Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Study Group Day 1

[ReptileHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
awesome. will get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[Onaflag]

[ 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..........

[Matt Flynn]

[ 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.

[Matt Flynn]

[ 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?

[Aviston]

[ 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.

[QTip]

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.

[Onaflag]

[ 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.........

[QTip]

[ 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?

[Matt Flynn]

[ 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.

[Pyromaniac]

[ 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.