Does this player have implied odds?

[hunkyrabbit]

Hi all, Could you please take a look at this hand and tell me if this player had implied odds to make this call.

PokerStars Game #4810696328: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2006/05/02 - 12:21:56 (ET)
Table 'Alcathous V' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: beatsone ($93.50 in chips)
Seat 2: Min9 ($99.25 in chips)
Seat 3: mtophat ($96.70 in chips)
Seat 4: Isli ($151.70 in chips)
Seat 5: GammeR1337 ($155.70 in chips)
Seat 6: cjs55 ($121.55 in chips)
Seat 7: hunkyrabbit ($124.80 in chips)
Seat 8: coachtim ($96.35 in chips)
Seat 9: emmaw119 ($252.70 in chips)
Min9 is disconnected
Min9 is connected
Min9: posts small blind $0.50
mtophat: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hunkyrabbit [5c 5s]
Isli: calls $1
GammeR1337: folds
cjs55: folds
hunkyrabbit: calls $1
coachtim: calls $1
emmaw119: folds
beatsone: folds
Min9: calls $0.50
mtophat: checks
*** FLOP *** [Td 5h 2d]
Min9: checks
mtophat: checks
Isli: bets $4
hunkyrabbit: raises $4 to $8
coachtim: folds
Min9: folds
mtophat: folds
Isli: calls $4
*** TURN *** [Td 5h 2d] [Ac]
Isli: checks
hunkyrabbit: bets $16
Isli: calls $16
*** RIVER *** [Td 5h 2d Ac] [4c]
Isli: checks
hunkyrabbit: bets $38
Isli: raises $88.70 to $126.70 and is all-in
hunkyrabbit: calls $61.80 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Isli: shows [3d Kd] (a straight, Ace to Five)
hunkyrabbit: mucks hand
Isli collected $249.60 from pot
hunkyrabbit said, "lol"
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $252.60 | Rake $3
Board [Td 5h 2d Ac 4c]
Seat 1: beatsone (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: Min9 (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 3: mtophat (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: Isli showed [3d Kd] and won ($249.60) with a straight, Ace to Five
Seat 5: GammeR1337 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: cjs55 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: hunkyrabbit mucked [5c 5s]
Seat 8: coachtim folded on the Flop
Seat 9: emmaw119 folded before Flop (didn't bet)

A huge arguement followed because I called him lucky. He went on to argue that he had implied odds to make this call.. $16 for the potential of winning my whole stack. I of course stated that he only had implied odds if he caught the 3... if a flush card hit there is no way I would have lost my whole stack.

This is really bugging me as when I left the table he was slating me to all the other players, saying that 'he loves it when fish complain that they lose because they dont understand implied odds'.

[rufus]

Well, let's say that you fold if he hits the flush, so there are 9 cards that you'll fold to.

If we ignore those 9 cards, then he's got a 3 in 37 - just a hair over 1/12 chance to hit that (non-diamond) 4, and, assuming he can get you all in, he's got to have somewhere around 1/15 or better to make the implied odds worthwhile for the straight without the flush equity.

Now, there are some negative implied odds since you may take his stack if you hit the Ad (fives full over flush) or 5d (4 of a kind over flush), but his flush equity more than takes care of that.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi all, Could you please take a look at this hand and tell me if this player had implied odds to make this call.

PokerStars Game #4810696328: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2006/05/02 - 12:21:56 (ET)
Table 'Alcathous V' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: beatsone ($93.50 in chips)
Seat 2: Min9 ($99.25 in chips)
Seat 3: mtophat ($96.70 in chips)
Seat 4: Isli ($151.70 in chips)
Seat 5: GammeR1337 ($155.70 in chips)
Seat 6: cjs55 ($121.55 in chips)
Seat 7: hunkyrabbit ($124.80 in chips)
Seat 8: coachtim ($96.35 in chips)
Seat 9: emmaw119 ($252.70 in chips)
Min9 is disconnected
Min9 is connected
Min9: posts small blind $0.50
mtophat: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hunkyrabbit [5c 5s]
Isli: calls $1
GammeR1337: folds
cjs55: folds
hunkyrabbit: calls $1
coachtim: calls $1
emmaw119: folds
beatsone: folds
Min9: calls $0.50
mtophat: checks
*** FLOP *** [Td 5h 2d]
Min9: checks
mtophat: checks
Isli: bets $4
hunkyrabbit: raises $4 to $8
coachtim: folds
Min9: folds
mtophat: folds
Isli: calls $4
*** TURN *** [Td 5h 2d] [Ac]
Isli: checks
hunkyrabbit: bets $16
Isli: calls $16
*** RIVER *** [Td 5h 2d Ac] [4c]
Isli: checks
hunkyrabbit: bets $38
Isli: raises $88.70 to $126.70 and is all-in
hunkyrabbit: calls $61.80 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Isli: shows [3d Kd] (a straight, Ace to Five)
hunkyrabbit: mucks hand
Isli collected $249.60 from pot
hunkyrabbit said, "lol"
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $252.60 | Rake $3
Board [Td 5h 2d Ac 4c]
Seat 1: beatsone (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: Min9 (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 3: mtophat (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: Isli showed [3d Kd] and won ($249.60) with a straight, Ace to Five
Seat 5: GammeR1337 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: cjs55 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: hunkyrabbit mucked [5c 5s]
Seat 8: coachtim folded on the Flop
Seat 9: emmaw119 folded before Flop (didn't bet)

A huge arguement followed because I called him lucky. He went on to argue that he had implied odds to make this call.. $16 for the potential of winning my whole stack. I of course stated that he only had implied odds if he caught the 3... if a flush card hit there is no way I would have lost my whole stack.

This is really bugging me as when I left the table he was slating me to all the other players, saying that 'he loves it when fish complain that they lose because they dont understand implied odds'.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so close that whether or not his call of $16 is +EV from his point of view depends on a) how certain he is that you have a set, b) how much you would call on the river against a possible flush, and c) how much he would call if he made a flush and you made a full house.

He has 10 outs (7 flush outs + 3 straight outs since the Ad and 5d are no good) which require pot odds of (45-10):10 = 3.5-to-1, (where I have used 45 remaining cards since at least one of your pocket pair must be unsuited, and in reality we know that both are unsuited and he needs 3.4-to-1). He would need to make $16*3.5 =~ $56 when he wins. Your $16 bet gave him pot odds of $37:$16, so he needs to collect another $19 when he wins. If you only go all-in when he hits one of the three 4s that make him a straight, then he will win your stack of $100 on 3/10 of his wins, so he gains an extra $30, which is $11 more than he needs to break even.

In addition, he gains more EV if you call any bet when he has a possible winning flush. On the other hand, you might win his stack of $88.70 when you make a full house and he makes a flush. This happens with probability 2/45, so it subtracts $3.94 from his EV if he calls. This could make his call negative EV, or it could be cancelled by the times that you call a bet when he makes a flush. It turns out that if you would call a $25 bet or greater against a possible winning flush, then he has +EV.

[hunkyrabbit]

Thank you very much Bruce and Rufus for your educated responses.

I am still slightly confused as to whether or not this player did have the implied odds to make this call for the river. His boast that he did have 'implied' odds came after the showdown, so he did infact make this claim with the knowledge that the only way he possibly take my whole stack is if he did hit one of the fours (not including a diamond).

So that would mean he had ~ 1/15 chance to take my whole stack... TY rufus for working that out. For his implied odds of calling $16 to win $125 to make sense he would surely need a better probability to justify the call. 16/125 = ~1/8 pot odds. So as 1/15<1/8 does'nt this mean he didnt get the odds to make the call?

[rufus]

This isn't exact, but should be close enough.

Let's assume that he's only going to win if he hits an out. Let's say that he's got between 10 and 12 outs. If he calls the $16 bet, there will be $53 in the pot (5 pre flop, 16 flop, 32 turn) so each out is going to be worth a bit over a dollar, so his equity is somewhere in the $10-12 range to call, so he doesn't have calling odds without implied odds.

If we add the 1/15 chance of taking the rest of your stack ($100 at that point) then he's got another $6-7 worth of equity.

That puts his equity in the $16-19 range which means his cost and equity are roughly equal - so he could reasonably have called or folded.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
So that would mean he had ~ 1/15 chance to take my whole stack... TY rufus for working that out. For his implied odds of calling $16 to win $125 to make sense he would surely need a better probability to justify the call. 16/125 = ~1/8 pot odds. So as 1/15<1/8 does'nt this mean he didnt get the odds to make the call?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are looking for his 1/15 chance of hitting a straight and winning your whole stack to justify the call by itself. Remember he also wins the $37 in the pot if he hits one of 7 flush cards, so he only needs the implied odds to make up the difference between the 37-16 pot odds and the true odds that he needs, and I have shown how to calculate this. Knowing everything we know after the fact (except the river card) his call was close to EV neutral.

If we assume that he wins $137 when he hits one of the three 4s, and $37 when he he hits one of the 7 flush cards, his EV is:

$137*(3/44) + $37*(7/44) - $16*(34/44) = +$2.86

So he would have a positive EV, but this doesn't take into account any EV that he loses when he makes a flush and you make a full house; however, this may be offset by additional EV that he gains if you call a bet against a made flush.

[BruceZ]

The calculations in my previous posts were incorrect because I didn't add the pot correctly. There is $37 in the pot after you bet $16, so he is getting pot odds of 37-16, not 21-16. This means that his implied odds give him +EV if we ignore any reverse implied odds that he gets when he makes a flush and you make full house. I have corrected the calculations in the other 2 posts.

[SpaceAce]

I think your opponent clearly had odds to call on the turn.

A) Your claim that he doesn't get paid off if a flush card hits is not consistent with the fact that you got stacked on the river with four to a straight showing.
B) Even if you don't get stacked when a flush hits, it is unlikely that you simply fold when he bets the river. At the very least, he is getting what is already in the middle when he makes his flush. In reality, he probably squeezes a little more out of you.

SpaceAce

[drbst]

I think the bet on the river was a mistake.

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the bet on the river was a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Another mistake was letting this bother him and discussing strategy at the table.

To the OP: why do you care so much what this other player thinks?

Paul