At Odds with Omaha...

Advanced search
1 2
gladdened
16
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:00
8 (who?)
Agree (0), Disagree (0), Funny (0), Educational (0), Interesting (0)
#1
gladdened 186 posts Yellowfin Tuna

Posted: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:00 by gladdened

Over the past several weeks i've started playing Omaha, i'm already a big fan but there are some holes in my understanding of some of the basics. The main issue is hand odds.
In a full ten handed game, 40 cards are dealt to players, 1 burn and 3 for the flop, leaves 8 cards in the deck. How then do I calculate my turn and river hand odds for a 20 outer?
#2
CheezYCheezY 350 posts Pufferfish

Posted: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:38 by CheezYCheezY

Doesnt really matter how many r still in the deck..only diff is with NL Holdem you see 5 cards postflop so 47/52 r unknown...

with omaha you will see 7 that means 45/52 r unknown..
#3
CheezYCheezY 350 posts Pufferfish

Posted: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:39 by CheezYCheezY

2 hole cards 3 community cards for the peepz that will react on my 1st post..
#4
gladdened 186 posts Yellowfin Tuna

Posted: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:59 by gladdened

Edited: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:01 by gladdened

Errr.....thanks for your reply.
From your response, it seems you are saying that the probability of hitting a specified number of outs is unaffected by the number of cards in the deck...which doesn't fit with my understanding of probabilty!
/chuckles...and returns to google for more reading.
#5
IneedUrChips 4636 posts Box Jellyfish

Posted: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:19 by IneedUrChips

Edited: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:19 by IneedUrChips

Errr.....thanks for your reply.
From your response, it seems you are saying that the probability of hitting a specified number of outs is unaffected by the number of cards in the deck...which doesn't fit with my understanding of probabilty!
/chuckles...and returns to google for more reading.


gladdened, 13/10/2009

It doesnt affect at al. Think of it this way: Normally the deck in holdem at the end of a hand F/T/R on a full ring + 3 burn cards leave 24 cards that arent used. These 24 dead + 3 burnt cards are never ever gonna influence probability happy Because they fysicly dont exist.

Thus odds and outs stay the same regardless.
#6

Posted: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:13 by Robbieweeza

Edited: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:13 by Robbieweeza

As long as you don't know which cards are out, the unknown cards in the deck could be any of them.

Try looking at it this way: if you have all outs but one (i.o.w. your opponent has 1 out) and there's only 1 card left, this doesn't mean it's the 1 out he needs.

Any 2 unknown cards are interchangable statistically.
#7
gpj77 2201 posts Blue Marlin

Posted: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:34 by gpj77

please correct me if im wrong, but it doesnt make sense if there are the same number of outs but less cards in the deck for the odds of hitting the outs to remain constant.
Lets compare 2 flush draws 1 in omaha and 1 in holdem

in hold em if you are holding 4 cards to a flush and want to find out what the percentage of hitting a flush on the turn or river it is

(9/47 +9/46) *100= 38.7%
but in the same situation in omaha you know 2 more cards which are not your outs, so

(9/45+9/44)*100=40.5%

so you are slightly more likely to hit a flush draw in omaha than in holdem, i think.
#8
gladdened 186 posts Yellowfin Tuna

Posted: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:00 by gladdened

Edited: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:03 by gladdened

Thanks for the replies.
It seems that what is being worked out above are the odds of specified outs from a full deck less known cards, all other dead cards (other players cards and burn cards) are included in the calculation since they are unknown.
How realistic/accurate these odds are will vary from game to game, situation to situation. For example playing ten handed hold' em (with all the cards face up), would engender very different 'true' odds to heads up play (because it is likely that some or all of our outs are held by other players). Since we can't possibly know the information that 'face-up' would provide, probability is assumed...
#9

Posted: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:51 by Robbieweeza

It's a false logic many players use (no offense). People tend to think that in order to have outs, they need to be in the deck.

The cards in other players' hands or in the muck are of the same value as the ones on the bottom of the deck. After all, they're not being used. All that's relevant to your odds of winning are the cards that are on top of the deck. The rest of the deck you can put in the muck, in your pants or frisbee them around the room, they're not ever going to be of any relevance.

In the beginning of the game the deck is shuffled and the cards remain in the position they're in when the shuffling ends. Suppose 51 cards are dealt and 1 is left. Then what is relevant to you are the odds of one of your outs being in that position. Assuming the deck was shuffled perfectly, every card has a 1/52 chance of being in any given position in the deck. Remember, the cards' positions are fixed after the shuffle.

So if you have a flush draw (9 outs) and there's 1 card left, there's a 9/52 chance that one of your outs ended up there in the beginning of the hand. If one of them was in that position, then it doesn't matter what happened to the other cards, and the other way around.

When you speak of things like 'true odds', you're being results oriented. It doesn't matter to us whether or not someone holds our outs, what matters to us is the likelyhood of them NOT holding our outs. You don't know if the cat is dead until you open the box.toungeout
#10
gladdened 186 posts Yellowfin Tuna

Posted: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:26 by gladdened

Edited: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:56 by gladdened

Ahhhhhh...I see...said the blind man as he walked into the lamp post.
I understand the logic there robbie, thanks for taking the time to explain it.

edit 1 nice schrodingers cat reference, me and a good pal were talking about the observer effect/nature of duality in poker just the other day, and i rather smoothly (/coughs) dropped some schrodinger on him. He thought i was making it up i reck...

edit 2 absolutely no offence taken...i've been feeling ill ease with my conception of probability in poker, and have had a creeping certainty that i've thinking about it in either a different way (or, more likely, the wrong the way). I needed tellin!
1 2

Leave a post

You must be logged in to reply on this topic.
Register