|
mattperkins26
|
04-19-2005, 06:09 PM
Post subject: What should I bet against a flush/straight draw?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 15
|
|
I am feeling particularly dense about this, so I thought I would ask. What is the bet I should make to put a flush or straight draw at bad pot odds? I have been betting the pot, but I am thinking, "Is this enough?"
I am estimating 1/3 chance to pull a flush or straight on last two cards. Betting the pot makes it a 1 to 2 call with 1 to 2 to win (or a 33% call with 35% chance to win). Do I get the edge on the river by betting the pot again?
Here is a money example. $2 pot. I will bet $2 then $6. We are both betting $8 to win $18. This is a 44% call with a 35% chance to win for the draw and a 65% chance to win for me. This is definitely in my favor, but doesn't seem like very much of an edge.
Ok. What is the expected value of my example? The draw expects .35*$18 - $8 = -$1.7. I expect .65*$18 - $8 = +$3.7. Ok I feel better.
Is my thinking off here, or should I be betting a little more than the pot? (this could be problematic for me since I like to play pot limit!)
Thoughts, comments, suggestions?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
vqc
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,427
|
|
betting 1/2 the pot puts draws, both flush and straight, at incorrect odds to chase. I believe. To be really safe I guess put it at 3/4 of the pot.
|
|
|
|
JeffreyGB
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Jenks, OK
Posts: 3,477
|
|
It's very difficult to bet enough to totally ruin drawing odds on the flop (taken alone). However assuming the turn card doesn't complete the draw, they are now getting much worse odds to call the same fractional bet. In essense, you need only bet enough to ruin their one card odds and negate implied odds. To me, this usually amounts to about 2/3 pot. More will do it as well, though.
|
|
|
|
aokrongly
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 863
|
|
In NL ring you see alot of people playing "implied odds" for their draws and will call damn near anything. In SnG's you see less of that, because of the chip structure.
You have to know the players. If I know someone cares about pot odds, then 1/3 - 1/2 pot the plenty. They fold and life is good. If I know someone will call damn near anything, then I will play it differently. In SnG I'll go AI and let the chips fall where they may. In ring I'll bet 1/3 or 1/2 pot after the flop, and then decide how much I want to put in on the river based on the size of the pot and how much I want to risk. It's not technically correct play. But if the pot is large and I don't want to throw another huge bet into it, I'll bet smaller. I might even check. If the SOB is going to call anyway, then hell, I want to see if he makes it or not TOO!! No, it's not the best play, but it's based on reality. And there are times when I THINK someone is on a draw when actually they have me beat (in NL ring), so throwing out huge bets is a bad choice. I may slow down after the turn, is what I'm saying, even though technically I should bet 1/3 - 1/2 pot again.
|
|
|
|
Miggo
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 153
|
|
I'm going to just throw this in here as something to think about since the subject of implied odds came up. This is a unique situation in the sense that when you are figuring whether you want to continue with a hand you are drawing with, it is up to you to more or less guess what the implied odds are. This makes your calculating whether you have odds to call a little more difficult.
In this situation where you are setting the odds for someone you think is on a draw, you know what the implied odds are. If you have what you figure is the best hand now, and you know if the third card of a suit flops, you are check/folding because you know this super passive player will not bet without hitting his draw, you know his pot odds and implied odds are equal. This means you can bet a smaller amount rather than a larger amount because you normally want to make him pay for the additional implied odds, but because you know his implied odds are equal to the pot odds you don't have to make a larger bet to give him poor odds because of the implied odds in this case.
Is this correct thinking or not.
|
|
|
|
drmcboy
|
|
DrButtInski
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,602
|
|
I think it's correct as long as by smaller you don't mean less than 1/2 the pot. Less than 1/2 the pot he should call, even if he will win no more money.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
