Odds to call flush draw

benevg, you have brought sanity back to this thread. I can stop beating the dead horse. Players are considering the main idea of my posts in light of the fact that I am not great with debate and easily get sidetracked. (Did I mention my absolutist tone?)

WVHillbilly, I never made a distinction between cash games or tourneys regarding this issue (review previous posts if you don't believe). I am contending that other governing issues (than PO) should be applied in both games.

The idea is important in both types of game, just for different reasons. The importance in tourneys seems to be common knowledge. In ring games there is less pressure to act. You always know there will be another (better) opportunity. The only way you can blow your chance is to get all your chips in with bad odds (I didnt say PO).

What is worse than busting out of a tourney after getting all your chips in as a 3 to 1 dog??

Spending 9 hours @ the casino making up for 2 lost buy ins...after getting all your chips in as a 3 to 1 dog.

This was a huge problem for me and is the driving factor behind my claims. Until I began to muck draws in spite of good PO, This was a 40 - 60 hour a week game for me.

I do not have bankroll management problems, I started with nothing! If I did not limit my play, I would still be playing 100MAX for 60 hours a week to make $500. The idea that I am trying to instill here is what allowed me to play 500MAX for 20 hours a week and make $1k.

To sum it up: This strategy is in a small way is designed to address cash games, and in a large way to address playing poker for a living. Understand??


As far as failing to addess ppl's questions: I have been asked alot of rhetorical questions that are obviously designed to damage my credibility. Also, I am taking one view of the issue and the entire forum seems to be taking the other. (with a few exceptions) It is as if the issue is cut & dry or has been previously discussed. Meanwhile, very little logic has been offered in contrast to my claim.

I have been unable (or unwilling) to field them all while trying to stay on topic.

The OP's question is an important one. Also his phrasing (how many callers (all in) do I need for this to be a good call?) suggests that he has been led to overvalue PO and ignore other factors.


I also feel that this is a great thread. I do, however, feel that the main idea of my OP validates itself and should not require me to defend my credibility.

Still the best thread in a long while.

I reread post 4, which was DND's first response. It was his last line about playing some cash games that looks to have really started this very interesting chain of thoughts.

In many ways this is a thread about differences between ring vs tourney play. The OP game description was clearly labeled MTT. The hand chosen by OP was a fairly common tourney situation. Often with make it or break it consequences.

IMO much of the response has been ring game slanted.

I have no problem with DND distrusting online poker. I think most of us don't distrust it. His money, his opinion. My only question about that would be how he accounts for all the new young guns of poker doing so well in big LIVE MTT's? These guys did not get proficient at poker playing live games.

Since a guiding principle of my own tourney play gives greater weight to the survival aspect of play, I probably tend to have my ears open more for someone who shows me that capability than for someone pressing odds over survival. DND shows a healthy respect for the survival instinct.

There seems to be something underlying this whole thread that is at best only been alluded to. Both situations, survival vs odds, ought not be antithetical. Seems to me the correct recipe might never be agreed on, but that doesn't necessarily mean the outcomes MUST be either/or.

A puzzle for the more mathematical;

Suppose through a long tourney you run into a string of events where you are 3-1 favorites. You will win these 75% of the time. For sake of discussion, lets say you run into 5 of these.

Math will suggest the long term outcome for those 5 events, will be .75 x .75 x .75 x .75 x .75.

Using my handy dandy built in calculator, tells me that .75 multiplied 5 times is in the range of 25% (0.2373046875).

To me this suggests that a blind adherence to +EV plays is -----EV!!!

So, I again suggest that an EV evaluation is an aid, not a dictum.

If my math is so flawed here, and you can show me, please do. I could have a totally skewed POV about the figures, and/or how the calculations go and I am delusional. I freely admit it is a real conditional probability.

its funny that u bring up this flush draw hand.. i got booted out
of a freeroll the other day because of some crappy flush draw,
i had top top or w/e... im curious to know if you called or not and the
outcome
cool

I have nothing to say.....All I can do is smile and nod in approval.


Now I can't get the theme song from Rocky out of my head.

Your math is not flawed, but your conclusion is far out there. What you're stating is that because a tournament often consists of multiple all-in situations, even someone who's fortunate enough to be a 3:1 favorite every time the money goes in is still unlikely to win the tournament.

This is true, and a well-known and generally agreed upon fact. People, even the best players in the world, don't win tournaments very often. You need luck to win a tournament. You need luck to win any hand. Even probable events are inprobable to occur as sufficiently long consistent chain.

And what's your proposed alternative? Folding KK preflop because you believe your opponent holds AK and you want to pass up on the 3:1 shot because, statistically speaking, you're a 3:1 dog to get knocked out if you repeat this call five times?

This is nonsense. It's specifically the logic that you've been dodging.

I'll do something I usually don't in a discussion, and appeal to authority. Dan Harrington and Greg Raymer disagree with DND. Dan Harrington believes that the most important consideration, even in tournaments, should be pot odds. Greg Raymer has stated that there's no "good tournament player" would would knowingly pass up getting it all in with a 55% chance to win.

And that's for tournaments. Where survival is the name of the game. Why fear getting it all in as a favorite in a cash game when all you need to do is reload if you lose the coin toss? Because you're playing with a small bankroll and losing this one buy-in means you cannot afford to continue. So you get outplayed by the opposition and pushed off of the better hands.

I hope you realize why most of us would rather play solid poker than scared poker.

You say that you'd rather play $500 buy-in games than $100 buy-in games and win your 1k a week in a shorter time. And to this I counter that if you actually played a more solid game and stopped folding winners, you could probably crush the $100 game for as much money a week as you today beat the $500 for, with far less risk and far more peace of mind.

Ok...I didn't bother to read the argument that has dominated most of this post because usually those kinds of arguments don't do any good.

There are two schools of thought on this. Seat one pushed all in and you are seat 2 so you can only count on the money from you and seat 1. by pot odds you are getting 17k(5 players in the hand pre flop for tc 5000 + the 12k that seat one had behind him) and have to call 12k from your stack leaving you with 4k. You CANNOT COUNT ON ANY OTHER CALLERS AFTER THAT. Assume that everyone else will fold at this point and make your decision based upon that info. This is an easy fold for me. I am not going to go this far in a tourney and risk it all on a 3-1 draw. I would rather fold here and wait for a better opportunity. IF I am going to risk it all on a draw then I want to be the person pushing...not calling. This is my opinion.

Now to play devil's advocate. If you call and win you will have the 17k in the pot plus your 16k for a total of 33k. Now, if this were the final table then you would be the Chip Leader and have a very good chance at winning or at least getting top 3(which is where the real money is). Since you didn't include that info I am going to assume that there is at least 3-4 full tables left. At this stage of the tourney you can call and hope to double up and have a good chance at the final table. Sometimes you have to put your chips in drawing to the nuts due to your stack size. IF you fold you have 16xbb left and can still play for a little while. If you call and lose you will be on a respirator and have to push or fold any hand you are dealt. How much do you feel like gambling? I have seen players call here and pray. Sometimes poker is like that but I don't believe it is the correct play. Now if you were on the button then things might be different but that is a whole other discussion.

As I've re-read this thread several times over the past few days, and thought about it quite a bit, I think that neither view is wrong.

My position is that without complete information, there are never any absolutes in poker, so saying any odds should be blindly adhered to is as bad as saying to ignore those odds is absurd. Those odds exist however and CAN NOT be ignored. They are a tool, a piece of information needed to make sound table decisions.

How we each use them is the crux of this discussion IMHO.

Also IMHO, DND, you have suffered no reputational damage, indeed the opposite. You presented your case well.

FP, AG, REX and a few who have tilted over this thread and not posted have presented their case well. A bit dogmatically, but well nonetheless.