Another poker story for you to analyze...

[blackjacktilt]

The game: $2/$5 NL
I have about $700 in front of me.
Preflop in the BB with 9h,9d.
Cut off raises to $25, button calls, small blind calls, I raise to $75 total.
Everyone else folds except the cut off. ($200)

Flop: 5h, 9s, 10h

I bet out $210, cut off calls. ($620)

Turn: 2s

I move all in for $415 and get called....

River: Jh

Ass clown shows 6,8 of hearts.
He justified his call on turn due to implied odds, is he correct?
I understand the math of the game, but I know there are people here that are far more superior than I am when it comes to math.
Input appreciated. good or bad.
The game was loose aggressive and I was playing a tight aggressive game the whole way. didn't attempt any crazy bluffs and the hands that I showed down won. The villain I was against, had to rebuy twice before this hand.
I buyed back in for $500 and in 2 hours, cracked Aces with 8,9 suited to double up. I frigan left after that :laugh:

 

[tthree]

The game: $2/$5 NL
I have about $700 in front of me.
Preflop in the BB with 9h,9d.
Cut off raises to $25, button calls, small blind calls, I raise to $75 total.
Everyone else folds except the cut off. ($200)

Flop: 5h, 9s, 10h

I bet out $210, cut off calls. ($620)

Turn: 2s

I move all in for $415 and get called....

River: Jh

Ass clown shows 6,8 of hearts.
He justified his call on turn due to implied odds, is he correct?
I understand the math of the game, but I know there are people here that are far more superior than I am when it comes to math.
Input appreciated. good or bad.
The game was loose aggressive and I was playing a tight aggressive game the whole way. didn't attempt any crazy bluffs and the hands that I showed down won. The villain I was against, had to rebuy twice before this hand.
I buyed back in for $500 and in 2 hours, cracked Aces with 8,9 suited to double up. I frigan left after that :laugh:

He made a bad call. The pot would need to be more than $1450 to justify chasing his draws. He should know you have a hand better than a pair of eights so he had at most 13 outs. He actually had 11 outs. He got lucky after a bad to marginal call.

 

[Canceler]

He justified his call on turn due to implied odds, is he correct?

Implied odds are an estimate of the amount of $$$$ you could get from your opponent on future streets. Since you were all in, the implied odds justification doesn’t hold up.

If he was smiling or laughing when he said that, he might have been joking.

 

[blackjacktilt]

Implied odds are an estimate of the amount of $$$$ you could get from your opponent on future streets. Since you were all in, the implied odds justification doesn’t hold up.

If he was smiling or laughing when he said that, he might have been joking.

I knew it didn't make sense, and he was serious.
I understand implied odds, and was just wondering if I was missing something.
Thanks

 

[blackjacktilt]

He made a bad call. The pot would need to be more than $1450 to justify chasing his draws. He should know you have a hand better than a pair of eights so he had at most 13 outs. He actually had 11 outs. He got lucky after a bad to marginal call.

Yeah, I don't understand it. Was he purposely trying to get lucky due to having to re-buy twice? Maybe just one of those who doesn't care about money. degenerates, but who am I kidding, I am one also

 

[Jack_Black]

Yeah, I don't understand it. Was he purposely trying to get lucky due to having to re-buy twice? Maybe just one of those who doesn't care about money. degenerates, but who am I kidding, I am one also

He just doesn't understand what implied odds means. I know this because he doesn't understand how dumb it is to raise with any 2 suited cards, then to call a re-raise with it. Not to mention he didn't even have expressed odds to chase the draw in the first place.

 

[blackjacktilt]

He just doesn't understand what implied odds means. I know this because he doesn't understand how dumb it is to raise with any 2 suited cards, then to call a re-raise with it. Not to mention he didn't even have expressed odds to chase the draw in the first place.

Maybe I was the guy he hated that night.... I'll never understand people like that. Ok, just making sure I wasn't missing anything. It's the obvious stupid plays that make me curious if I did. I can understand tricky moves moreso than plain dumb senseless ones....

 

[NightStalker]

he should have shipped all in on the flop

The game: $2/$5 NL
I have about $700 in front of me.
Preflop in the BB with 9h,9d.
Cut off raises to $25, button calls, small blind calls, I raise to $75 total.
Everyone else folds except the cut off. ($200)

Flop: 5h, 9s, 10h

I bet out $210, cut off calls. ($620)

Turn: 2s

I move all in for $415 and get called....

River: Jh

Ass clown shows 6,8 of hearts.
He justified his call on turn due to implied odds, is he correct?
I understand the math of the game, but I know there are people here that are far more superior than I am when it comes to math.
Input appreciated. good or bad.
The game was loose aggressive and I was playing a tight aggressive game the whole way. didn't attempt any crazy bluffs and the hands that I showed down won. The villain I was against, had to rebuy twice before this hand.
I buyed back in for $500 and in 2 hours, cracked Aces with 8,9 suited to double up. I frigan left after that :laugh:

not that you are going to fold.. Turn call is little -EV(if he put you on a pair+). Given most of the people are bad in maths, It's not a horrible call..

 

[blackjacktilt]

not that you are going to fold.. Turn call is little -EV(if he put you on a pair+). Given most of the people are bad in maths, It's not a horrible call..

Interesting. I put him on a draw after the flop, and was obviously all in on the turn if the draw did not hit, which is what happened. I wasn't really thinking what he might be thinking at that point. So you're saying if he shoved on the flop, it would have been correct for him? If so, can you please explain?

 

[NightStalker]

run the hand simulation

Interesting. I put him on a draw after the flop, and was obviously all in on the turn if the draw did not hit, which is what happened. I wasn't really thinking what he might be thinking at that point. So you're saying if he shoved on the flop, it would have been correct for him? If so, can you please explain?

68h Vs AcAd on 5h9sTh board to get the equity and answer..
It's seems more like a coin flip to me..

 

[blackjacktilt]

68h Vs AcAd on 5h9sTh board to get the equity and answer..
It's seems more like a coin flip to me..

I had a set of 9's on the flop....
In his mind he has 12 outs (9 hearts and 3 7's) when in actuality he only has the 2,3,4,7,J,Q,K,A of hearts and the 3 sevens) 10 outs. I also have 3 fives, 1nine and 3 tens that can crack anything but runner runner straight flush that does not include the 9 (he needs 4,7 hearts).
If he puts me on a pair, then shove all day. Put me on a set, which I don't believe he thought I had anything but A,10 (which i never play), two bigger overcards or maybe Jacks and it is almost a coin flip in my favor.

You know, now that I analyzed it myself, I see what you're saying.... :laugh:
He's thinking he is about 52/48 in my favor, when he was actually less than 40% to win the hand. DON'T YOU JUST LOVE POKER!!!

 

[NightStalker]

I am glad that you got my point

I had a set of 9's on the flop....
In his mind he has 12 outs (9 hearts and 3 7's) when in actuality he only has the 2,3,4,7,J,Q,K,A of hearts and the 3 sevens) 10 outs. I also have 3 fives, 1nine and 3 tens that can crack anything but runner runner straight flush that does not include the 9 (he needs 4,7 hearts).
If he puts me on a pair, then shove all day. Put me on a set, which I don't believe he thought I had anything but A,10 (which i never play), two bigger overcards or maybe Jacks and it is almost a coin flip in my favor.

You know, now that I analyzed it myself, I see what you're saying.... :laugh:
He's thinking he is about 52/48 in my favor, when he was actually less than 40% to win the hand. DON'T YOU JUST LOVE POKER!!!

Blackjack is restricted by table maximum and past win history.. Poker is the only game where one can raise stakes with bankroll and skill.

 

[blackjacktilt]

Blackjack is restricted by table maximum and past win history.. Poker is the only game where one can raise stakes with bankroll and skill.

Indeed. Been playing for 8 years, 3 of them I consider playing well enough to say I am a "long term" winner. Blackjack... I have the skills, just not the BR.
Thanks for the input.

 

[moo321]

There are no implied odds on an all-in call. He is very wrong, and this is a terrible call given the cards.

I don't know if I like the re-raise here preflop. I'd rather call and try to spike a nine. This was you're isolating yourself out of position with a hand that's hard to play if you don't hit a nine.

 

[Sucker]

The relevant term here is simply "pot odds"; which for an all-in call is very easy to compute. For him to make the call, he would be putting in $415 in order to win $1035. If his chances of winning are 415/1035 or better, then the call is correct. At most, he has 13 outs out of 46 unseen cards; nowhere NEAR enough to justify the call. And as already been stated, he SHOULD have been able to deduce that he had less than 13. And he didn't even CONSIDER the possibility that you may have had something like AK hearts, which REALLY crushes him (after all, you DID 2-bet preflop!).

As far as his option of going all-in on the flop - that utilizes a strategy that includes what's known as "fold equity" -

Here is the classic example of fold equity:
Suppose you have a hand in which your winning chances are 45% if you decide to just call. But if you decide to go ALL IN, you figure your opponent will fold about 10% of the time. Because of this fold equity, you will NOW win the hand about 50.5% of the time (1/10 of the time you'll win outright, 9/10 of the time you'll still win 45%). You have now turned an UNDERDOG into a FAVORITE!

 

[blackjacktilt]

The relevant term here is simply "pot odds"; which for an all-in call is very easy to compute. For him to make the call, he would be putting in $415 in order to win $1035. If his chances of winning are 415/1035 or better, then the call is correct. At most, he has 13 outs out of 46 unseen cards; nowhere NEAR enough to justify the call. And as already been stated, he SHOULD have been able to deduce that he had less than 13. And he didn't even CONSIDER the possibility that you may have had something like AK hearts, which REALLY crushes him (after all, you DID 2-bet preflop!).

As far as his option of going all-in on the flop - that utilizes a strategy that includes what's known as "fold equity" -

Here is the classic example of fold equity:
Suppose you have a hand in which your winning chances are 45% if you decide to just call. But if you decide to go ALL IN, you figure your opponent will fold about 10% of the time. Because of this fold equity, you will NOW win the hand about 50.5% of the time (1/10 of the time you'll win outright, 9/10 of the time you'll still win 45%). You have now turned an UNDERDOG into a FAVORITE!

I understand all of that as I was writing this all out in my last response, I realized in his mind he thought he was just about even money and getting a little over 2-1 odds for the call. I knew this when the hand was going on as I put him on a flush draw or drawing just about dead. The comment about implied odds just did not make sense to me and I overthought it. Hence this silly post I made.
Thanks for the response though.

 

[SleightOfHand]

The game: $2/$5 NL
I have about $700 in front of me.
Preflop in the BB with 9h,9d.
Cut off raises to $25, button calls, small blind calls, I raise to $75 total.
Everyone else folds except the cut off. ($200)

Flop: 5h, 9s, 10h

I bet out $210, cut off calls. ($620)

Turn: 2s

I move all in for $415 and get called....

River: Jh

Ass clown shows 6,8 of hearts.
He justified his call on turn due to implied odds, is he correct?
I understand the math of the game, but I know there are people here that are far more superior than I am when it comes to math.
Input appreciated. good or bad.
The game was loose aggressive and I was playing a tight aggressive game the whole way. didn't attempt any crazy bluffs and the hands that I showed down won. The villain I was against, had to rebuy twice before this hand.
I buyed back in for $500 and in 2 hours, cracked Aces with 8,9 suited to double up. I frigan left after that :laugh:

You didn't mention how much the villain had, but I assume that he covered you? If not, I might play this hand a little differently, but heres my take. When you raised to $75, was that for value or a bluff? 88-JJ hands are tough to play unless you hit a set, so I perssonally like to flat with them, especially since you are out of position and in the BB, giving you a small "discount," improving your implied odds. But once you raise them, you need to raise bigger (I would raise to $125), you will probably get TT, JJ, occasionally QQ to fold right now and a good amount of hands that you flip with postflop.

Flop - The bet size is ok; I would have probably bet a little smaller, probably around 4/5 pot, but thats not a big deal.

Turn - Standard.

He just doesn't understand what implied odds means. I know this because he doesn't understand how dumb it is to raise with any 2 suited cards, then to call a re-raise with it. Not to mention he didn't even have expressed odds to chase the draw in the first place.

He may not understand implied odds, but calling a reraise with suited connectors is a great way to get implied odds. When you are reraised, especially from someone out of position, they are more polarized towards the premium hands. To call preflop for $50 to win $150 needs you to have 20% odds to win; which is great for his expressed odds (and IO). On the flop, he was flipping with overpairs and beating AK/AQ bluffs; this is where I would have shoved if I was him. Flipping with the majority of the hero's range, shoving gives me nice fold equity, making whatever overpairs to fold the gravy of this hand.

His logic on calling the turn was wrong. He has no implied odds once there are no more streets to bet. However; it is not necessarily the wrong call (although I would have folded). I would have put you on either an overpair or overcards. Vs the overpair, I have around 12 outs. Vs overcards, I have 18 outs (except vs AK/AQhh). Your bet of 415 into 620 means that you are giving me about 2.5:1. So, if he thought your range preflop had a lot of overcards; if he saw you 3b pf with hands like AJo or suited connectors, maybe he had the expressed odds to call (which is why a bigger turn bet may be desirable). There are almost no times when that line of logic is actually reasonable vs 95% of players, but who knows. Maybe the OP is a huge fish

 

[Jack_Black]

He may not understand implied odds, but calling a reraise with suited connectors is a great way to get implied odds.

I thought about that for a second too. but calling a 3 bet with any 2 suited just seems like an extremely high risk, low reward move to me. Plus Villain said he justified his call on the TURN because of implied odds. which still doesn't make sense.

 

[SleightOfHand]

I thought about that for a second too. but calling a 3 bet with any 2 suited just seems like an extremely high risk, low reward move to me. Plus Villain said he justified his call on the TURN because of implied odds. which still doesn't make sense.

Its not any two suited, its suited connectors (villains was a 1 gapper, which isn't terribly different). With suited connectors, you flop a straight/flush draw or better around 25% of the time. And playing 140 blinds deep is pretty good wiggle room to play some poker. With implied odds and "implied fold equity," especially when you have position, I don't hate calling a single bit.

But yea, the turn IOs he thought he had doesnt exist

 

[NightStalker]

With due respect,

I noticed few mistakes in your calculations. You are one of the posters I follow on this forum and expect to learn from your experience.. I really appreciate your guidance and have learned from your posts, thank you for that..

. At most, he has 13 outs out of 46 unseen cards; nowhere NEAR enough to justify the call. And as already been stated, he SHOULD have been able to deduce that he had less than 13.

He has 12 outs
9 for flush, 4 for straight, 1 is common to both

.
And he didn't even CONSIDER the possibility that you may have had something like AK hearts, which REALLY crushes him (after all, you DID 2-bet preflop!).

He did have 9 outs against AKh, right?

.
As far as his option of going all-in on the flop - that utilizes a strategy that includes what's known as "fold equity" -

Here is the classic example of fold equity:
Suppose you have a hand in which your winning chances are 45% if you decide to just call. But if you decide to go ALL IN, you figure your opponent will fold about 10% of the time. Because of this fold equity, you will NOW win the hand about 50.5% of the time (1/10 of the time you'll win outright, 9/10 of the time you'll still win 45%). You have now turned an UNDERDOG into a FAVORITE!

Your concept of FE is correct, but odds are wrongly calculated.
I think you got that number ==
10+45%(90)=50.5% which seems incorrect to me..
as 10% of the time, you will win only - what is in the pot.. That's why the ratio of ALL-in bet and pot is relevant here- which is missed in your calulation.