New answers tagged

0

I remember hearing about a variation where only the kickers determine the best hand, if two players have the same type of have. Normal hand ranking rules still apply (flush still beats a straight, etc.), but if both players have, say, two pair, only the kicker determines the winner. For example, AAKK7 loses to 9977Q, because the queen kicker beats the 7 ...


0

1) According to http://wizardofodds.com/games/poker/, the probability that you can see quads at a 9-player table (assuming no one ever folds) is: 0.013183% or ~ once every 7586 hands 2) For your bonus question, I am not quite sure if that's what you are looking for, but have a look in here: ...


-1

Yes you are ranting. Really you are counting and seeing 4 of a kind once every 100 - 150 hands. If you are counting then you would have a number not a range. The chance of 4 of a kind in 5 cards is 4,164 : 1 You are not playing with 5 cards you are playing with 7 The chance of 4 or a kind in 7 cards is 594 : 1 9 players is 9 hands so roughly 65 : ...


2

You can never win more from a given player than you bet. Neither can you win more from them than they bet. Player B bet $50 and only had $50 at risk, and so can only win $50 from B. Player B is technically "all in for less" and the dealer will sometimes call it as such to make it clear that Player B didn't call the whole amount. If there was a Player C ...


3

Blinds are the essence of poker games. All strategy is built on the basis of stealing the money that are already in the pot (Dead money). Without the blinds, a player can fold every hand but Aces, thus (in the long term) would never lose money. Now, there are different setups to achieve that, like big and small blinds, two big blinds, blinds with antes, ...


1

The best 5 Cards in this hand are KK33Q (Assuming no flushes). The losing hand was KKAQJ.


1

There are multiple problems with the proposal that 1 player put up 1.5xBB rather than as it is actually played. a $1-$2 game would then just become a more expensive game as now it would cost $3 to limp, and $6 to (min) raise rather than $2 and $4. Having 2 blinds gives 2 players equity in the pot rather than just one presumably creating more action. A ...


0

I've heard of players claiming to have a split pot in situations like this because "we both have an ace high flush" or whatever, but these are the same kinds of clueless players who think they have a straight in Omaha, holding AAKJ on a 234-5-9 board, or who snap call on the river, proclaiming "I've got the nut flush," with A♦J♦7♦4♦ on K♠T♠9♦ - 5♠ - 3♠. (In ...


0

You can only include known cards in your calculations. If you have two hearts in your hand, your chances of making a flush by the river are the same whether you're playing against one opponent or ten. If somehow you know that four other players are also holding two hearts, there's a much lower chance, because there are exactly three hearts left in the deck, ...


0

I have analyzed limping versus raising over enormous samples (in the millions of hands) in poker tracking programs like HM and PT and found that from a profit standpoint there is no comparison. Raising is simply far more profitable than limping.


2

And you can win money with a lottery ticket. Does not make it a good investment. A lottery ticket has a better rate of return than 42 off suite. Most players will randomly go in with aces or queens. If you have players that will randomly go in then take a stand with a hand that will beat a random hand. 42 off suite beats 72 off suite but that is ...


2

It's always disappointing to (e.g.) throw away a nice suited hand such as J9d to the early raiser and see three diamonds come out on the flop which would have busted his aces, especially when he goes on to be the chip leader and you bust out without having gotten any better hands. But to answer your question "could I predict that I could win the hand" there ...



Top 50 recent answers are included