Full House
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Drowning in prosperity
Posts: 1,279
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pyroxene
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by koolmoe
I'm used to counting bets from casino play, so I usually multiply the number of bets in the pot by the number of outs I have, divide by the number of bets I have to call, and compare the result to 45 (number of cards remaining) minus the number of outs I have. The number of cards remaining is obviously greater than 45, but there are a few reasons I use this number, and it doesn't affect the calculation that greatly.
Example: There are 7 bets in the pot, I know I am behind and have 6 clean outs, and I have to call one bet. 7x6/1 = 42 > 45-6, so I call. For two bets I would fold.
Sounds convoluted, but it's second nature to me.
|
This is interesting and I have a question. The normal equation for this would be that the pot odds must be better than the odds of winning. So, in terms of math the equation becomes:
P = # of bets in the pot
B = # of bets to call
O = # of outs available.
47: constant, # of cards remaining from which the outs must come.
P/B > (47 - O)/O
which is the same as:
P*O/B > 47 - O
which is your formula except that you use 45 instead of 47.
You hint there are reasons for this substitution. What are the reasons? |
Yeah, that's the equation, and (in limit) when you consider that you are counting the pot in terms of bets (P = N*B where B is the number of bets) you are actually left with N*O > 47-O. Dividing is not as easy to most brains as multiplication, and this is a way to avoid it (sometimes you might have to divide by two if you are cold calling a raise). I suppose you could add the outs to both sides to get N*O + O > 47, and you would have one number to calculate and a constant to compare it to. It would be a little more difficult to use for cold calling raises, though.
The reason I use 45 is that it's a somewhat round number and makes the math quicker (I have this weird Monthy Pythonesque thing about subtracting from 7 where I'm frequently off by two), and (more importantly) reducing the number of unseen cards from 47 or 46 to 45 adjusts slightly for implied odds.
|