This site uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. By continuing to browse the website, you accept such cookies. For more details and to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

# Short Stack Strategy: Outs and Odds Question 8

• Bronze
Joined: 25.03.2009
Hi, I have a question about this question in the article:

QUESTION 8: The pot is \$2. An opponent bets \$1 on the flop. You have \$1, you'd therefore have to move all-in to continue playing. You are holding a flush draw. Can you profitably call this bet?
a) yes
b) no

QUESTION 8 correct answer is "yes" - Why?

possible profit = pot + opponents bet,
in this case \$2 + \$1 = \$3

I would have to call \$1 to see the turn, right?

And the fulshdraw has 4:1 odds, meaning every 1 time out of 5 times, I win.
I would win \$3 (the profit), but lose \$1*4times, that makes -1\$ net proft, doesn't it? So how is it possible to call this bet profitably?
• 13 replies
• Bronze
Joined: 20.02.2008
Hello ragulka,

The trick of the question lies in you needing to go all-in to continue playing. Since you are all-in you don't pay \$1 to see the turn - but to see the turn AND the river.

Best regards
SoyCD
• Bronze
Joined: 25.07.2008
Hi ragulka,

Answer a) is correct because as you are going to be all-in if you call the bet you will get to see the turn and river cards so then you need to look at the flushdraw odds for 2 streets which are 2:1 making it profitable to call.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
-Steve
• Bronze
Joined: 25.03.2009
Alright, now I get it. Mathematically id just didn't add up I mean, I had no idea that I would need to count the river as well
• Bronze
Joined: 23.01.2009
I dont understand why you have 2:1 (50%) chances to catch the flush , 9 cards help you , 9 of 46 that is 19% , 19*2 = 36-37 % , so why 50% ?
• Bronze
Joined: 30.08.2008
Its not 2 divided by 1 (or other way round) its 2:1 which means 2 out of 3 and 1 out of 3.
On average 2 times you wont hit and 1 you will

So 1/3 of the time you will hit which is roughly 33% of the time
• Bronze
Joined: 25.07.2008
Originally posted by kingdippy2008
Its not 2 divided by 1 (or other way round) its 2:1 which means 2 out of 3 and 1 out of 3.
On average 2 times you wont hit and 1 you will

So 1/3 of the time you will hit which is roughly 33% of the time
couldn't have said it better me old mucker lol

Regards,
-Steve
• Bronze
Joined: 23.01.2009
ok i get it know , so 1:1 its 50% and 4:1 it's 20%
• Bronze
Joined: 29.03.2009
Dont know if it of any help, but my background as a bookmaker has shown me that the best way to look at odds is in the European Decimal format. so 4:1 becomes 5.00. Then the equation is as simple as 1/odds, to get your %.

Malook
• Bronze
Joined: 29.03.2009
Also, then to see if it is +EV all you do is multiply the odds value by the odds you are getting.

So for this example you are getting 33.3333..% for your 5.00 shot.

So you do 5.00 * 33.33..%

If the aswer is above 1.00 then you have value to play. The more it is above 1.00 then the more value you have.

The answer for the above is 1.66ish, so nice value

Malook
• Bronze
Joined: 25.07.2008
Hey malook,

I think your calculation of the answer may be incorrect as its only a 20% chance and not a 33% chance.

1 / 5 = 0.20

5 * 0.20 = 1

Regards,
-Steve
• Bronze
Joined: 29.03.2009
Originally posted by TheBu11d0g
Hey malook,

I think your calculation of the answer may be incorrect as its only a 20% chance and not a 33% chance.

1 / 5 = 0.20

5 * 0.20 = 1

Regards,
-Steve
Hi Steve

In the OP he said he had a 2:1 chance of winning, which is where the 33.333% came from. I was just showing how you see whether the play is value, by using the 33.33% and the odds of 5.00.

e.g. 5.00 * 0.33 = 1.65ish

Cheers
malook
• Bronze
Joined: 29.03.2009
Hi Steve

Now looking my original post was a bit poorly worded.

He had 2:1 for his hand, and 4:1 for his pot.

2:1 = 3.00 = 33.333%
4:1 = 5.00 = 20%

I was just saying that he can calculate his edge, by using the % for the hand * the odds for the pot.

Sorry for the confusion

malook
• Bronze
Joined: 25.07.2008
Hi malook,

Sorry for my misunderstanding mate. I understand it completely now

Regards,
-Steve