitable for you.

please don't. as many people have said, this is a good thread.

To quickly answer your question here FP.

IMO, pot odds can be thrown out of the window in MTT`s. Sometimes!!!

You are sitting at a final table. Delt AA (yes, this one again.) everyone goes all in before you. This is a massive tourny with big jumps in prize money. You are in 10th place. At this stage you are about 28-30% to win the hand pre flop.

If you win this hand you will jump to 3rd ($8,000) place - because of pot sizes. However, if you fold you will jump from 10th to 4th guarenteed - going from winning $1,000 to a guarentee of $5,000.

Ignore for now the exact money, exact chip stack, etc - everyone is all in up to you so you will be getting way over 4:1 +

I would fold. Folding would guarentee 5:1 on my money.

So, PO dictate a call, other circumstances say fold. The other circumstances, IMO, massivley outweigh the PO.

Cash games, however, are different. I would call. I probably have the best hand.

I feel with this discussion we are talking about two things at the same time, being -

1. Drawing seems to be under bankrolled for the game he is playing. I would think, and this is comming from someone who has never played B&M ring games, ring games have got to be more reliant on PO`s than MTT as you can top up if you go bust? The approach about not wanting to bust out in his first hand seems to be more relevant to a MTT than a ring game. You should not be `bust out` of a ring game - u should have the facility/ bankroll to top up after your good call was muffed.
2. MTT has the big variable - once u lose your chips u r gone, therefore PO`s is not the only determining factor - unless you multi table and you are playing almost robotic (I do agree with a few people that if PO`s were the only factor involved in poker a bot would win most of the time - worrying?)

The OP was talking about MTT, so PO`s, IMO, is not the only concideration.

what MTTs? all this was about cash games... or at least i read it that way. i am absolutely certain both AG and FP (and me) meant cash games in their comments, too.