copernicus

would want more (or less) callers with JTs vs JTo. Second, I only agree with her advice to raise in limited situations.First, since you will make more hands being suited, you don't need quite as many callers to justify playing on an "all in" basis. (Ie no betting after the pre-flop).Second, the hands that will beat the straight will also beat the flush except for lower flushes, an unlikely event, so there is no compelling reason to limit the number of callers for the unsuited hands on that basis.Third, straights tend to be better disguised so they may get more callers later on, which gives som

The math is easy. If you think a set or Ks over will win the hand (and with no obvious redraws on this hand they probably are), 5 outs times 2 draws is 10 outs, 48 is a nice round but conservative number of outstanding cards, so your needed odds are (48-10)/10 or 3.8/1. Bump it up to 4/1 or even a little more for the chance that hitting your hand isnt good enough and youve still got plenty to call the flop.If you dont hit your on a 5 outer so (48-5)/5 needs more than 8/1 big bets to draw to the river, and you dont have that, so yes, you lay down.A more important leak is cold calling with K8 s

You're mistaken.I just choose not to respond...to any of his threads...at any time...to any topic.Thanks for the tip, lol. I dont have the experience here to know whether a response could possibly have any value to the original poster. In this case the one post was a good clue though. :-)

I didnt comment on a decision to call with or without pot odds, just why prior investment in the pot is irrelevant to the calculation. In tournaments there are many more considerations in a decision than TC pot odds.

a bit more succinctly, how much YOU invested in the pot is irrelevant, pot odds is only concerned with the total in the pot, your chances of winning that pot, and the amount you have to invest to play for it. The formula for pot odds is the same as the formula for EV with no future bets to come, just expressed in a different form. The formula for implied odds is the same as the formula EV, and usually you dont bother with converting it to odds.It would be an interesting exercise for limit poker to make tables of pot size needed (ie implied odds) given common drawing hands, their outs, the

You're mistaken.

on Poker, sorry I forget the name deals with this very well. As I recall his estimate at that 1 out of 100 expert level players (1-2 bb per hour and a reasonably tight standard deviation) will face a 2 year losing streak. Not that they will lose the entire 2 years, but still be net negative at the end of 2 years.A swing of 70 bb in a week of steady play doesnt sound large at all. If you ve been playing online at full tables, you are getting in 45+ hands an hour, paying 3 bbs an hour in blinds, playing about 8 other hands an hour for and average around 4 bbs per hand. So youre committing somet

how large is your buy in, and at what point are you considering cashing out?

If you are passing on situations where you are getting more than twice your proper odds you will place far lower in tournaments than you should, even if you somehow manage to get enough good hands to get into the money. And I have rarely seen a statement more incorrect than "there will always be a better spot to stick your money in the pot". Tournaments are a race against the blinds, and in fact there may never be a better spot to stick your money in the pot.

i know slansky says everytime people call you without the right pot odds you'll gain in the long run, but when 5 people call you as opposed to 1 or 2 like in 10/20 it is very difficult for top pair top kicker to hold up. any help is greatly appreciated.penneIf 5 people are calling you at least a few of them are likely to have the right pot odds, and variance will hide the relatively small pot odds errors the others are making for a long time.10/20 live and 1/2 online have about as much similarity as Omaha 8 and hold em. If you are even in hands with TPTK at the turn or river with 5 callers, g

your criteria for genius is severely lacking. There is no question his books are the best out there for theoretical considerations. There is also no question that poker is a relatively simple endeavor compared to the fields of work of true geniuses.

if youre not going to play it to get all your money in somehow, you shouldnt be playing no limit.

While connectors increase in value relative to overcards (as far as EV goes), your overall probability of winning that hand still goes down (just not as much as the pot increases). If your goal is to win the tourney at all costs, even at risk of going bust, then I would agree with your advice. If your goal is to get in the money, short term survival outweighs a marginal increase in EV. All in still looks right to me.

Everyone agrees median of the range of starting hands meanshalf of the hands are weaker and half are stronger.But has anyone ever compiled a table of power ratings for each of the 169 possible combinations of hands? Also what about the 1326 permutations of starting hands. Not all combinations are equally likely.Can't expect the forum to just take your word for Q7 being the median. You must provide proof or a link to an authority we trust.Its in many places, including Hold em Analyzers starting hand tables and the web site that has the optimal heads up strategy.

I'm not sure the second paragraph makes any sense. If you win this hand your net gain is a minimum of a big and small blind, and you may pick up at least the big blind for a call. If you wait till the next hand and win as the big blind your net gain may only be a small blind. Winning now puts you in a better position to sacrifice your small blind if necessary.

would be right if you expect it to limit the field. Every player you knock out reduces the "Field's" outs by a little over 5 (not a full 6 because there may already be some duplicated cards, particularly honors. I'd guess that improves your winning chances by 15% per player knocked out or so.If the raise isnt big enough to limit the field then you are probably betting against yourself.

or there are backdoor straight/flush possibilities then taking a card off with middle pair if its not too expensive vs several opponents is pretty standard play I think. If you dont improve on the turn you need to fold, as you did, because you are almost certainly behind at that point, with only 2 outs to trips a likely winner. When the middle pair is relatively low, even two pair can get counterfeited when a pair shows on the board.If there are no backdoor draws and the kicker is lower than an A seeing the turn is questionable at best.

based on experience, reading etc, as said above. Precision in the calculations isnt necessary, since the cost close but mathematically wrong decisions will take a long time to catch up with you. My impression of the ultra high stakes limit game is that relatively few hands are played where there are even close decisions. Tournament play decisions regarding stack size, reading opponents etc far outweigh close mathematical decisions in importance. If youve memorized the key (and approximate) pre-flop probabilities from Harringtons book (Pair over pair, 2 overcards to a pair, 2 undercards to a pa

15/1, since putting the others on club draws and sets eliminate some of your non-outs from the remaining deck. Also, I wouldnt discount the club 10 very much. Is someone in there looking for runner runner clubs with that preflop betting? I don't think you can put yourself any worse than 11/1 to win the hand, call it 9%. If the average pot youre going to win is 17 big bets, your EV for the call is 1.53 big bets minus 1.82 big bets, or about .3 of a big bet. If you arent playing on a short bankroll and can stand the variance that doesnt seem like a huge charge for a shot at 17.

a marginal call. Youve got the necessary pot odds if there is no raise behind you, and the necessary implied odds if there is a raise and you get two calls.If catcat folds you are only slightly short on implied odds. The only clear drop is if you know its going to be capped.Thats why there are so many "bad beats" in limit. After aggressive early round betting there are too many draws that are pot bound to be secure, even with a set.

that all of these different concepts are all really the same, they are all different expressions of EV. If you understand EV then the rest fall into place for the particular situation

are very similar, and often mis-presented as they are in this thread, its easier to get at least some familiarity with the derivation of the prinicples. Then repetition of the smaller pieces, along with thinking about their relation to EV will result in firmer understanding.

since the results depend on a few key hands. Ring games you can only win playing tight/aggressive, betting for value and showing down a high percentage of winners. Tourney play has you in the habit of limping with far too many hands to show a profit.

largely a matter of style and your ability to play post flop, and I would lean toward a call with this many limpers.Where I may be missing something is that you figure you have 6 outs going into the river, which looks reasonable to me. That means you need less than 7/1 to call. There is $87 or so in the pot, so even if you have to be in for 2 bets (not at all assured) you are getting better than 7/1. Easy call once youve made it to that point.

as long as you are confident you will get a caller behind you to get and pass your 2/1 pot odds. This early in a tournament the only consideration is getting value in terms of TC pot odds, and in your seat I would expect at least 2/1 by the time the flop round ends.You can't win them all, but you have to be in when you have the best of it.