I'm about 50/50 to spike an Ace or a 10. Since putting the K on the bottom adds the potential to spike a K, I think I like this line better. I never put them on top. Might consider it if it was two Queens (QQ/K/A10).

Edit: re str8 - I'm never going for Broadway with this setup (cards are needed/used elsewhere). I was putting the 10 there to make 2 pair or better (live cards on the bottom). Since we are setting first, do we assume 10 is live and put it on the bottom or wait to see opponents cards and then put first live card on bottom (Q/A/KK10 or Q/A10/KK)?

I'm not going to run through every one of your special pleading logical fallacies because this thread is really not the place, but this is just ridiculous. By "complex" I clearly meant how the term is used by everyone in the world, meaning a scenario that can not be definitively explained to a novice in a matter of seconds. If your program can't correctly play such a straight forward situation correctly it will be even worse in a scenario with less likely and more disparate outcomes.

The fact that you thought 4,000 trials would be enough to give an accurate result reveals a lot about your work. If you had spent a few minutes re-running scenarios and looking at how much the results differed you would have fixed the error before showing it off to the public and waiting for someone to do your quality control for you.

Let me know when we are allowed to test your actual best program without handing over a credit card number to you and I will take another look. Until then the burden of proof is on you to show that your product is not as awful as it was way back a whole month or so ago.

The game is nowhere close to being completely solved, there are simply way too many permutations to work through exhaustively. It is, however, an entirely mathematical game which is the sort of thing that computers excel at. As soon as the right people and resources get on it there will be a program that can't be beaten by humans. So we can quibble with the wording from Pokerstars but the gist of their point is correct. My guess is that we'll see a program that beats all humans within a year or two, faster if there is serious money to be made playing online.

edit: This is the last post I will make about Warren, barring some significant news.

Not sure why you're so mad about Warren. If you don't think it's good, don't pay for it. They have been upfront about the immaturity and limitations, and are even offering a money back guarantee. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

^^doesnt get it

Care to explain? How do you suggest they change their product or business model?

Back to actual strategy posts, here are some straight odds that I don't believe are published anywhere:

Starting with three connectors such as 678 gets there 51% of the time.
A one gapper (679) is 41%.
A two card gapper (68) gets there 25%.

A lot of people seem to think that straights are way less likely to hit than flushes but the reality is that they are only a few percentage points less. Obviously a flush is worth more but this shows that some raggy hands are not all that bad if they are at all connected. A hand like K 8 7 6 2 with no 3-flush has a reasonable path to making a big hand.

I've done a little bit of work with FL hands and a 13 card hand will get dealt quads+ 5% of the time. I haven't yet worked out getting a boat in the middle or trips up top but the true odds for staying in FL are most likely right around 8-10%. I hope some of you find this information useful.

@Joss - those str8 odds are pretty sweet!

The thing with straights is not how often they get there, but rather that order will matter because, unlike a flush, where a heart is a heart is a heart, w/ straights, if you have 678; you can get a 4, and then if you play that, you're now committed to the 45678 straight draw; if you then proceed to get a 9 and a T, does that count for your odds of a 3-connectors straight draw getting there? If so, the problem is that, particularly if the 5 is entirely live, you're going to play the 4 in the back, so even though technically the 678 straight draw "got there", in actuality you missed the straight draw.

Conversely, supposed you don't play the 4 in the back because there is only one 5 left, but there are 3 more 4's and all the 9s out there. Then you magically pull the case 5, so you play it in the back b/c you've got 7 outs. You then proceed to brick out. Would this hand count as part of your 51% of the time that you hit the straight? Technically, you did complete the straight draw, you just only completed it one specific way, and you didn't play it correctly in hindsight. Had you gotten the 5 before the 4, you'd have completed the straight draw no problem, but because you got the 4 first, you end up bricking out.

There are other iterations of this, of course, but the concept is still the same - starting with 678, if you say "51% of the time you get there", does that mean 51% of the time you'll pull at least one combination of 45/59/9T, or that 51% of the time, using reasonable playing strategy, you'll get there (ie you'll play whatever of 459T comes first, provided you have a fair number of live outs still left)?

Just my 2 cents on straight draw probabilities.

yeah, straight draw odds are tricky. no doubt about it.
i'm more of a feel player myself.

I prefer going by the gut instinct of how the dealer or the computer app is treating you that day.

My point is simply that if one calculates odds of hitting a straight from 678, you're going to include within "% of times you hit the straight" some out-of-order scenarios for the run-outs that don't actually result in you completing the straight in the back because of the order of how the cards came.

FlatTireSuited,

Good questions. I did account for the ordering. So starting with 678 and drawing a T/5/4 in that order counts as a miss. I was curious about whether or not to commit to gutshots immediately for the reasons you mentioned. I tested it again, only playing outside draws for the first two rounds, and the overall odds dropped slightly to 49%. So committing to a gutshot right off the bat gives you a slightly better chance of making a straight (assuming all outs are equally live), but you give up any chance of making two pair or trips. So the specifics of which cards are live and how strong you middle is in a given hand will probably tip those decisions one way or the other.

Other than that I did not account for any playing decisions or knowledge gained from seeing dead outs. That stuff matters a lot of course but there are so many different variables it would really have to be done on a case by case basis. These odds are just for one player going for nothing but a straight, just like the 55% and 27% numbers people refer to for flushes. These average numbers don't necesarily solve too many spots but they give a nice starting point for guesstimating odds during live play and having a general sense of how likely things are to hit.

Criss cross, opponent sets x/5/QXXXdddd

2nd to act, we have KK776??

Just wanted to add I know Joss and have played probably 50 hours of OFC including pineapple and he is very intelligent and one of/if not the best player I've played.

Im still going for 2p on bottom all day especially since theres a dead Q ~59% to full house.

Yeah I played X/6/KK77, just curious if anyone decides to play KK middle.

I do

I have written a series of articles about OFC odds (part one has been published at the Finnish site Pokeritieto.com, last two parts will be published later), in which I cover these calculations in some detail. Unfortunately the articles are in Finnish, but once all parts have been published, I may translate (at least parts) to English.

My calculator - OFCCalc - does also calculate odds for three card straight draws like 678, 679, 579 and 589.

With the dead T and Q, playing KK middle is pretty bad. You won't make it to FL often enough to negate the high foul %. You'll also have less chances of having TT+ for top royalties.

Below is a simulation of Hero getting a good card on the first draw and look at the EV difference between the two sets.

I just had time to check, and I'm not sure if I agree.

Playing two-handed:
678 gets there 56.3% / 63.8% (UTG/BTN) of the time (provided all 4's, 5's, 9's and tens are alive)

3-handed:
56.3%/63.8%/72.3%

4-handed:
56.3%/63.8%/72.3%/81.4%

for one-gapper 679 (again provided that all 5's, 8's and tens are alive):

4-handed: 41.8%/48.1%/55.7%/64.7%

Use 3 or 2 first figures for 3- and 2-handed.

similarly for two-gapper (579, 569, 589 etc):

27.3%/32.5%/39.2%/47.9%

(Again, use 3 or 2 first figures for 3- and 2-handed.)

How did you come up with your numbers?

(the probabilities above are for that of the eight cards to come there are at least two cards that together complete the straight. Decisions made during the game are not included in the calculations)

Ok I re-ran the numbers to double check my work. I have only done the first position hands so I can't compare the later positions. For the first position hands you listed we agree on everything except the 678 hand, where I am still getting 51.3%. For the others I have:
one gap, 41.8%
two gap, 27.3%

I got these numbers by writing a program that deals out eight random cards, adds the first straight card to the starting three, then checks through the remaining dealt cards to see if a straight is made. Then I Monte Carlo the **** out of it. I used the same program for each of these three scenarios so it seems unlikely that two would be spot on while one is off by a whole 5%.

I'm curious how you went about getting your figures and if you have any thoughts on the discrepancy.

First I derived the mathematical formula for the different types of combinations (basic = only one set of outs, one- and two-gapper = two different sets of outs, 3c oesd = four different sets of outs, of which three combinations are acceptable). Then I put the formulas in a spreadsheet and calculated the probability for each possible combination. Then I wrote a program and run a simulation to doublecheck each and every combination.

My app uses the formula, not the simulation.

I'm now on vacation and I don't have the math and source with me, so I can't check, but I believe we are probably calculating the probability of two different things.

What I calculate is if you have e.g. 678, what is the probability of getting either 45, 59 or 9T in eight cards to come. When you say "check the first straight card" do you mean only 5 or 9 or also 4 and T?

How do you treat a 4 followed by a 9/T? In mine that would be a foul since the player placed the early four and now can't play the 9/T, perhaps that's the difference.

I meant that the first 4/5/9/T gets added to the initial [6,7,8] list, then the remaining draws are run through to see if the straight is made.

If the cards to come contain 4,9 and T (in any order), my formula treats it as a success. You are right that in practical play the cards may come in such order, that the player can't utilize all the possibilities, since he doesn't know which cards are about to come. That's why you need to re-evaluate at every card.

My formula and app is generic, so you can choose the number of players, position, number of outs and cards to come. Lets say you start with 678 in the back, with all 16 possible outs alive. Then you miss the first draw and hit the 4 in the 7th street. Now you can recalculate what are the odds to hit the 5 on later streets or wait for 9 & T. However, I may also add the calculation as you do it, so thanks for pointing that out.

I would consider myself an above average skilled player at OFC and reg Chinese and last night I played 5 hours of Pineapple with 2 jokers last night, booking a 600 point loss. I dont recommend this style if you're not ready for a swing. The strategy of this game somewhat goes out the window and its a race to see who draws better. #stilltilted

Welcome to pineapple