Extrapolating liveness of cards

[MRBAA]

Say you have a pair of sevens in the hole, full game, no other sevens showing. Two other players call the bring in, and you do, too. Four of you see fourth street and the boards are as follows:

(77)95
(xx)J2
(xx)3K
(xx)A8

The player with the ace bets, both other players call and you call, too.

On fifth street, the boards are as follows:

(77)953
(xx)J28
(xx)3KT
(xx)A84

No one is suited. Now the ace bets again and both opponents fold. You are considering whether to call or fold. There are two unseen sevens that can significantly help your hand, as well as the chance of making a second pair.

So you count the cards you've seen -- ten on third street (seven opponent up cards and your three cards), four more on fourth and four more on fifth, for a total of 18 cards you've seen. But what about the unseen cards your opponents hold? Given the action so far, it's very likely that for each of the three at least one of their down cards was NOT a seven -- since they all made or called a bet on fourth and a seven would not have helped their hand. Discounting the unlikely chance one of your opponents also had pocket sevens, you decide to count three more "seen" cards -- the three non-sevens of your opponents' down cards -- bringing the total of "seen" cards to 21. You now use that number to calculate your chances of spiking a seven, making those odds <15-1 against on one card, rather than >16-1. Good thinking or over-reaching?

[Phat Mack]

Advanced thinking. You could even look at the 4 folded 3rd street cards and speculate as to what the folds said about their down cards.

[RustyBrooks]

I follow this line of reasoning sometimes in razz, but in razz it's easier because cards only have one potential value, low. If you complete and 4 people call it's more likely that there are less low cards available than what you can determine by counting dead cards. I would usually only use this when making a tough decision about a call.

[southerndog]

"Lookin' for outs in all the wrong places.."

.. "Lookin' for outs.."

[amaranto]

I guess I do this is some abbreviated form. To really get some value out of it, I'd need more time than the fine people at Stars will allows. It does make sense that the better stud players can process this information quickly.

As somebody else said, my analysis of stud hands is a lot better when I'm not actually playing them.

[tuds38]

I sort of do this, bust more along the lines of extrapolating straight/flush outs, it seems like a bit of a stretch to try it for pair outs.

[Poker CPA]

Doesn't a pair of Aces have the same outs?? Advanced thinking of a chaser.

[Poker CPA]

Ks, Js and 10s too. God how I love stud.

[MRBAA]

Yes, a live pair of aces has the same number of outs. If you knew he had aces and the only money in the pot was his bet, it would be an obvious fold, as he's laying you even odds on a proposition that's heavily favorable to him. However you don't know for sure opponent has aces and, more importantly, the pot is giving you a substantial overlay -- particularly when the two other players fold and leave their dead money in the pot. Essentially, what you're trying to decide in this hand is whether it's worth it to chase.

[Poker CPA]

How do you know the other two players are folding??? The Ace bets and the action is to you, then your two opponents. This is chasers heaven. Maybe you should start over with facts and have the 7s sitting to the right of the Ace. Pot size would be helpful also. As its currently stated, EZ fold.