flush draw outs

phantom_lord

If on a 3diamond flop, and we've the bare ace of diamonds, and we think the person betting is protecting their made non nut flush, should we adjust our number of outs when calculating the odds?

7 instead of nine?

Or is that distorting things?

The Sheriff 101

phantom_lord wrote:

If on a 3diamond flop, and we've the bare ace of diamonds, and we think the person betting is protecting their made non nut flush, should we adjust our number of outs when calculating the odds?

7 instead of nine?

Or is that distorting things?

I think the problem with this Q is u think he has flush.
U would have to know the player in Questoin very well before taking this into consideration but if i was sure he had a made fush then yes

valor

obviously if you know they have a made flush you should

phantom_lord

ok, but the makes a problem of a distorted sample size. Should we assume then that all the people that folded have no diamond and take that number away from the cards that don't help us?

sikes

phantom_lord wrote:

ok, but the makes a problem of a distorted sample size. Should we assume then that all the people that folded have no diamond and take that number away from the cards that don't help us?

what? a distorted sample size?

anyway, yes if you are drawing to the nut flush and you know he has the flush you must take those two cards out.

EDIT: You may be reffering to sample space which has been reduced, hence deducting the two outs, which is the correct thing to do

The Sheriff 101

phantom_lord wrote:

ok, but the makes a problem of a distorted sample size. Should we assume then that all the people that folded have no diamond and take that number away from the cards that don't help us?

No this is ok when say putting a player that folded on a big Ace but not in this example

phantom_lord

Does adjusting for him not give too much of a weighting to too small of a sample size?

Lazare

phantom_lord wrote:

Should we assume then that all the people that folded have no diamond and take that number away from the cards that don't help us?

What about the possibility that 3 mucked hands all had one low diamond.
Maybe your outs are now reduced to 4, so you decide to fold.
And then you find out your read is way off when your opponent flashes you two pair.

Don't out think yourself.

If you've got a very good read, reduce your outs to 7.

sikes

phantom_lord wrote:

Does adjusting for him not give too much of a weighting to too small of a sample size?

the sample space is being reduced, not the sample size.

we are only getting to see 2 cards in this instance, so thats 2 samples. in future if it happens it will increase you sample size. (assuming you get it all in on the flop, not really sure what situation your in). we dont care about the sample size in reality because we know the value of our move in the long term already.

Flushdraw

PHEWWWWWWW...i thought this was a thread saying i came out of the closet!

Lazare

Flushdraw wrote:

PHEWWWWWWW...i thought this was a thread saying i came out of the closet!

There was no Queen mentioned in this thread Tony*, you're safe for the moment.



*Or is that Toni?

Flushdraw

Lazare wrote:

*Or is that Toni?

lol i think thats a negative!!