Roller
Legend
Platinum Level
Mathematical odds are a good starting point for most players and then you can go in the direction that works for you. Exploitative play is a preference of some and can be very profitable when done properly. Take every edge you can and do what works specifically for you and your personality.
BetterThanAvgButNotByMuch
Visionary
Bronze Level
I'm not into horses but the odds are based on opinions just like sports betting and they're not definite.
The outs in poker are definite. There are only so many cards in a deck and only so many cards that can help your opponent or help you improve your hand.
You have to know there are 52 cards in a deck. There are only 4 of kind cards and 4 suits and you have to be able to count how many are outs are available to help you.
If you want to really understand outs then play stud, stud8 or razz on pokerstars with play chips. You start a hand and the cards you might need are literally staring at you on your opponents boards.
So if you have an ace in the hole(not showing) but your opponents are showing the remaining 3 aces on their boards then guess what? You're not to pair that ace!!! Its that simple.
Omaha and Holdem don't show opponent cards so you should assume they're still available but then you learn what hands people usually play then use deductive reasoning to eliminate cards since your opponent probably are holding them but that takes skill.
You have to know basic outs and that's easy to figure out with basic math that you can do on your fingers and some practice then you have to weigh the odds.
The outs in poker are definite. There are only so many cards in a deck and only so many cards that can help your opponent or help you improve your hand.
You have to know there are 52 cards in a deck. There are only 4 of kind cards and 4 suits and you have to be able to count how many are outs are available to help you.
If you want to really understand outs then play stud, stud8 or razz on pokerstars with play chips. You start a hand and the cards you might need are literally staring at you on your opponents boards.
So if you have an ace in the hole(not showing) but your opponents are showing the remaining 3 aces on their boards then guess what? You're not to pair that ace!!! Its that simple.
Omaha and Holdem don't show opponent cards so you should assume they're still available but then you learn what hands people usually play then use deductive reasoning to eliminate cards since your opponent probably are holding them but that takes skill.
You have to know basic outs and that's easy to figure out with basic math that you can do on your fingers and some practice then you have to weigh the odds.
N
Niykk
Visionary
Bronze Level
eberetta1
Legend
Loyaler
For me, it is not the odds that determine my odds of winning or others odds of winning. Simply observing who has the larger stack will let me know who is going to win the hand 60 percent of the time, which is a better predictor than my 30 percent chance of winning with the outs I have.
Phoenix Wright
Legend
Loyaler
I believe calculating your general odds of winning (which counting outs is one form of attempting), should serve as a good basis for your decision, but shouldn't always be the end-all; we use the math to play a factor in our decision.
Sometimes, that factor is decisive in us choosing one poker decision over another (like calling or folding to a River All-in)
However, even if the "math in our favor" sometimes I'll chose a different option based on non-math reasons. Maybe my opponent is giving off a specific tell which indicated they have a monster hand which beats me, despite how good my odds are. This is why poker isn't easy and why the game is still "beatable" in some ways.
Poker solvers might have "solved" poker in a math sense, but the card game is played by human players who are not game-theory-optimal robots. As long as this is true, then a winning player can be able to exploit the game (odds in their favor) which might not be math-based.
How much of a role this plays is debated by poker pros and poker enthusiasts alike, but they pretty much all seem to agree that it is a factor on some level. I use math to help me make my decisions, but not all of my poker decisions are 100% based on the math (things like counting outs).
Sometimes, that factor is decisive in us choosing one poker decision over another (like calling or folding to a River All-in)
However, even if the "math in our favor" sometimes I'll chose a different option based on non-math reasons. Maybe my opponent is giving off a specific tell which indicated they have a monster hand which beats me, despite how good my odds are. This is why poker isn't easy and why the game is still "beatable" in some ways.
Poker solvers might have "solved" poker in a math sense, but the card game is played by human players who are not game-theory-optimal robots. As long as this is true, then a winning player can be able to exploit the game (odds in their favor) which might not be math-based.
How much of a role this plays is debated by poker pros and poker enthusiasts alike, but they pretty much all seem to agree that it is a factor on some level. I use math to help me make my decisions, but not all of my poker decisions are 100% based on the math (things like counting outs).