Implied odds NL cash games
Chris in Texas
Hypothetical situation, typical max buy-in NL cash game (stacks 25 - 100 BB).
All else being equal, it would seem obvious to me (but I'm not sure) that one
has greater implied odds on str8 draws vs flush draws because of the greater
likelihood that you'll get paid off w/ a disguised str8 than if you hit your
flush draw.
Is this a reasonable generalization or am I missing something.
Thanks,
Chris
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
torx
most people are unlikely to call a big bet on the river with an obvious
flush on an unpaired board.... however, after you bluff at such a board
often.... the chances increase.
On Jun 11 2005 12:53 AM, Chris in Texas wrote:
> I've been studying implied odds in ring games, and have this general
question:
>
> Hypothetical situation, typical max buy-in NL cash game (stacks 25 - 100 BB).
>
> All else being equal, it would seem obvious to me (but I'm not sure) that one
> has greater implied odds on str8 draws vs flush draws because of the greater
> likelihood that you'll get paid off w/ a disguised str8 than if you hit your
> flush draw.
>
> Is this a reasonable generalization or am I missing something.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
-Alexander Knopf
https://secure.pokerchamps.com/pokerpublic/arequest?acode=TORX
http://www.empirepoker.com/index.htm?wm=2206738
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
thenutlow
question:
A good start. Implied odds and thus the understanding, are more important
then pot odds as you move up the ladder.
> Hypothetical situation, typical max buy-in NL cash game (stacks 25 - 100 BB).
> All else being equal, it would seem obvious to me (but I'm not sure) that one
> has greater implied odds on str8 draws vs flush draws because of the greater
> likelihood that you'll get paid off w/ a disguised str8 than if you hit your
> flush draw.
I agree entirely.
> Is this a reasonable generalization or am I missing something.
It is a reasonable generalization.
On Jun 10 2005 10:53 PM, Chris in Texas wrote:
> I've been studying implied odds in ring games, and have this general
question:
>
> Hypothetical situation, typical max buy-in NL cash game (stacks 25 - 100 BB).
>
> All else being equal, it would seem obvious to me (but I'm not sure) that one
> has greater implied odds on str8 draws vs flush draws because of the greater
> likelihood that you'll get paid off w/ a disguised str8 than if you hit your
> flush draw.
>
> Is this a reasonable generalization or am I missing something.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
re-re-bluffing with J6 rocks
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
MysteriAce
> I've been studying implied odds in ring games, and have this general
question:
>
> Hypothetical situation, typical max buy-in NL cash game (stacks 25 - 100 BB).
>
> All else being equal, it would seem obvious to me (but I'm not sure) that one
> has greater implied odds on str8 draws vs flush draws because of the greater
> likelihood that you'll get paid off w/ a disguised str8 than if you hit your
> flush draw.
>
> Is this a reasonable generalization or am I missing something.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
Fair enough. Many notable authors have mentioned that it can be
preferable to draw to a straight than to a flush due to it's 'hidden'
nature. But it is very situationally dependant (in my opinion).
A couple of examples:
You have QT. Flop is 9J2 rainbow. This is a type of situation where you
are less likely to be paid off with a straight because, due to the board,
it becomes more 'obvious' that you are drawing to a straight. Thus, any K
or 8 is going to be likely to slow the action down.
You have QT. Flop is AJ8 rainbow. This is a type of situation where you
are MUCH more likely to be paid off when you make your straight. It'd be
harder for someone to fear a 9 or a K here, since the draw is not so
obvious.
You have QT. Flop is 9J2 with two to a suit (but you don't have those
cards in that suit). Again, this is a type of situation where the
straight draw is more likely to be paid off because it may appear that you
are drawing to the flush so, when it doesn't get there, they may think you
are betting with a busted draw, or anything but a straight (a secondary
advantage to this type of draw is that you also have 9 flush cards to
bluff with, should they land on the board).
Now, with flush draws, the implied odds are generally not so good against
your average player who's DRIVING the betting, but great against anyone
calling along with you. For example, you have AdJd, flop is Td6c3d. If
there is a bet, and two people call that bet (but don't raise), there is a
higher than average probability that you are not the only person drawing
to the flush. Obviously, though, your flush will be the best one if you
make it. So your implied odds are pretty good here, since you are likely
to bust the character who is drawing to the non-nut flush all those times
that you make your flush. In essense, your target is actually one of the
drawing hands, and not the main bettor.
So, it's not always cut and dried that straight draws have better implied
odds than flush draws, it's really dependant upon the action taken not
only by the driving bettor, but also by the callers in the hand with you.
In my opinion, however, the BEST implied odds come from pure gutshot
straight draws. Like when you have QJ and the flop is 893. It will be
nearly impossible for a player with KK or AA to back off the pot when a T
falls on the turn. Of course, before you call any bets from this player,
you have to be reasonably sure that they will stack off with an overpair
to the board, and they have to have a lot of money in front of them left
to bet.
Now that I have haphazardly illustrated some of my opinions about this, it
occurs to me that this is really a much more in-depth issue to discuss.
Maybe we can get some good discussion going, no?
~ MysteriAce
"Success is the by-product of ambition; failure is not an option"
Chris in Texas
On Jun 10 2005 5:16 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
>>
> Now that I have haphazardly illustrated some of my opinions about this, it
> occurs to me that this is really a much more in-depth issue to discuss.
> Maybe we can get some good discussion going, no?
>
I hope others reply to this thread to get something going, I'll be away from a
computer for the next several hours (home game), but will check back either late
tonight or Saturday morning.
BTW, I sent you an email to you msn email address.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Ted Williams
> So, it's not always cut and dried that straight draws have better implied
> odds than flush draws, it's really dependant upon the action taken not
> only by the driving bettor, but also by the callers in the hand with you.
Sure. In general straights are more deceptive, but like everything in poker it
depends on the situation.
I do agree that gutshots can be extremely deceptive. I will sometimes take a
card off on just a gutshot if my opponent and I are both deep, even if the pot
odds are not there (they almost never are in NL). It's great to have extra outs,
like a pair along with the gutshot.
I know that as a player it is easier for me to assume another player has made
their flush than it is to believe that they have the exact two cards needed to
make the straight (especially if the cards required are one gapped or more).
Ted
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
MindRot
On Jun 10 2005 5:16 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
I agree that gutshots have the best implied odds, however with your example it
puts 3 to a straight on board. He might not put you on QJ specifically, but
could still put you on a straight. (67 would've had an open ended draw, albeit
the low end). I'd rather draw to a gutshot with 79 on a T62 flop. If an 8 comes
on the turn, your opponent would have to put you on specifically 79 to have the
straight.
> Now that I have haphazardly illustrated some of my opinions about this, it
> occurs to me that this is really a much more in-depth issue to discuss.
> Maybe we can get some good discussion going, no?
>
> ~ MysteriAce
>
> "Success is the by-product of ambition; failure is not an option"
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Michael Sullivan
> Now, with flush draws, the implied odds are generally not so good against
> your average player who's DRIVING the betting, but great against anyone
> calling along with you. For example, you have AdJd, flop is Td6c3d. If
> there is a bet, and two people call that bet (but don't raise), there is a
> higher than average probability that you are not the only person drawing
> to the flush. Obviously, though, your flush will be the best one if you
> make it. So your implied odds are pretty good here, since you are likely
> to bust the character who is drawing to the non-nut flush all those times
> that you make your flush. In essense, your target is actually one of the
> drawing hands, and not the main bettor.
In the scenario you describe, the nut flush draw is actually a money
favorite on the flop if the second flush draw keeps calling. Nut flush
will hit about 40% of the time. If second flush will call on flop and
turn, then nut flush doesn't need any implied odds at all.
It strikes me that the key to getting money in with made flushes, is a
meta strategy that will often bluff the river when 3 to a suit are on
board, even if you don't hold the flush. Because flushes are more
"obvious", people are more likely to behave optimally facing possible
flushes, than facing possible straights, so you have to find an
unexploitable meta-strategy. This probably involves giving you some
small amount of implied odds, coupled with some small profit on good
bluff situations. The idea is that an opponent who tries to take one of
those profits to zero will be forced to give up you more on the other
end, unless he can read your bluffs.
This should be true, because holding an actual flush on the river, is
clearly more valuable than the average holding someone will have on a
3-flush board at the river. And having a 3-flush board to bluff at when
you hold crap is clearly more valuable than having a non-scary board
when you hold crap. Therefore, there has to be an optimal metastrategy
that generates profit on average in these situations.
You can only get so much money in for implieds this way, though, because
bluffing more than somewhere between half and a whole pot, opens you up
to being exploited by someone who figures out your strategy.
Obviously, if your opponent is a donk, there's no limit to what you can
collect, but reasonable opposition isn't going to call a bigger bet on
the river than you are known to bluff with, unless you can seriously
outroshambo them. So you're stuck with assuming somewhere between the
pot and half the pot for what you can collect, and you're going to get
it around the optimal calling frequency, so 2/3 for half a pot and 1/2
for the whole pot. So the range of implieds you can expect against a
solid opponent is around 1/3 to 1/2 of the pot on the river. Any more
than that is going to have to assume your opponent is readable or weak
(or at least, doesn't understand optimal river strategy and doesn't have
you figured out).
But it looks like, if you only need 1/3 of a pot on the end to justify a
call, then it's worth a call against any opposition, as long as you are
employing this close to optimal metastrategy.
Michael