TT and flush draw

[Gib]

I play it the same (with the intention of calling a raise)

[Adam Stewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Adam theres no way u still think its a fold do u?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, I do.


I admit it's a close call either way, but I believe it's a fold here.

In my original calculations, I forgot to count the other two tens as outs, but I'd say that'd only add about one effective out. So I'll be gracious and say we have about 7 effective outs. This requires 6:1 to call. We don't have that.

People keep thinking there are implied odds here, but there are also reverse implied odds, so I'm not putting any weight on these so-called 'implied odds.'


It's a very close decision. Those who say this is an easy turn call are fooling themselves.



AS

[jstill]

TT hardly changes anything its only 1 combo dude...

What range did u use in ur calculation where it comes back as a fold, u have to have done something wrong ( or I did). I made our range very tight and it comes back that we have 40%+ equity on avg. If u add hands like 77 88 AJo KQo KJs it only helps our case (granted I dont think many of those are realistic given our player description and table positions).

I'm guessing u didnt include AK no diamond (9 combos) at all (which I think is just silly really to give them no weight at all; id bet that here everytime on the turn im pretty sure). Even not including that hand tho we have 34% equity, if u count it as one combo we have 35.5 and as 2 we have over 36% equity. How can we fold getting 5:1 when we only need 20% equity for the call to be breakeven? We could even call getting 4:1.

I dont pretend to know what our exact implied odds are be them negative or positive and I didnt figure them into any calculation. I cant argue against u if u say they arent positive but I dont think u can reduce our effective outs by more than 1 or 2 because of it so its probably not a fold (anything here change in ur mind if we are in position Adam?).

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adam theres no way u still think its a fold do u?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, I do.


I admit it's a close call either way, but I believe it's a fold here.

In my original calculations, I forgot to count the other two tens as outs, but I'd say that'd only add about one effective out. So I'll be gracious and say we have about 7 effective outs. This requires 6:1 to call. We don't have that.

[/ QUOTE ]
The math jstill and redeye posted is not debateable, though. Unless they messed up some numbers (I didn't really check it), the math they did is way more significant than just randomly discounting your outs and comparing to the pot size. They went through every hand combo the guy can have and found out exactly how many weighted outs we have.

[djmeehan]

I probably play this hand the same way though I'd be muttering to myself the whole time. The river turns your hand from marginal to very strong. You would be missing value by checking river so I think a bet is best play. If you get raised I'd make a crying call.

[jstill]

i misinterpreted what adam meant when he said he forgot TT, i thought he meant in a combination analysis not as 2 more "outs".

Turns out he was only looking at this hands from an "outs if behind and pot size" stand point rather than doing a calculation of hero's equity vs villains range, which is obviously flawed... so yeah, case closed i think. its a call baring someone telling me we have to discount our equity by over half due to reverse implied odds, which obviously would never be the case.

[chezlaw]

Thanks all.

FWIW results were he called with set of queens.

chez