[BeatingBaseball]

Although baseball handicapping is my primary pursuit, I regularly read the poker articles in Gaming Today. The poker guys there are generally pretty sharp when it comes to odds and math angles - but in this article I believe the author commits a glaring logical fallacy/mathematical error in his calculation of drawing odds.

http://gamingtoday.com/articles/arti...e_card_s_worth

I realize it's rather basic stuff for those who frequent this forum, but is there any logical, mathematical justification for his adjusting the 4 outs (any trey) down to 3 outs on the basis that the unseen cards of the other players are likely to include one of the 4 treys in the deck. It seems to me that an unseen card is an unseen card, no matter where it is on the table. Isn't any specific, single card out of 52 possibilities a .0192 random shot no matter if you select from a full deck or only half the deck? Isn't that why you use the 2% estimate per out to begin with?
In his example, we've seen 5 cards, none of which is a trey. There are 4/47 remaining trey possibilities. The next single random card we see will carry a .0851 possibility of being a trey no matter where it comes from - the same if it comes from a remaining deck of 47 or a remaining deck of 1. No?

[mebaran]

I guess technically, you can adjust your drawing odds if you are.somewhat certain of the range your opponent is playing. If you have background information on your opponent and they are a standard TAG, you can narrow their ranges quite a bit. Say, just for an example, that an opponent raises you preflop from 1st position, and you call with KTs. If the flop is Qd Js Tc ...you can be fairly certain his range is AA-QQ, AK-AQs (or thereabouts). If you can narrow his range to that, then theoretically, you can discount your straight outs by one or so since he has an ace in his hand a good percentage of the time.

Obviously this hand isn't really a reasonable one because its unlikely you're ahead in the first place, but I'm sure there are other situations where it makes sense to so this. However, I'd only do it if I had a pretty good read on the opponent, or a clear cut situation like above...otherwise you're doing more calculations for little or no return.

[mebaran]

The author of that article doesnt mention additional player information gained at the table, he simply says the odds of a three being dealt in a nine handed game are high. This is true, but not a valid reason for discounting drawing odds. The last section of that article is actually really horrible.

So barring any additional information you have (exposed cards, extreme read on opponents hand range, etc), you should never mess with the drawing odds.

[ProlinePlayer]

His logic is bizzare to say the least.

If one follows through with the 3 outs left theory then we also have to adjust the number of cards left to half a deck which means the probability of catching the straight is 3 of 26 or about 12%.
But all that is rather pointless. Just 4 outs at 2% each is all you need to get the right answer.

It is hard to believe that with the math/logic skills he demonstrates in this article, that he actually writes poker books.

PLP

[BeatingBaseball]

His logic is bizzare to say the least....It is hard to believe that with the math/logic skills he demonstrates in this article, that he actually writes poker books.

PLP

That's how I see it as well, PLP. If you adjust the numerator you have to also adjust the denominator - or the 2% estimate for each of the 4 treys is no longer valid. The approximate 8% for any given card being any trey is the same no matter if it's 4/52, 3/39, 2/26 or 1/13.

[BeatingBaseball]

In an exchange of emails, the author of the article has acknowledged his error:

"I must admit that I was mistaken. It's not the first mistake I have made -- and hopefully (at age 86) it won't be my last mistake. Thanks for taking the time to set me straight.
Best Wishes,..."

[Kolotoure]

People who write about poker generally don't seem to be very good at poker and/or math