I am a little confused with the idea of counting outs on the turn and using the general rules of times 4 and times 2.

I understand that counting outs on the turn for example on a Flush draw, I would have 9 outs. 9 x 4 = 36% chance.

However this seems to only apply in a push situation, it does not take into account further betting after the turn.

If I miss the turn, I am now facing only an 18% chance with further betting that may shorten the odds.

Should I therefore be calculating this as x 2 and x 2, rather than x 4 and x 2. ? Or is there a method to estimate what the betting may be after the turn so that I can use the estimated odds for both the turn and the river. ?

The x4 rule only applies if you get to see both cards without any further betting.

So yes, if you think your opponent is going to bet again on the turn often, using the x2 will give you a much better idea of your pot odds.

Opponents don't always bet the turn though.

There's also implied odds to consider.


As a general rule, when counting your outs, always remove at least a few.
If you have 9 outs, but one pairs the board, so you only have 8 outs.
Maybe your opponent could be holding one of your outs? That leaves only 7.
Maybe your opponent has a better flush draw? Now you have maybe 6 outs to make a pair.

Always under-estimate the number of outs you have.

When facing a very aggressive opponent, don't assume you will get to see the river for free, so use the x2 rule.
Against more passive players you can use the 4x rule.

I disagree with the above poster that you should assume some of your outs are dead, however it is wise to discount non nut outs, and always be leery of drawing to weak hands like one or two pair.


Basically, yes, on the flop you are mostly concerned about your direct pot odds going to the turn. You have to also consider how likely your opponent is to pay you off if you hit. Also make sure to take into account the possibility of someone raising behind if the pot is multiway, as that effectively lowers your odds. But you also might have hidden outs, or even if you are on a draw you might have the best hand. There are a lot of things to consider.

This is really bad thinking.

maybe someone folded a couple of cards that aren't in my suit, so my outs come up more often!

And bad math too. There's a whole sticky thread somewhere on why you don't do it that way.

Gee just maybe when you include those cases it all evens out and the standard calculation is right after all.

Feel free to explain it better instead of just coming in here to **** on me.

Removing some of your outs can be a great way to account for reverse implied odds, or situations where some outs aren't clean.

It's rarely correct to fold a clean flush draw on the flop, even against large cbets. But a naive application of the 2/4 rule might cause you to do that if you cut your outs in half.

Not all draws are created equal. A draw to the nuts is often more valuable than made hands. This is due to the fact that you can win much larger pots with a [100% or 0%] draw compared to a [50%] stable-equity made hand.

If your opponent always bets the turn, then your implied odds go way up because you have a guaranteed extra bet coming your way. if they never bet the turn then you over-realize your equity.

Ultimately the value of your hand becomes a complicated function of their aggression, SPR, and the polarization of your draw (which includes reverse implied odds).

The contention that your opponent may have one of your outs means you should lower the outs number can be shown to be faulty reasoning.

Here’s a simple example. Assume a four card deck -A K Q J. One card is to dealt to you and villain. The chance you will dealt an ace is 1/4 ignoring what villain has.

If one card is dealt to villain, then the chance you will be dealt an ace is

Pr(You get ace) = Pr(V has an ace)*0 + Pr(V has no ace)*1/3 = 1/4*0 + 3/4 * 1/3 = 1/4.

Villain having an ace reduces the chance you get it but that is balanced by the increased chance you do get the ace if it is not dealt to villain. The probability analysis shows that you can ignore villain’s holding assuming you have no knowledge of what he may have.

I think you might have the right idea in general, but the way you presented it was bad and could lead to very faulty thinking. statmanhal shows the math of it for a simple case. You simply can't say things like "maybe your opponent is holding...". Unknowns are unknown.


But, what I think you might have been trying to say is that you need to take into consideration that even if you hit one of your "outs" it may not be enough to win the hand.

Right. And that suggests there are types of outs. You can define an out as a card that will improve your hand and a “clean” or “nut” out as one that will win the hand.

Let me just add one thing to this excellent explanation. In the example above, and in real poker, the calculated percentage is the actual average your outs will be dealt to you over the long run if you always take the next card. Sometimes the outs are dead, sometimes they are not, but this calculation is the weighted sum of all cases.

That said, the 2 and 4 rules are approximations, not exact calculations.