Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

Hi everyone welcome to the study group. We're starting with any and all questions on Odds and Outs or Bet Sizing, the first two chapters in PNL1.

Fire away!


Some thoughts:

1. Implied odds are what count. Always consider what you might win or lose if you hit your hand, or if your opponent hits his.

2. Poker players tend to be optimistic about their implied odds. So be cautious. Consider whether you're discounting your outs enough, and also whether you really are going to get half of your opponent's stack on average when you hit your flush.

3. Bet sizing is an art form and not something you can learn overnight.

4. A thought experiment: suppose you had to play online poker exclusively and the only bet you could make was a fixed percentage of the pot. They offer you a "bet pot" button with no slider to adjust, but you can change "bet pot" to any size. What would you choose?

I would choose 2/3 the pot or perhaps slightly more, like 70% of the pot. 2/3 is an excellent all-purpose bet size. It's also rarely THE best bet size. Rather, it's a good compromise.

5. Continuation bets can be small, but if you use a small cbet like 1/3 or 1/2 the pot you had better be making that same bet size with at least some of your bigger hands. Otherwise an astute opponent will eat you alive. This is a major and common weakness seen in live $1-$2 games. A tight player makes a big raise preflop then makes a small bet postflop, say $10 into a $30 pot. When that happens, first look around to see if anyone else in the pot looks interested. If not, seriously consider making a 2/3 pot raise or similar. If your opponent plays back at you after such a weak cbet, he's less of a mark and should get more respect later on.

By the same token, when you make small cbets and face a couple decent opponents mixed in with the weak ones, you often want to play all hands that way when in pots against the better opponents so you can sucker them in. However, when you end up in pots against the weak ones, just make bigger bets with your big hands until they fight back against your smaller cbets when you miss.

The trick is to exploit them as much as they'll let you. Against very bad opponents that are commonly found in low-limit live games and the lowest online limits, you can get away with this stuff and should take advantage.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

Maybe I've missed the PSA, but the odds table in appendix B is incorrect. I don't understand how such a thing can happen, checking e.g. wikipedia is the _least_ one can do, right? </rant>

Some minor note which I find useful because I'm a nit: the 'multiply by four' rule can be improved a bit to
p = outs * 4 - (number of outs above 8), e.g. for 15 outs
p = 15*4 - 7 = 53% instead of 60% (real number 54%).

Then a real question:

On page 12 you discuss the K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] hand on a T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] board, and discount the 9 possible flush outs to 5 outs, which seems quite drastic to me. Now I'm reading it for the second time, you don't mention the number of opponents (or pre-flop action); what did you intended? If it was heads-up and raised preflop I'd be quite happy with my number of outs; if it was limped 7-way multiway I wouldn't. What are your thoughts on this?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I've missed the PSA, but the odds table in appendix B is incorrect. I don't understand how such a thing can happen, checking e.g. wikipedia is the _least_ one can do, right? </rant>

Some minor note which I find useful because I'm a nit: the 'multiply by four' rule can be improved a bit to
p = outs * 4 - (number of outs above 8), e.g. for 15 outs
p = 15*4 - 7 = 53% instead of 60% (real number 54%).

[/ QUOTE ]


You are of course right. Divisors should be 47 and 46, not 49 and 48. This was an Excel eff up and was right when we first did it and checked it. It was my fault, not Sunny or Ed's.

Nice modification of the Four Times Rule!


[ QUOTE ]
Then a real question:

On page 12 you discuss the K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] hand on a T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] board, and discount the 9 possible flush outs to 5 outs, which seems quite drastic to me. Now I'm reading it for the second time, you don't mention the number of opponents (or pre-flop action); what did you intended? If it was heads-up and raised preflop I'd be quite happy with my number of outs; if it was limped 7-way multiway I wouldn't. What are your thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. We didn't want anything complicated to confuse the discussion, because discounting outs is plenty if you don't already know to do it. Here we were indeed thinking of a multiway pot, so we also didn't count the kings and jacks.


Deeper discounting should be used when the penalty for hitting a bad "out" is worse than the gain from hitting a good out. For example, if you opponent holds a full house and you hit the flush here, you will lose more money, and maybe a lot more. But if you hit the flush, you won't necessarily make anything more from him. By discounting your outs more, you help adjust for the nastiness of hitting yet still being behind.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

Matt,

in the book you recommend 2/3P as a good default bet size if you're unsure about how much to bet. Thinking about just on the flop, do you like 2/3 pot as an average bet size, or should flop bet sizes tend to be a bit larger than this in typical low stakes online/live conditions?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I've missed the PSA, but the odds table in appendix B is incorrect. I don't understand how such a thing can happen, checking e.g. wikipedia is the _least_ one can do, right? </rant>

Some minor note which I find useful because I'm a nit: the 'multiply by four' rule can be improved a bit to
p = outs * 4 - (number of outs above 8), e.g. for 15 outs
p = 15*4 - 7 = 53% instead of 60% (real number 54%).

Then a real question:

On page 12 you discuss the K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] hand on a T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] board, and discount the 9 possible flush outs to 5 outs, which seems quite drastic to me. Now I'm reading it for the second time, you don't mention the number of opponents (or pre-flop action); what did you intended? If it was heads-up and raised preflop I'd be quite happy with my number of outs; if it was limped 7-way multiway I wouldn't. What are your thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly there is actually a modification to the 2X rule as well. You add a few percent per out based on +8 outs. I don't remember this is exactly right but I am sure it could be verified by someone else who remembers more precisely.

+EV

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

On page 18 in the hand where you hold 8c6c on a Qh7c5d flop you say that you are 5-to-1 against hitting your straight on the next card.

When determining outs on the flop why did you only calculate your chance with only one card to come? Since there are two cards to come wouldn't you use the 4 times rule?

8X4= 32% chance of winning
We would then be sitting nearly 2-to-1 against, making it profitable to call getting 3.2-to-1 pot odds before even considering implied odds.

Obviosly it is still a call (or arguably a raise) but I was just wondering if my logic and understanding of the concept is correct.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Matt,

in the book you recommend 2/3P as a good default bet size if you're unsure about how much to bet. Thinking about just on the flop, do you like 2/3 pot as an average bet size, or should flop bet sizes tend to be a bit larger than this in typical low stakes online/live conditions?

[/ QUOTE ]


this primarily depends on how often you bluff vs. bet with a made hand on the flop.

if you bluff a lot, it also depends on whether smaller bets get respect: if they will fold to smaller bets and you bluff a lot (relative to having a made hand) then you'd go for half pot or even less.

if you don't bluff often, you mainly want to get paid off and force others to pay to draw, so you would bet more, 2/3 or higher, sometimes even > pot.

if your opponents are oblivious to your bet sizes, you just do what works in the moment.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
On page 18 in the hand where you hold 8c6c on a Qh7c5d flop you say that you are 5-to-1 against hitting your straight on the next card.

When determining outs on the flop why did you only calculate your chance with only one card to come? Since there are two cards to come wouldn't you use the 4 times rule?



[/ QUOTE ]

future betting means it is unlikely you will see the turn and river for the price you are getting given now.

actually i was going to bring this up - on one page in the book it talks about using the 4x rule in this sort of situation and I couldn't work out why - presumably the PNL advice is to not assume you'll get a free river card?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
On page 18 in the hand where you hold 8c6c on a Qh7c5d flop you say that you are 5-to-1 against hitting your straight on the next card.

When determining outs on the flop why did you only calculate your chance with only one card to come? Since there are two cards to come wouldn't you use the 4 times rule?

We would then be sitting nearly 3-to-1 against, making it profitable to call getting 3.2-to-1 pot odds before even considering implied odds.

Obviosly it is still a call (or arguably a raise) but I was just wondering if my logic and understanding of the concept is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is because your opponent can drop a big bet on you on the turn.

if you're calling all-in you won't face another bet and so count it as two cards to come. when there's a lot of money behind, you may not get to see that second card and so should not count it. you might allow yourself a little wiggle room for those times your opponent checks the turn, picking something between the odds of hitting in one card and the odds of hitting in two.

on the other hand, you may well want to semibluff the turn if he checks, so again you wouldn't figure it out based on having two cards coming.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
On page 18 in the hand where you hold 8c6c on a Qh7c5d flop you say that you are 5-to-1 against hitting your straight on the next card.

When determining outs on the flop why did you only calculate your chance with only one card to come? Since there are two cards to come wouldn't you use the 4 times rule?

We would then be sitting nearly 3-to-1 against, making it profitable to call getting 3.2-to-1 pot odds before even considering implied odds.

Obviosly it is still a call (or arguably a raise) but I was just wondering if my logic and understanding of the concept is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key thing is what the odds are for the next card, which is 5:1 against. If the flop bet is all-in, you would evaluate your chances of hitting with two cards to come.

When you evaluate pot equity on the flop, you use the 4x rule, but with pot odds, you're only concerned about the next card.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
On page 18 in the hand where you hold 8c6c on a Qh7c5d flop you say that you are 5-to-1 against hitting your straight on the next card.

When determining outs on the flop why did you only calculate your chance with only one card to come? Since there are two cards to come wouldn't you use the 4 times rule?

We would then be sitting nearly 3-to-1 against, making it profitable to call getting 3.2-to-1 pot odds before even considering implied odds.

Obviosly it is still a call (or arguably a raise) but I was just wondering if my logic and understanding of the concept is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are only allowed to look at your pot odds on the next two streets combined if you are going to be getting all in and you are not paying another bet to see the river card.

+Ev

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

Thanks everyone for the clarification.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

I have been thinking about the 2/3 bet size.

Generally, it seems like the best bet heads up because anyone with a moderately strong draw like OESD or Flush will have to pay more than their draw is worth. Ie. if villain has 8 outs and is committed to seeing the river, then if we bet 1/2 pot they get pot odds of 2:1 which is pretty much what they need. If we bet 2/3 pot then we charge them more than they can profitably draw with. It also gets a lot of value when we are ahead without folding out too many second best hands.

+EV

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

Another question for discussion:
When playing, particularly multitabling online, how often do you find yourself reverting to a standard 2/3 PSB instead of taking other considerations in to account?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
4. A thought experiment: suppose you had to play online poker exclusively and the only bet you could make was a fixed percentage of the pot. They offer you a "bet pot" button with no slider to adjust, but you can change "bet pot" to any size. What would you choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it be different by street? On the flop, I seem to find myself gravitating towards 3/4 pot, and on the later streets 2/3.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
5. Continuation bets can be small, but if you use a small cbet like 1/3 or 1/2 the pot you had better be making that same bet size with at least some of your bigger hands. Otherwise an astute opponent will eat you alive. This is a major and common weakness seen in live $1-$2 games. A tight player makes a big raise preflop then makes a small bet postflop, say $10 into a $30 pot. When that happens, first look around to see if anyone else in the pot looks interested. If not, seriously consider making a 2/3 pot raise or similar. If your opponent plays back at you after such a weak cbet, he's less of a mark and should get more respect later on.

By the same token, when you make small cbets and face a couple decent opponents mixed in with the weak ones, you often want to play all hands that way when in pots against the better opponents so you can sucker them in. However, when you end up in pots against the weak ones, just make bigger bets with your big hands until they fight back against your smaller cbets when you miss.

The trick is to exploit them as much as they'll let you. Against very bad opponents that are commonly found in low-limit live games and the lowest online limits, you can get away with this stuff and should take advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to vary my c-bet size around the texture of the board and my position, and pretty much use my cards as a determination of whether to c-bet at all, if I don't care for the board.

I'm pretty sure that this is a good way to approach c-betting in general, but at the low limit games, would you discount this approach unless you believe your opponent in the hand with you is better than average?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

Can you please explain to a limidonk, who is struggling with bet sizes, the bluffing example on p.26?

Why has a $15 bet to be 66.25% more successful to be superior to a $2 bet that takes down the $25-pot half of the time? I don't get the number.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you please explain to a limidonk, who is struggling with bet sizes, the bluffing example on p.26?

Why has a $15 bet to be 66.25% more successful to be superior to a $2 bet that takes down the $25-pot half of the time? I don't get the number.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's based on EV (the example is extreme, as the authors say).

Assuming you wouldn't win the pot if they called your bluff, you will win $25 half the time with a $2 bluff, and lose $2 half the time.

0.5($25) + 0.5(-$2) = 12.5 - 1 = $11.5 EV with $2 bet.

With the $15 bet, you need to win 66.25% of the time to get the same EV (i.e. because you are losing more when they call).

0.6625($25) + 0.3375(-$15) = 16.5625 - 5.0625 = $11.5 EV with $15 bet.


The example assumes that they're going to fold the same hands (i.e. nothing hands) to a $2 bet that they would to a $15 bet.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another question for discussion:
When playing, particularly multitabling online, how often do you find yourself reverting to a standard 2/3 PSB instead of taking other considerations in to account?

[/ QUOTE ]


often. get a good mouse lol i have accidentally gone all in a few times.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]

Could it be different by street? On the flop, I seem to find myself gravitating towards 3/4 pot, and on the later streets 2/3.

[/ QUOTE ]

same here but increasingly betting bigger on turn too.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. A thought experiment: suppose you had to play online poker exclusively and the only bet you could make was a fixed percentage of the pot. They offer you a "bet pot" button with no slider to adjust, but you can change "bet pot" to any size. What would you choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it be different by street? On the flop, I seem to find myself gravitating towards 3/4 pot, and on the later streets 2/3.

[/ QUOTE ]


heh that'd be an awesome program for someone who 8-tables.

descending bets relative to the pot work best when you are betting a lot of made hands relative to bluffs. it's because of flop bet sizing. if bluffing a lot you'd like to make your flop bets smaller. that reduces the cost of bluffing, including the cost of firing a second barrel. if betting made hands a lot you often want the pot bigger (for your big hands) so a bigger flop bet size work well.

also when you've got a big hand you usually want your opponents to call, so you sometimes decrement your bet sizes (relative to the pot size) to increase the chances of getting paid off.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

i think it's just because drawing hands are less likely to make an incorrect call with one street to come than they are on the flop.

btw matt, have you heard of the 'bet pot' script? you should check it out; it's more clever than it sounds.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
then if we bet 1/2 pot they get pot odds of 2:1 which is pretty much what they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bet 1/2 pot, then he is getting 3/1 on his call. Pot (2x the bet) + Bet = 3x your bet

$10 pot + $5 Bet = $15 in middle, he has to call $5. 15/5 = 3/1

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
btw matt, have you heard of the 'bet pot' script? you should check it out; it's more clever than it sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

link?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

I am yet another LHE player making the move to NLHE (although I haven't played much at all of either over the past couple of years). I'm having some difficulty in figuring out implied odds. While in Limit, implied odds are pretty straight forward (if I hit my draw I can probably win an extra bet on the river), in NLHE this is obviously quite a bit more complicated. Do you have any guidelines for estimating implied odds? Not actual percentages or anything, but more of an elaboration of the thought process.

For example assuming medium stack sizes, you are HU and in position against a preflop raiser (say, average PF raise of 4x the BB):

You hold A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on a board of: T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Your opponent leads for 2/3 of the pot.

What if he's TAG, or LAG, or Loose-Passive, or Weak-Tight?

What if your draw is more 'hidden'. Say you hold 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on the same board?

Once again, I'm not looking for actual estimates, just more of the thought process on how these different factors can lead to a roughly accurate view of your implied odds.

Thanks in advance!

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I try to vary my c-bet size around the texture of the board and my position, and pretty much use my cards as a determination of whether to c-bet at all, if I don't care for the board.

I'm pretty sure that this is a good way to approach c-betting in general, but at the low limit games, would you discount this approach unless you believe your opponent in the hand with you is better than average?

[/ QUOTE ]

well not sure i can comment usefully. kind of depends on how you're doing it and how often they'll lay down and how quickly they adjust to your betting frequencies. but the strategy sounds good.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw matt, have you heard of the 'bet pot' script? you should check it out; it's more clever than it sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.overcards.com/wiki/moin.cgi/AutoHotKey

http://www.overcards.com/wiki/moin.cgi/BetPot

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
then if we bet 1/2 pot they get pot odds of 2:1 which is pretty much what they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bet 1/2 pot, then he is getting 3/1 on his call. Pot (2x the bet) + Bet = 3x your bet

$10 pot + $5 Bet = $15 in middle, he has to call $5. 15/5 = 3/1

[/ QUOTE ]

1/4 pot bet gives villain 5-1
1/3 pot bet gives villain 4-1
1/2 pot bet gives villain 3-1
2/3 pot bet gives villain 2.5
3/4 pot bet gives villain 2.3-1
1/1 pot bet gives villain 2-1

Where I make most of my mistakes is when I bet 1/2 pot giving villain implied odds only to hit either his flush or straight draw and then paying off a little bit when he does by maybe calling a smallish turn bet.

Here's my question - if you're trying to price out a draw and that draw appears to come in, do you just give up to ensure you're not giving implied odds to your opponent?

ex: 100BB effective stacks. You raise black aces 4x OTB and get one caller. Pot is 8BB. Flop has 2 hearts, no straight draws. Checked to you and you bet 1/2 pot. Villain calls.

Turn completes the flush and villain leads repping the flush. To deny implied odds, is this an auto fold?

Why do I get the feeling I'm leaving something out and "it depends" is the correct answer?

Thanks for this thread. We all appreciate it.

Onaflag...........

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

if you're trying to price out a draw, shouldn't you be betting at least pot-sized on a flop like that?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw matt, have you heard of the 'bet pot' script? you should check it out; it's more clever than it sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.overcards.com/wiki/moin.cgi/AutoHotKey

http://www.overcards.com/wiki/moin.cgi/BetPot

[/ QUOTE ]


awesome. will get it.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
awesome. will get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll love it. It's good stuff.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you're trying to price out a draw, shouldn't you be betting at least pot-sized on a flop like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I'm here. I don't know. 1/2 pot denies villain proper odds to call unless you're going to pay him off. I always struggle with the proper bet size.

Either way, you've denied villain odds to call. Now, the card hits and he leads. Do you give up at that point and believe him barring any specific reads like this particular donk always bets scare cards regardless of his holdings.

Onaflag..........

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]


Where I make most of my mistakes is when I bet 1/2 pot giving villain implied odds only to hit either his flush or straight draw and then paying off a little bit when he does by maybe calling a smallish turn bet.

Here's my question - if you're trying to price out a draw and that draw appears to come in, do you just give up to ensure you're not giving implied odds to your opponent?

ex: 100BB effective stacks. You raise black aces 4x OTB and get one caller. Pot is 8BB. Flop has 2 hearts, no straight draws. Checked to you and you bet 1/2 pot. Villain calls.

Turn completes the flush and villain leads repping the flush. To deny implied odds, is this an auto fold?

Why do I get the feeling I'm leaving something out and "it depends" is the correct answer?

Thanks for this thread. We all appreciate it.

Onaflag...........

[/ QUOTE ]


sadly it still depends. mostly it depends on how often he bluffs. if he doesn't bluff much you can lay down every time and not lose much.

if he does bluff a lot and you're pretty sure he wouldn't value bet a hand that's stronger than yours but less than the flush (actually pretty common situation in low limits but not with all players), a small raise can work well.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am yet another LHE player making the move to NLHE (although I haven't played much at all of either over the past couple of years). I'm having some difficulty in figuring out implied odds. While in Limit, implied odds are pretty straight forward (if I hit my draw I can probably win an extra bet on the river), in NLHE this is obviously quite a bit more complicated. Do you have any guidelines for estimating implied odds? Not actual percentages or anything, but more of an elaboration of the thought process.

For example assuming medium stack sizes, you are HU and in position against a preflop raiser (say, average PF raise of 4x the BB):

You hold A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on a board of: T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Your opponent leads for 2/3 of the pot.

What if he's TAG, or LAG, or Loose-Passive, or Weak-Tight?

What if your draw is more 'hidden'. Say you hold 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on the same board?

Once again, I'm not looking for actual estimates, just more of the thought process on how these different factors can lead to a roughly accurate view of your implied odds.

Thanks in advance!

[/ QUOTE ]


the more hidden your draw the more likely you are to get paid off when you hit.

if opp is aggro _after draws get there_ you make more.

if opp calls often _after draws get there_ you make more.

if opp is tight you make less and should bluff more. nothing like calling the flop then pot-betting the turn when the third flush card gets there to put fear into a tight opponont's soul.

is that a good enough answer?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
the more hidden your draw the more likely you are to get paid off when you hit.

if opp is aggro _after draws get there_ you make more.

if opp calls often _after draws get there_ you make more.

if opp is tight you make less and should bluff more. nothing like calling the flop then pot-betting the turn when the third flush card gets there to put fear into a tight opponont's soul.

is that a good enough answer?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good start (and along my line of thinking). What I'm roughly interested in is a simple mathematical way of estimating implied odds in a general sense (sort of a starting point if you will). Basically, starting with a percentage of the pot (after a call) based on the overall image of the table and/or stakes and weighting it with other factors such as how hidden my draw is and what type of player I'm actually facing.

For example (and these numbers are just garbage and off of the top of my head):

Let's say I estimate that at a Weak-Tight table I'll, on average, make an additional 25% of the pot if I hit my draw. Then I can decide my draw is well hidden so I can make it 50%. However, my opponent is extremely Weak-Tight and often folds to any aggression. So maybe that brings it back down to 25%. Something along those lines.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

I have a couple questions:

1. I’m not good at maths. I notice that sometimes we include our calls to figure things out and other times we don’t. Example is on page 23, we include our call to come up with $9009 pot and figure out what our equity is worth. However, on page 18, we don’t include our $10 call in order to figure out the pot odds/implied odds. Is that the difference, we include our money when figure out the value of our equity and we don’t include our money when we’re figuring out the odds?

2. We say that a 2/3 psb is a good compromise, but rarely the best bet. I’d like to see a couple example hands where the best bet is NOT a 2/3 psb and why.

Thx a lot.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the more hidden your draw the more likely you are to get paid off when you hit.

if opp is aggro _after draws get there_ you make more.

if opp calls often _after draws get there_ you make more.

if opp is tight you make less and should bluff more. nothing like calling the flop then pot-betting the turn when the third flush card gets there to put fear into a tight opponont's soul.

is that a good enough answer?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good start (and along my line of thinking). What I'm roughly interested in is a simple mathematical way of estimating implied odds in a general sense (sort of a starting point if you will). Basically, starting with a percentage of the pot (after a call) based on the overall image of the table and/or stakes and weighting it with other factors such as how hidden my draw is and what type of player I'm actually facing.

For example (and these numbers are just garbage and off of the top of my head):

Let's say I estimate that at a Weak-Tight table I'll, on average, make an additional 25% of the pot if I hit my draw. Then I can decide my draw is well hidden so I can make it 50%. However, my opponent is extremely Weak-Tight and often folds to any aggression. So maybe that brings it back down to 25%. Something along those lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lemme give this a shot.

Pot = $50, you're on a flush draw.
Villain leads $25. You're getting 3-1, but need over 4-1.
Somehow, you're going to need to extract over $25 more out of villain if you're card hits on the turn.

The pot will be $100 so it looks to me like you need him to call a 1/4 pot size bet at least to break even. With the most weak-tightish of opponents who run from aggression as you mention, that's gonna be kinda hard given you're draw isn't very well hidden.

I think this may be exactly what Matt is talking about when he says most NL players overvalue implied odds.

Onaflag.........

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Where I make most of my mistakes is when I bet 1/2 pot giving villain implied odds only to hit either his flush or straight draw and then paying off a little bit when he does by maybe calling a smallish turn bet.

Here's my question - if you're trying to price out a draw and that draw appears to come in, do you just give up to ensure you're not giving implied odds to your opponent?

ex: 100BB effective stacks. You raise black aces 4x OTB and get one caller. Pot is 8BB. Flop has 2 hearts, no straight draws. Checked to you and you bet 1/2 pot. Villain calls.

Turn completes the flush and villain leads repping the flush. To deny implied odds, is this an auto fold?

Why do I get the feeling I'm leaving something out and "it depends" is the correct answer?

Thanks for this thread. We all appreciate it.

Onaflag...........

[/ QUOTE ]


sadly it still depends. mostly it depends on how often he bluffs. if he doesn't bluff much you can lay down every time and not lose much.

if he does bluff a lot and you're pretty sure he wouldn't value bet a hand that's stronger than yours but less than the flush (actually pretty common situation in low limits but not with all players), a small raise can work well.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say a "small raise", are we talking like minraise town or what?

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the more hidden your draw the more likely you are to get paid off when you hit.

if opp is aggro _after draws get there_ you make more.

if opp calls often _after draws get there_ you make more.

if opp is tight you make less and should bluff more. nothing like calling the flop then pot-betting the turn when the third flush card gets there to put fear into a tight opponont's soul.

is that a good enough answer?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good start (and along my line of thinking). What I'm roughly interested in is a simple mathematical way of estimating implied odds in a general sense (sort of a starting point if you will). Basically, starting with a percentage of the pot (after a call) based on the overall image of the table and/or stakes and weighting it with other factors such as how hidden my draw is and what type of player I'm actually facing.

For example (and these numbers are just garbage and off of the top of my head):

Let's say I estimate that at a Weak-Tight table I'll, on average, make an additional 25% of the pot if I hit my draw. Then I can decide my draw is well hidden so I can make it 50%. However, my opponent is extremely Weak-Tight and often folds to any aggression. So maybe that brings it back down to 25%. Something along those lines.

[/ QUOTE ]


i do it case-by-case. in general, be conservative. a lot of players overestimate their implied odds.

if assigning these labels (like "weak-tight") helps you estimate how much you will get then great.

Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, you've denied villain odds to call. Now, the card hits and he leads. Do you give up at that point and believe him barring any specific reads like this particular donk always bets scare cards regardless of his holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. It seems like a tricky spot, because if you're committed to folding when the scare card hits, then you lose regardless of whether or not he was actually on the flush draw...it's as if he's *always* on the draw, if that's the line.

This is harder in NL than limit, and that's what I'm struggling with.