Odds to call flush draw

[Ronaldadio]

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!!!

 

[roland cote]

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.

 

[Irexes]

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.

 

[F Paulsson]

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 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

 

[lightning36]

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

 

[dj11]

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.

 

[insolitude]

Great discussion, please keep it up guys.

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

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)?

 

[WVHillbilly]

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.

 

[Irexes]

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.

+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.

 

[aliengenius]

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)?

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.

 

[aliengenius]

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

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So basically what you're telling me is, more money equals less pain"

^^^this is why I am such a bankroll nit.
[/FONT]

 

[dj11]

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

RING GAME 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.

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.

 

[Irexes]

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.

 

[Lo-Dog]

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

 

[drawingneardead]

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!

 

[F Paulsson]

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?

 

[Irexes]

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!

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.

 

[Irexes]

FP and me.

It's like mindreading.

 

[dj11]

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?

 

[Irexes]

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.

 

[drawingneardead]

should have added disclaimer

**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.

 

[drawingneardead]

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.

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.

 

[Irexes]

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?

 

[Irexes]

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.

 

[drawingneardead]

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.