Big Slick Brooklyn Head's up Suckout, or is it?
I'd like to clear up a controversial issue concerning calling and making bets with marginal hands. There comes a point in a tourney when implied odds become the major consideration for playing a hand and this factor must be taken into account by both the bettor and caller.
Let's take for example a head's up hand that ended a tourney at the Big Slick Brooklyn Casino last night.
I am big stacked with about 18K in chips DNice has about 7K, Blind are 600 1200
I get 4 3 suited and call the Big Blind
2400 in the Pot
DNice raises 2500 bringing the pot up to 4900.
At this point it will cost me 2500 to win a possible 4900 pot offering me approximately 2:1 pot odds, so I would need a hand that has a 50/50 chance of winning to make this call when taking just pot odds into consideration. If it was a pure pot odds call I would have to fold considering I'm under the impression that he has 2 overcards giving me a little better than 3:1 odds (38% chance of winning). If he had a pocket pair he would have went all-in pre-flop so putting him on overcards is a reasonable read.
If I make the call I am at a disadvantage considering pot odds, but when factoring in implied odds the hand becomes playable. With 4 3 suited I can flop a multiple possibility of hands, if I hit a good flop I can take his stack and win the tourney. Implied odds make the hand playable because I have him well covered and have a minimum of 38% + implied odds of winning it all. Therefore making a 2500 call giving me 2:1 odds + the implied odds is correct.
Back to the hand, the flop comes
4 3 5, I'm pretty sure DNice hit a pair of fives, I believe he had K 5
He pushes all in, I call and my 4's up wins.
What do you think? Post a comment
posted by Frank @ 10:00 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Unfortunately you will not take facts into consideration when you lose. The "crazy players" I take money off of in Atlantic City basically play at your level so I should have no problem continuing to make money there.
I have agreed with some of the plays made in previous posts that you considered suckouts because they were right considering the implied odds that were involved.
Definition: Implied odds: It's implied that no matter how good your cards pre-flop, the other guy will catch better cards. So it's implied that you can't win at poker unless you get lucky. If you want to win, you can either play sane, and hope you get lucky, or play crazy and hope get lucky. Playing crazy is better because at least there's a chance you'll have the bigger chip stack at the end.
d-nice,
I see your trying to grasp the alphabet, but math would be more appropriate for Poker.
$Bill,
I explained how the implied odds are calculated in the original post. I know you are not against the concept of mathematics, as are some. If the numbers used in my calculations are false please let me know.
Sorry d-nice...implied odds is not a bad play. now i did not double-check all of the math...but it seems solid enough for me. What you may be forgetting is that Frank has a couple of things going for him...1) he has the chip lead so he can take more risks 2) he has position 3) and if he misses on the flop...he can let go of his hand...these are the kind of hands that bust players. It is risky...yes! It requires alot of skill..you have to be able to put people on hands real well...and you have to be able to fold marginal hands that hit...but it is highly effective when used by a great player...ie The Grinder, Gavin Smith, Daniel Negraneau, Huck Seed etc...
good post AK, you are an observant and skillful opponent!
A sizable raise is not 2x the big blind, that unfortunately is a baby raise, or more noticably a scared raise. Don't ever show me weakness, only bad things will occur.
Post a Comment
<< Home