Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="F Paulsson, post: 400934, member: 6979"] Right. That kind of paranoia is bordering on Hellmuthesque, though. :p The rake most likely ate the small blind, so it's probably 6-1 and not 6.5-1 (I hate rake), but it's true that you can almost always make up for this with implied odds (like you said, your immediate pot odds are 7-1). The effective odds are 3.5-1 with two cards to come, but you're not getting 6-1 on two cards; you're getting 8-3 (paying 3 small bets to win 8) to get to the river. So no, the direct odds the pot is offering you are not big enough to warrant a peel, but the implied odds often do. Keep in mind, though, that you don't always have six [I]clean outs[/I]. Some portion of the time - maybe even relatively often - your opponent will share one of your outs (e.g. a hand like KJ or AJ, or other hands that make at least three of your outs go poof), so you can't count your pot odds on the presumption that all six of them are clean (even though we now know that they are). A more conservative estimate would be to discount one or two of your outs, and look at the odds for improving with 4-5 outs (or 4.5 if you want an average). The book [I]Small Stakes Hold 'em[/I] has a great section about this. Returning to this particular hand (the partial outs above was more general) it's not entirely irrelevant to remember that you actually have the best hand a fairly large portion of the time. You only limped preflop, haven't said anything about the strength of your hand, and he's continuation betting this flop. There's nothing that says that he necessarily hit any portion of it, as he could easily have been raising from late position with a hand like AQ, KQ or ATs. Not knowing how aggressive he is, it's hard to gauge, but it's still worth pointing out. Good, I'm glad. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language