[Alan3]

I write a poker blog in the hopes that people will let me know when I am wrong, but I rarely get that there. I had a flash of insight this morning and wrote an entry. I'm hoping that someone here will be able to tell me if I'm wrong --or just being stupidly obvious. In any event, I hope someone gets something out of it.

In math, when one part of an equation contributes more to a curve than another part we say that the bigger component dominates the second component. This happens a lot in the analysis of algorithms. Say we analyze an algorithm and determine that it takes n^2+n operations to run where n is the size of the data. As n grows large the n component of the equation becomes insignificant compared to the n^2 component and it is often just ignored.

When you are trying to figure out if you have odds to call a bet or making sure you bet enough to get your implied odds on when you chase you are probably just counting the dominant outs. Consider this situation:

You have 76 on a flop of A85 rainbow. An opponent bets and you are sure he has an ace. You count eight outs to make the straight for around 1:5 odds against. Any bet you put in needs to pay off five times (including the amount in the pot) to make chasing this hand worth the risk.

Say you chase and instead of the straight you catch runner runner sevens. The odds against that happening are 1:359. The only way you would get the correct odds to chase that would be if everyone else at the table checks. But those longshot odds are still included in your real odds to chase that straight -- they are just so small that they are not worth counting. If you are on a straight draw and catch runner-runner to make trips you still only need to paid off 5:1 to come out ahead in the hand.

Next time you are on a flush draw with bottom pair and TPTK pays you off handsomely when you runner runner a boat, when he calls you a suck-out just say, "I had outs."