True Poker Odds!

[SteveO]

Would I be right in saying that the only time you can really be certain of the true odds is when you're playing HU.

For instance playing heads up you have As2s in the hole the flop comes Ks 5s 3c. Assuming your opponent doesn't have a spade you know that you have a 36% of hitting your spade.

Know let's say the same situation arises on 10 handed ring game.
20 cards have been dealt plus the flop = 23 cards which leaves 29 cards in the deck.

Now it's not likely but all the spades in the deck could have been dealt out and you have zero chance of hitting your hand, or the the deck could still have all the spades still in it so you now have a greater chance of hitting your flush.

So is it right conclude the only time you know the true odds is when you are playing H/U.

[glceud]

The odds might vary a lot at full table from game to game but over a large enough sample they will average out at 36%.
The only way you can decide if the odds are more or less than 36% is if lots of other players stay in the hand suggesting they are also drawing to the flush. Thus suggesting that you shoud be reraisng on a flush scare boad with top pair knowing that the chance of your opps hitting their flushes are greatly reduced.
I'll come back to you in a 100,000 hands with the results of that theory!

[GotaFancy?]

Sorry SteveO, you're wrong ( Oh I enjoyed saying that)

Basically you account for the cards you know and have seen - all the others are anywhere amonst the hidden cards.....

In the first example you give, you dont assume your opponent doesn't have a spade - indeed you just dont know - so his cards are part of the unknown - your chance of hitting a spade with the turn card are 9/47 - the 47 represents the 45 cards in the deck and the 2 unknown cards in your opponents hand.

If it's a multiway pot, then it is still 9/47 - for example 41 cards in the deck and 3 opponents with 2 hole cards each - they may be spades, they may not be, they are part of the unknown.....

In the second example, you dont count 29 cards in the deck to come, you count all of the unknowns - you know your 2 cards and you know the flop cards you don't know the 29 cards in the deck or the 18 cards in your opponents hand - the unknowns are therefore 47 cards - any of which can be dealt to you....

[SteveO]

Yes I now this Gaf and I am a true advocate of using pot odds. I was reminded of "true poker odds" by an article that John Leontakianakos( fk me that's a mouthful) wrote in an issue of Inside Edge. I've thrown the mag out now but it was somewhere along the lines of him wanting far greater odds than 36% when drawing to his flush draw as he was taking to account the cards being dealt in a full ring game etc.

Just to add,what hewas saying just seemed to over complicate the game, I always calculate the odds in the same way.

[ubermonkey1]

yeah gafs right
it can only be done by the cards that you can see or have seen.
you can calculate the hands odds vs each other if you see them, but thats unlikely unless your playing a load of pissheads


this is why in holdem or omaha the odds are easy to memorise because they repeat frequently because of this, ie at most you see 7/9 cards.
stud games however are a different story this is because of all sorts of cards out combinations occur because of the varying no of cards seen in each hand,here you need to be able to work the odds out properly because it would be pretty much impossible to remember the odds on certain hands

[SteveO]

http://www.totalgambler.com/poker/st..._strategy.html

Here's that article that explains it better than I have tried.

[GotaFancy?]

Originally Posted by Steve'O

of him wanting far greater odds than 36% when drawing to his flush draw as he was taking to account the cards being dealt in a full ring game etc.

Sounds like nonsense to me Will see if I can find the article.....

[SteveO]

I've posted it. Seems like me and John are thinking on a different level to you Gaf.

[GotaFancy?]

Originally Posted by Steve'O

I've posted it. Seems like me and John are thinking on a different level to you Gaf.

Sounds to me like he's arguing that odds of 8/24 make more sense than 16/48 (I've picked a meaningless number to illustrate the point - i.e. that they are the same....)

If you remove 46% of your outs and 46% of the unknown deck, what have you achieved? Your odds remain the same, and unchanged, it's just an added calculation for nothing

Trying to account for the burn card is nonsense - it's an unknown (random) card that is to all intents and purposes still in the deck

[GotaFancy?]

PS I confess I've only quickly read the first half of the article

[SteveO]

Gaf I agree with what your are saying 100%, unless I'm colluding and have to make a slight adjustment of the caluculation of the odds. I think it is an interesting article but does just seem to overcomplicate the game.

[ubermonkey1]

yeah its a interesting idea
i dont think it would be as acurate because it doesnt take into account the information you do know on the spot.
it is almost like he is saying that every hand 5/6 or so cards of each suit will be dealt out to players every time in a ring game.
surely with 4 cards out of 5 are hearts with 47 cards left the odds are that there are more like 7/8 hearts already out, so you really have 4 maybe 5 cards in 29 not the 8if you think of it his way .

[GotaFancy?]

But 4/5 in 29 is exactly the same** as 9/48 - it's just a more complicated way of coming to exactly the same answer

** It would be if we worked through a calculation with exact numbers - I haven't done any maths behind it, am just really talking principles, and guessing numbers....

If I am understanding the article correctly, there is zero merit in what he is saying

[ubermonkey1]

yeah its the same ,just trying to show how far out he would be on that hand .reality unfortunately has about half the outs

[slapdash]

Originally Posted by GotaFancy?

Sounds to me like he's arguing that odds of 8/24 make more sense than 16/48 (I've picked a meaningless number to illustrate the point - i.e. that they are the same....)

If he were saying that, then what he's saying would be true, if unhelpful.
But ...

My answer is a little different. Let’s assume this is a full table and 20 cards are dealt out. We also have a burn card and three cards that appear on the board, so, 24 of the 52 cards in the deck have already been utilised, meaning that 46% of the cards in the deck are out; it is also logical to assume that 46% of your possible outs are also out.

The 46% of the pack that is out includes five cards you can see (your hole
cards and the flop). Presumably these five cards don't include any of your
outs ... unless you're counting your outs in a very peculiar way. So it's
simply not true that it's logical to assume that the 24 cards that are out
include 46% of your outs.

As for the original question about "true odds", the problem is that the idea
of "true odds" isn't really meaningful in this context. If you calculate the
odds of hitting your flush without any knowledge of the cards you can't
see, then you'll get one answer. If you calculate it with knowledge of what
your opponents' cards are you'll get another answer. If you calculate it
with knowledge of all the remaining cards in the deck, then you'll get a
third answer (which will be either 100% or 0% depending on whether or
not one of the next two cards due to be dealt is a spade or not). Whenever
you calculate the odds, it's always relative to whatever information you
have.

Of course, short of knowing your opponents' cards, you get some
information from their actions that will affect the odds. E.g., if the flop is
all spades and you have As, Jd, and another player folds on the flop to a
small bet, then it's reasonable to assume that he doesn't have two spades,
and is less likely than otherwise to have one spade, so that increases the
chance that you'll hit the flush.

[betking1]

http://www.totalgambler.com/poker/st..._strategy.html

Explains it well for my liking