UTH, the 21 Outs

Quote: odiousgambit

Thanks for coming across those

Notice though that for counting the dealer outs it doesn't change. So this comes down to "do I list the exceptions or not" ... maybe an asterisk ?

It does change sometimes. The Rule 4 exception only looks like 19 outs. It's an unusual exception that relies on multiple things at once going on to be in play. If a player were going to pick one thing and just do it, then the best play would be to call, in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:

66449 would not be rule 6 [first table] because there are 7 outs as board, not 4. It would be rule 5, in which the J is required to allow 3 more outs only = 19 [while 20 are allowed]

Thanks, it is easy to get lost in the wilderness here

You're welcome! It's a simple game with a complicated optimal strategy. I would be borderline shocked if anyone plays absolutely optimal, but maybe they do if they have some recurring online casino promotion that relies on getting points.

Quote: Mission146

It does change sometimes. The Rule 4 exception only looks like 19 outs.

Player: Q2

Board: 34677

Your example here does include the 4 card possibility of dealer 5. I missed your point, counting single cards for an inside straight. So maybe I should state how many outs really apply each time.

Submitted for your approval, complete with added commentary in bold.

>>>

All situations below are for the 1X bet with only a kicker. As the LVA strategy card says, first you determine if you can outkick the board using a hole card, or whether you should determine if the board should be bet on its own, often a matter of the outs as well. The card indicates that in the former case, which I will call a hole card kicker situation, 21+ outs indicate to fold, while in the other case usually 18+ outs indicate folding. I'll call it the Can't Outkick Situation. no 2+ card combinations are counted as dealer outs. There are exceptions to the 18/21 out rule, these are not noted. 


You Can Outkick


Hole Card Kicker Situation 1 . Your kicker should not go up against a 4 card flush or open-ended straight on the board, fold instead of using kicker. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 2. Unpaired Rainbow Board representing 15 outs. K is good, succession* rule is good.  


Hole Card Kicker Situation 3. Board has One Pair representing 11 outs. Q is good, succession rule is good. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 4. Board has Trips representing 7 outs. J is good, succession rule is good, and we see a pattern here. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 5. Board has Two Pair representing 7 outs. J is good, succession rule is good. Same as previous due to number of outs. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 6. Board has Two Pair representing only 4 outs!! This is when the unpaired board card is lower than either pair, thus useless when paired. 10 is good, succession is good. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 7. Board has 4 OAK, note 21+ outs is not viable strategy  7-card is good, succession is good. Memorize this, don't counts outs. 


Can't Outkick


The following is for when you decide your kicker can't outkick the board. The situation is more complicated because a single card can't trump all other outs in some cases. 


Situation 1. If the board doesn't have a pair or better, "don't play the board" per LVA strategy card, it's the 21+ out situation only. 


All the other situations below use the 18+ rule. 


Can't Outkick Situation 2. One pair, 11 outs, and there are 3 cards that represent kicker situations. These 3 need to be Ace through Jack, any combination, otherwise there are 2 cards that the dealer could have that will add 8 more outs = 19. If the pair consists of AA, KK, QQ, or JJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 3. Board has Two Pair representing 7 outs. Q is good, succession is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 4. Board has Trips representing 7 outs, with two cards that represent kicker situations. These two need to be Ace through J, any combo again, to keep the dealer from having 3 more possible outs. If the Trips consist of AAA, KKK, QQQ, or JJJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 5. Board has Two Pair representing 4 outs! The one other card is lower again than the pairs. This time the 2 pair need to contain a pair of Jacks or higher, otherwise dealer can have Ace through Jack and 16 more outs. Look for this situation and this time I finally agree to just count the outs! If 18+, fold. 


Can't Outkick Situation 6. Board has 4 OAK. 10-card is good, succession is good. This fits with 18+ and I can't explain why this differs from the other 4 OAK situation. 


If nobody finds any errors I'll make a table. 




* Succession rule definition: memorizing a certain card in a certain situation will be modified by the presence of higher ranking cards on the board. When one out-ranker is present, the succession rule maintains that the next lower kicker is 'good'. For example in hole-card kicker situation 2, I indicate a King is 'good' . If an Ace is present on the board that will mean a Queen is good as well. If Ace and King are present, the succession rule says now a Jack is good, etc.

             
       

       

       

                     

You Can Outkick Board	Action Indicated
1 . Board = 4 card flush or open-ended straight	Fold the kicker
2. Unpaired Rainbow Board, 11 outs	K is good, succession good.
3. Board has One Pair, 7 outs	Q is good, succession rule good.
4. Board has Trips, 7 outs	J is good, succession good
5. Board = Two Pair, 7 outs type.	J is good, succession good
6. Board has Two Pair, 4 outs!!	10 is good, succession is good.
7. Board has 4 OAK	7-card is good, succession is good

>>>


       

       

       

       

       

               

Board Kicker Outkicks	Action Indicated
1. If the board doesn't have a pair or better	"don't play the board"
2. Board Has One Pair, 7 outs	Combination of 3: A thru Jack, any comb, succession to A-10, any comb
3. Board has Two Pair representing 7 outs	Q is good, succession is good
4. Board has Trips and 7 outs	Combination of 2: A thru J, any comb, succession to A-10, any comb
5. Board has Two Pair representing 4 outs!	Need one pair JJ+, count the outs! If 18+, fold.
6. Board has 4 OAK	10-card is good, succession is good.

Basic strategy video for UTH



Fairly entertaining, and uses the Wizard strategy with a shoutout. I think I have my criticism right but don't feel like double-checking it


Criticism: 

Evidently not comfortable with the 21 outs and just wings it? And whether you outkick the board or not is totally missing in the whole video

at 10 minutes, player decides correctly to play his kicker at 1x, but does not explain why he should

at 11:25 player decides incorrectly to play his kicker at 1x, no explanation

at 12:55 perhaps it's an obvious fold, if it was me going to the trouble of making a video, I'd explain. 

at 14:15 another chance is missed

at 17:18 another chance is missed

Criticism: Playing the side bet.

3:57---Never tell the dealer you lost. They miss those sometimes. I think it's more likely the eye in the sky will let you know if there was a mispay (that benefits the casino) than they are to let you know you should have been paid and weren't.

4:34---I'm not sure that this is a raise. Q10 off has the kicker within two ranks of the normal calling point, Q8 off and there's a queen in the player's other hole cards. Additionally, the player's other hole card (in the first hand) is a three, which is a card that you would want the dealer to be able to have. I wish I could open 888 casino site because Teliot probably has this. I know DiscountGambling (StephenHow) was the site where I first learned the two rank rule with neighbor's cards...I just don't know if it always applies.*

*Mathematically, I'm going to guess (98% confident) that this is a raise with two players and only these known cards. I know Q8 and Q9 are definitely not raises anymore with a Queen in the other hand, so I'd like for him to have mentioned that.

8:15---No straights, no flushes, nineteen outs...terrible fold.

9:00---He can't use his phone at the table like that.

11:00---J9 is definitely a preflop raise with AK being the known cards in the other hand. J10o would be a raise anyway, the other hand not only doesn't take any outs away from the player, but also has two cards that the dealer could have and beat the player.

Probably also the other ones you said. I'm bored with this video now. lol

How did I miss the one at 8:15? Definitely just playing by gut on the kickers. As far as playing 2 spots and using the information, good points. He might have avoided the criticism by saying he would stick to basic strategy only, as a teaching instrument [even though he makes a bad teacher as we can see]

Contest! A Hearty Hi-Yo Silver to the first person to tell me how he could have won $5 instead of losing $5 by "listening to the Wizard" on one thing in particular. There may be more than one answer, but you only get the Hearty Hi-Yo if you pick what I'm looking for. Another way to get a Hearty Hi-Yo is if you can point out I made a mistake by saying this, because I don't feel like double-checking

Quote: odiousgambit

Basic strategy video for UTH

And whether you outkick the board or not is totally missing in the whole video

This video clip is entertaining but you criticism is even more accurate. Can you explain a little more about your advanced strategy of “you out kick the board or not”? I have been following this part of strategy but haven’t be able to fully grasp it. Thank you in advance.

Quote: aceside

This video clip is entertaining but you criticism is even more accurate.  Can you explain a little more about your advanced strategy of “you out kick the board or not”? I have been following this part of strategy but haven’t be able to fully grasp it.  Thank you in advance.

 


When you particularly need to be paying attention to this is when you have a hand you might fold because it is lousy. Don't fail to notice, though, that the board represents your hand at that point. But also the dealer's hand, possibly, which would be a push. This is what you are betting on and it can be marginal or a gimme that can't lose. I'll try to give some examples, out of time.

Quote: odiousgambit

 


When you particularly need to be paying attention to this is when you have a hand you might fold because it is lousy. Don't fail to notice, though, that the board represents your hand at that point. But also the dealer's hand, possibly, which would be a push. This is what you are betting on and it can be marginal or a gimme that can't lose. I'll try to give some examples, out of time.

Board: AAAAK (or any other quads with an Ace) can only push.

Quote: Mission146

Board: AAAAK (or any other quads with an Ace) can only push.

I finally understood what you mean by outkick. This is a very good example. However, in this particular example of AAAAK on board, if the player has a hand of 2,3, there is zero out for this hand, so the “21 outs” rule is enough and the outkick rule is not needed. What do you say?

Quote: aceside

I finally understood what you mean by outkick. This is a very good example. However, in this particular example of AAAAK on board, if the player has a hand of 2,3, there is zero out for this hand, so the “21 outs” rule is enough and the outkick rule is not needed. What do you say?

I agree. I just went with the first hand that sounded like it would apply.

Board: 2222A

Player: 34

Decision: Call. It’s impossible not to push.

Quote: aceside

Can you explain a little more about your advanced strategy of “you out kick the board or not”? 

You're giving me too much dap, btw, to say this is 'my' strategy, but thanks. But I think you said you had only studied the Wizard's Simple Strategy, and he stops at 21 outs consideration, while the strategy for when you can't outkick the board is an 18+ consideration for the most part. 


My particular way of looking at the strategy involves recognizing the cards. Before I was fleshing it out, practicing myself recently, I thought the 'can't outkick' would be hard to learn. It is more complicated in one sense, but as I've practiced I've come to think of it as actually easy to play correctly. I am not being corrected by the trainer game, the challenge only coming down to recognizing the condition of 'can't outkick the board'


Let's look at what I've got so far. Gladly will I correct any errors anyone can find most happily, thanks in advance. Another post will follow with some examples. The table at the bottom I find really does work well.


Can't Outkick


The following is for when your kicker can't outkick the board. The situation is more complicated because a single card can't trump all other outs in some cases. 


Situation 1. If the board doesn't have a pair or better, "don't play the board" per LVA strategy card. 


Most of the other situations below use the 18+ rule. 


Can't Outkick Situation 2. One pair, 11 outs, and there are 3 cards that represent kicker situations. These 3 need to be Ace through Jack, any combination, otherwise there are 2 cards that the dealer could have that will add 8 more outs = 19. If the pair consists of AA, KK, QQ, or JJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 3. Board has Two Pair representing 7 outs. Q is good, succession is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 4. Board has Trips representing 7 outs, with two cards that represent kicker situations. These two need to be Ace through J, any combo again, to keep the dealer from having 3 more possible outs. If the Trips consist of AAA, KKK, QQQ, or JJJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 5. Board has Two Pair representing 4 outs! The one other card is lower again than the pairs. This time the 2 pair need to contain a pair of Jacks or higher, otherwise dealer can have Ace through Jack and 16 more outs. Look for this situation and this time I finally agree to just count the outs! If 18+, fold. 


Can't Outkick Situation 6. Board has 4 OAK, 3 outs. 10-card is good, succession is good. This seems to be a 21+ outs situation. 


>>>


       

       

       

       

       

               

You Can Not Outkick the Board	Action Indicated
1. The board doesn't have a pair or better	"don't play the board"
2. Board Has One Pair, 11 outs	Combination of 3: Ace thru Jack, any comb, succession to A-10, any comb
3. Board has Two Pair representing 7 outs	Q is good, succession is good
4. Board has Trips and 7 outs	Combination of 2: Ace thru J, any comb, succession to A-10, any comb
5. Board has Two Pair representing 4 outs!	Need one pair JJ+, count the outs! If 18+, fold.
6. Board has 4 OAK, 3 outs	10-card is good, succession is good.

I'd suggest checking these things out using the Wizard Calculator below. I indicate a suit but you can skip suits to follow along, just make sure you rainbow what you put in


Your cards: an awful unsuited 2c, 3d that dies for pairs/straights/flushes/anything

Board: 8h, 8s, Ac, Kd, Jh ... that is a one pair board and the dealer board represents 11 outs, the table situation #2. [edited per Mission's point] .............. The Table [and Calc.] says to bet

Change the Jh to 10h, note that you don't have to start over, just click on the Jh
Now the Table says 10s make it a 'fold' situation, and the calc confirms

So how do we get succession to A-10?

Leave it as is but change the 8,8 to a pair of Queens. Get it?

I'd play with the calc for each and just keep checking it out. Let me know if you need more examples. Thank you Wizard for the great tools!

https://wizardofodds.com/games/ultimate-texas-hold-em/calculator/

Fifteen outs in the post above, you forgot the Queens, but same thing.

Quote: Mission146

Fifteen outs in the post above, you forgot the Queens, but same thing.

the inside straight with one gap raises it's ugly head again!

in theory that gives the dealer too many outs, so it's either an exception, or I'm confused see downthread

Quote: odiousgambit

the inside straight with one gap raises it's ugly head again!

in theory that gives the dealer too many outs, so it's either an exception, or I'm confused

It has nothing to do with the Q-10 straight possibility. The Queen would best the jack on the board and you would lose whether or not the dealer has a straight.

OK, I think I have this now

Q,Q,A,K,10 makes 2 queens, 3 aces, 3 kings, 3 tens, are 11 outs on the board BUT now there are no more outs *on the board*. So you add the Jacks as possible outs to trump the 10, or possible outs to make an inside straight, but there aren't 8 Jacks!

The board represents 11 outs in this system. The jacks make 15, less than 18+, and the decision is to bet 1x as the calculator confirms.

Thanks very much for the input, let's hope you don't show I have this wrong.

A board *itself* cannot have 19 outs either btw, I just realized, not in this system. It is not unreasonable in some other ways to make a simple strategy, to consider a 19 out board possible. In this system the 21+ or 18+ comes from finding cards still in the deck until dealer cards are revealed. I think this can indeed be from an inside straight, but the board is the board [edits]

[edits]

Quote: odiousgambit

OK, I think I have this now

Q,Q,A,K,10 makes 2 queens, 3 aces, 3 kings, 3 tens, are 11 outs on the board BUT now there are no more outs *on the board*. So you add the Jacks as possible outs to trump the 10, or possible outs to make an inside straight, but there aren't 8 Jacks!

So you are wrong to say the board has 15 outs. The board has 11. The jacks make 15, less than 18+, and the decision is to bet 1x as the calculator confirms.

I told you it can be a wilderness. Thanks very much for the input, let's hope you don't show I have this wrong.

A board *itself* cannot have 19 outs either btw, I just realized. The 21+ or 18+ comes from finding cards still in the deck until dealer cards are revealed. I think this can indeed be from an inside straight, but the board is the board

[edits]

I was referring to your 88AKJ hand, the Queen beats the Jack.

Two Eights-Trips
Three Aces, Kings, Jacks (Nine Cards)-Two Pair
Four Queens-Queen outkicks Jack

4+9+2 = 15

Doesn’t change that it’s a call.

Quote: Mission146

I was referring to your 88AKJ hand, the Queen beats the Jack.

Keep em coming, I appreciate it.

for initial outs there are 2 eights, 3 aces, 3 kings, 3 jacks = 11 outs. When you use the strategy, btw, and see there are 11 outs in the table, this is what is counted, only, for these purposes

The Queen still in the deck represents 4 more outs that could be in the dealers 2 cards = 15, less than 18+

Check it out with the calculator, you bet 1x here

I can't tell if we agree or not, you continued to edit while I posted

btw I *am* going to have to add an explanation. It is reasonable to sometimes consider an unpaired, rainbow board with an inside straight possibility a 19 out board. It has to be mentioned, I can see. I am thinking I should just mention it as creating an exception and that with the strategy represented, you never have a board with more than 15 outs. etc.

Quote: odiousgambit

Keep em coming, I appreciate it.

for initial outs there are 2 eights, 3 aces, 3 kings, 3 jacks = 11 outs. When you use the strategy, btw, and see there are 11 outs in the table, this is what is counted, only, for these purposes

The Queen still in the deck represents 4 more outs that could be in the dealers 2 cards = 15, less than 18+

Check it out with the calculator, you bet 1x here

I know that. I was just correcting the number of outs. My post said, "Doesn't change that it's a call."

I should probably always use, "Play," instead of saying Raise and Call. I might be the only one who refers to the 1x Play as a, "Call," so that's my fault.

Quote: Mission146

I should probably always use, "Play," instead of saying Raise and Call.  I might be the only one who refers to the 1x Play as a, "Call," so that's my fault.

I just was playing the Wizard's trainer again and noticed that he uses "call" at the 1x stage, odd since he uses "raise" a lot too. So your use of the word is unimpeachable [though I wasn't sure what you meant] . I like 'bet' , 'check', and 'fold' though not sure I am consistent

I went back and edited a lot of the last posts so I would be more clear and also correct what you pointed out

Quote: odiousgambit

You're giving me too much dap, btw, to say this is 'my' strategy, but thanks. But I think you said you had only studied the Wizard's Simple Strategy, and he stops at 21 outs consideration, while the strategy for when you can't outkick the board is an 18+ consideration for the most part. 


My particular way of looking at the strategy involves recognizing the cards. Before I was fleshing it out, practicing myself recently, I thought the 'can't outkick' would be hard to learn. It is more complicated in one sense, but as I've practiced I've come to think of it as actually easy to play correctly. I am not being corrected by the trainer game, the challenge only coming down to recognizing the condition of 'can't outkick the board'


Let's look at what I've got so far. Gladly will I correct any errors anyone can find most happily, thanks in advance. Another post will follow with some examples. The table at the bottom I find really does work well.


Can't Outkick


The following is for when your kicker can't outkick the board. The situation is more complicated because a single card can't trump all other outs in some cases. 


Situation 1. If the board doesn't have a pair or better, "don't play the board" per LVA strategy card. 


Most of the other situations below use the 18+ rule. 


Can't Outkick Situation 2. One pair, 11 outs, and there are 3 cards that represent kicker situations. These 3 need to be Ace through Jack, any combination, otherwise there are 2 cards that the dealer could have that will add 8 more outs = 19. If the pair consists of AA, KK, QQ, or JJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 3. Board has Two Pair representing 7 outs. Q is good, succession is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 4. Board has Trips representing 7 outs, with two cards that represent kicker situations. These two need to be Ace through J, any combo again, to keep the dealer from having 3 more possible outs. If the Trips consist of AAA, KKK, QQQ, or JJJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 5. Board has Two Pair representing 4 outs! The one other card is lower again than the pairs. This time the 2 pair need to contain a pair of Jacks or higher, otherwise dealer can have Ace through Jack and 16 more outs. Look for this situation and this time I finally agree to just count the outs! If 18+, fold. 


Can't Outkick Situation 6. Board has 4 OAK, 3 outs. 10-card is good, succession is good. This seems to be a 21+ outs situation. 


>>>

       

       

       

       

       

               

You Can Not Outkick the Board	Action Indicated
1. The board doesn't have a pair or better	"don't play the board"
2. Board Has One Pair, 11 outs	Combination of 3: Ace thru Jack, any comb, succession to A-10, any comb
3. Board has Two Pair representing 7 outs	Q is good, succession is good
4. Board has Trips and 7 outs	Combination of 2: Ace thru J, any comb, succession to A-10, any comb
5. Board has Two Pair representing 4 outs!	Need one pair JJ+, count the outs! If 18+, fold.
6. Board has 4 OAK, 3 outs	10-card is good, succession is good.

This is very helpful. Three more questions for your outkick table:
1. For Situation 1, if the board doesn't have a pair or better, "don't play the board". Do you mean you don’t need to count 21 outs?
2. For Situation 2, what does “succession to A-10 mean?
3. For Situation 3, what does “succession is good” mean?

Quote: aceside

This is very helpful. Three more questions for your outkick table:
1. For Situation 1, if the board doesn't have a pair or better, "don't play the board". Do you mean you don’t need to count 21 outs?

You count to 18+ now. The advice comes from the LVA strategy card. All strategies simple enough to put on a card have exceptions, but it's hard to think of one here. If you have a K, how is the board going to outkick you in all 5 spots without pairing or making a straight likely ? I just assume 'fold' when I see such a board and I can't outkick it.

Quote:

3. For Situation 3, what does “succession is good” mean?

Answering last question next. Succession, copyright Odiousgambit 2021 [jk] , means the card you need changes to a lower rank because of the presence on the board of a higher rank. Here a Q is good, but if there is an Aces pair or a Kings pair , now a Jack is good because one of the cards that could hurt you has already been counted as outs for the 2 still in the deck and thus possibly in the dealers hand.

Quote:

2. For Situation 2, what does “succession to A-10 mean?

you need 3 cards, any combo, A-J. But if the pair is any of those cards......... AA, KK, QQ, JJ ........... A-10 combo for the 3 cards now works because outranking cards are on the board in the pair.

Once I get convinced I don't have any more errors, which are possible at this point, I'll post the whole business in a blogpost, some of what I have in that would answer your questions.

At DiscountGambling:

See "River Strategy" on this link

My feelings about Stephen How are mixed. His jargon takes me beyond where I want to go. I know what a nut is. I know what a kicker is. I don't want to learn what an 8th nut kicker is! And he muddies up things by including stuff like, paraphrasing, 'you should have bet your Ace already, but if you didn't, bet it now if blah blah'.

On the other hand, it is quite obvious a lot of people benefit from studying what he has to say.

If he was to look at what I've come up with, he might feel the same way about it, ha

For my project, I realize now I failed to define terms and it has caused massive confusion. In my own mind it was clear to me that I was taking an initial condition and not making clear that this did not represent total dealer outs, but the phase before you look for 4-card dealer outs. Also, Mission has convinced me I had a weak spot with inside straights with one gap. That is a real monkey wrench to toss in, and I debated on how to handle it. I'd love your feedback. Here are the new changes, without the tables just yet.

Quote:

By 'Good Kicker', in the tables just referred to as 'Good',  I mean you do bet with such in the 1X river stage; of course you can still lose, otherwise an out would not be an out! It is a matter of whether the kicker allows the dealer to reach sufficient outs or not, in order to fold or bet as best strategy.


By 'Initial Board Outs' I mean the outs that are counted by the cards on the board, which is a maximum of 15 outs coming from 5 cards which would have 3 cards each that could be an out. A pair reduces the Initial Board count to 11, etc. A distinction should be made with this and 'Dealer Total Outs' which take the Initial Board Outs and add the other Outs for cards not on the board and which add 4 outs each. This includes the inside straight with one gap possibility, a 4-card dealer out. For the tables I am using the abbreviation I-Board for 'Initial Board'


All situations below are for the 1X decision point where your final possibility comes down to kickers. As the LVA strategy card says, you determine if you can outkick the board using a hole card, or whether you should determine if the board should be bet on its own, often a matter of the outs as well. The card indicates that in the former case, which I will call a hole card kicker situation, 21+ outs indicate to fold, while in the other case usually 18+ outs indicate folding. No two-card combinations are counted as dealer outs. Such exceptions to the 18/21 out rules that might exist are not noted in the tables. 
 
Succession rule definition: Determining a certain card in a certain situation is 'good' will be modified by the presence of higher ranking cards on the board. When one out-ranker is present, the succession rule maintains that the next lower kicker is 'good'. For example in hole-card kicker situation 2, I indicate a King is 'good' . If an Ace is present on the board that will mean a Queen is good as well. If Ace and King are present, the succession rule says now a Jack is good, etc. The presence of a Possible Straight With One Gap is a reverse-succession condition. For example, this could take hole card kicker situation 2 below from determining a Jack is 'good' with the presence on the board of an Ace and King [succession K, Q, J ] and reversing back to Q because there is a Possible Straight With One Gap. Having a K could also turn into "fold" with reverse succession, since you should have already played an Ace if you have one. 


The alternative would be to have a table with reverse succession already factored in, but I have not made these tables.  

Quote: gordonm888

At DiscountGambling:

See "River Strategy" on this link

It seems to me that the strategy on DiscountGambling is not abstract enough, but the many examples listed there are still helpful to explain so many of the jargons he used.
Also, after I compared the Wizard's strategies for Ultimate Texas Hold’em and Heads Up Hold 'Em I found there are some problems with the Wizard's strategy for Heads Up Hold 'Em. The Wizard states that "The strategy for the medium and small raise are the same as in Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em", but I believe this is simply wrong.

Quote: aceside

Quote: gordonm888

At DiscountGambling:

See "River Strategy" on this link

It seems to me that the strategy on DiscountGambling is not abstract enough, but the many examples listed there are still helpful to explain so many of the jargons he used.
Also, after I compared the Wizard's strategies for Ultimate Texas Hold’em and Heads Up Hold 'Em I found there are some problems with the Wizard's strategy for Heads Up Hold 'Em. The Wizard states that "The strategy for the medium and small raise are the same as in Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em", but I believe this is simply wrong.

You can really get out into the weeds comparing these various games. A bit of drama is involved with who invented the first game and who is ripping off who with their game. Check out this thread,
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/33064-uth-vs-wpt-heads-up-holdem/

Could be this is ready for prime-time. If you can find a major error and you have a checking account or Paypal, I'll pay you $20 for pointing it out. Or you could bet me up to $50 that I have one, I say I don't, and I will ask the Wizard to make judgement on who has to pay in case we disagree.

I don't mean typos of course.

>>>

Presenting here a version of the 18/21 out strategy that allows a player to minimize the need to count the Dealer Outs to determine whether kickers are 'good' in Ultimate Texas Holdem [UTH]. You hopefully will find many of the indicated actions to take become automatic or second nature. You can also just adopt some of them now, then more later. 


By 'Good Kicker', in the tables just referred to as 'Good',  I mean you do bet with such in the 1X river stage; of course you can still lose, otherwise an out would not be an out! It is a matter of whether the kicker allows the dealer to reach sufficient outs or not, in order to fold or bet as best strategy. 


By 'Initial Board Outs' I mean the outs that are counted by the cards on the board, which is a maximum of 15 outs coming from 5 cards which would have 3 cards each that could be an out. A pair reduces the Initial Board count to 11, etc. A distinction should be made with this and 'Dealer Total Outs' which take the Initial Board Outs and add the other Outs for cards not on the board and which add 4 outs each. This includes the inside straight with one gap possibility, a 4-card dealer out. For the tables I am using the abbreviation Init-Bd for 'Initial Board'


Succession rule definition: Determining a certain card in a certain situation is 'good' will be modified by the presence of higher ranking cards on the board. When one out-ranker is present, the succession rule maintains that the next lower kicker is 'good'. For example in hole-card kicker situation 2, I indicate a King is 'good' . If an Ace is present on the board that will mean a Queen is good as well. If both Ace and King are present on the board, two out-rankers, the succession rule says now a Jack is good, etc. The presence of a Possible Straight With One Gap on the board is a reverse-succession condition. For example, this could take hole card kicker situation 2 below from determining a Jack is 'good' with the presence on the board of an Ace and King and reversing back to Q because there is a Possible Straight With One Gap. Having a K could also turn into "fold" with reverse succession, since you should have already played an Ace if you have one. 


The alternative would be to have another table with reverse succession already factored in, but I have not made such tables. You could make many tables with normal succession already factored in for each number of out-ranking cards are on the board. So I hope you can see why I think this two table only way, with succession explained, is the way to go. 


All situations below are for the 1X decision point where you have failed to get a pair or better and your final possibility comes down to kickers. As the LVA strategy card says, you determine if you can outkick the board using a hole card, or whether you should determine if the board should be bet on its own, your best kicker unable to outkick the board. This is a matter of dealer outs as well. The LVA strategy card indicates that in the former case, which I will call a hole card kicker situation, 21+ outs indicate to fold, while in the other case usually 18+ outs indicate folding. No dealer two-card combinations are counted as dealer outs. Such exceptions to the 18/21 Outs rules that might exist are not noted in the tables. I have included the initial board outs but am not suggesting you need to count these,for the most part you just recognize the situation. When using the tables, refer back to the fuller numbered explanations that come first here. 


You Can Outkick the Board


Hole Card Kicker Situation 1 . Your kicker should not go up against a 4 card flush or open-ended straight on the board, fold instead of using kicker. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 2. Unpaired Rainbow Board with Initial Board [Init-Bd] representing 15 outs. King is good, succession rule is good. With a low ranking kicker, a good alternative to the succession rule for situation 2 is to look for the out-ranking cards, there can only be one of that Set missing from the board. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 3. Board has One Pair, Inital Board representing 11 outs. Q is good, succession rule is good. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 4. Board has Trips, Initial Board representing 7 outs. J is good, succession rule is good, and we see a pattern here. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 5. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing 7 outs. J is good, succession rule is good. Same as previous due to number of outs. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 6. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing only 4 outs!! This is when the unpaired board card is lower than either pair, thus useless when paired. 10 is good, succession is good. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 7. Board has 4 OAK, Initial Board representing 3 outs note that counting to 21+ outs is not viable strategy here.  7-card is good, succession is good. Memorize this, don't counts outs. 


You Can't Outkick the Board


The following is for when your kicker can't outkick the board. The situation is more complicated because a single card can't trump all other outs in some cases. 


Situation 1. If the board doesn't have a pair or better, "don't play the board" per LVA strategy card. 


Most of the other situations below use the 18+ rule. 


Can't Outkick Situation 2. One pair, Initial Board representing 11 outs, and there are 3 cards, those not in the pair, that represent kicker situations. All 3 need to be Ace through Jack, any combination, otherwise there are 2 cards that the dealer could have that will add 8 more outs = 19. If the pair consists of AA, KK, QQ, or JJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 3. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing 7 outs. Q is good, succession is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 4. Board has Trips, Initial Board representing 7 outs, with two cards not part of the Trips. These two need to be Ace through J, any combo again, to keep the dealer from having enough possible outs. If the Trips consist of AAA, KKK, QQQ, or JJJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is good. 


Can't Outkick Situation 5. Board has Two Pair, with Initial Board representing 4 outs! The one other card is lower again than the pairs. This time the 2 pair need to contain a pair of Jacks or higher, otherwise dealer can have Ace through Jack and 16 more outs. Look for this situation and this time I finally agree to just count the outs! If 18+, fold. 


Can't Outkick Situation 6. Board has 4 OAK, Initial Board representing 3 outs. 10-card as the other card is good, succession is good. This seems to be a 21+ outs situation        

       
     

       

               
     

You Can Outkick Board	Action Indicated (see other text also)
1 . Board = 4 card flush, open-ended straight	Fold the kicker
2. Unpaired Rainbow Board, Init-Bd 15 outs	K is good, succession good.
3. Board has One Pair, Init-Bd 11 outs	Q is good, succession good.
4. Board has Trips, Init-Bd  7 outs	J is good, succession good
5. Board = Two Pair, Init-Bd 7 outs	J is good, succession good
6. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 4 outs!!!	10 is good, succession good.
7. Board has 4 OAK, Init-Bd 3 outs	7-card is good, succession good

     
     
     

       

       
             

You Can Not Outkick the Board	Action Indicated (see other text also)
1. The board doesn't have a pair or better	"don't play the board"
2. Board Has One Pair, Init-Bd 11 outs	Combination of unpaired 3: A-J, any comb, succession to A-10, any comb
3. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 7 outs	Q is good, succession good
4. Board has Trips, Init-Bd 7 outs	Combination of 2 not in the set of Trips: A-J, any comb, succession to A-10, any comb
5. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 4 outs!	Need one pair JJ+, count the outs! If 18+, fold.
6. Board has 4 OAK, Init-Bd 3 outs	10-card is good, succession is good.

I’ll take a close look in a bit, but I figure you should be just about there by now. I hope I have helped a little bit, and I apologize for not perhaps being even more active on this, but counting the 21 has never really bothered me.

This will be excellent for many players, though. For me, I can do the 21 count in probably less time than it would take them to look up the play. It’s just almost automatic.

Quote: Mission146

I’ll take a close look in a bit, but I figure you should be just about there by now. I hope I have helped a little bit, and I apologize for not perhaps being even more active on this, but counting the 21 has never really bothered me.

This will be excellent for many players, though. For me, I can do the 21 count in probably less time than it would take them to look up the play. It’s just almost automatic.

Getting to automatic is the whole idea!

The surprise for me is how fast I now analyze the 'can't outkick' situations, as long as I recognize I can't outkick!

Getting close to posting in the blog , finding some better language, etc


There are some exceptions to 18/21 outs simple strategies, most notable perhaps is when a King isn't a bettable kicker even though Total Dealer Outs are less than 21. 


In the next images, even though the board shows a rainbow picket fence, the calculator deems it best to fold. 








In the first situation, I experiment and change the 8s to 10s, and the calculator now says to bet. 





I think there are 2 conclusions. One is that these cases are marginal, the error is not costing much, as you can see [though I cut off one analysis by mistake]. You can make a case that these exceptions aren't worth learning, and that's pretty much where I'm at, for myself at this point anyway. Perhaps when you have K,2 you could be more on guard. 3 to a straight flush on the board, even with gaps, seems to factor. 


The other conclusion is that it's good if the board eliminates next lower kickers. Using the 18/21 outs strategy has you thinking the single card Kicker trumps all others. But it is possible for the dealer to have a K same as you, in which case the second kicker comes into play.

Changing the eight to a ten got rid of 5-6-7-8-9 two card straights the dealer could have. When you changed the eight to a nine, the dealer just needed 6-8 for that same straight instead.

do you think second kicker elimination is a factor?

it's not too many variations you can mess around with, if you assume you have already bet with any K,5 and thus don't have a 1x decision

Quote: odiousgambit

do you think second kicker elimination is a factor?

it's not too many variations you can mess around with, if you assume you have already bet with any K,5 and thus don't have a 1x decision

I might not be understanding the question, but all pictured hands have 2-3, so your four doesn’t out kick anything.

It also doesn’t help that 4-6 is winning for the dealer, whereas the dealer would lose with some other fours in his hand.

Quote: Mission146

I might not be understanding the question, but all pictured hands have 2-3, so your four doesn’t out kick anything.

I might not understand your point, either, but what we are looking for as second kicker is something on the board, as the King does not have any possible hefty companion in 1X decisions unless the player has goofed and not bet 'any' K,5+ at the 4x decision point.

To be sure, nothing changes that *all shown* are < 21+ out qualified and to keep it simple, you bet. I don't plan to add exceptions, just mention that there are some.

Mission, or anyone, if you've captured my error prior to this edited version, please delete your reply

So I've added "reverse succession" as something to use when sorting out whether to bet 1x or not. This mostly revolves around the board having a one gap inside straight possibility, which is a one dealer card scenario, not a dismissable 2 dealer card scenario, which in fact I do dismiss in the text.


Mission likes to call such, when there is otherwise an unpaired rainbow board, a 19-out initial board, I think. That's not unreasonable. Alternatively, you could add such a board to the list of boards that automatically have you not bet a kicker, which are 4-flush and 4-cards to outside straight* on the board. So why not do these things instead?


I'll take them one at a time. First, if you want to have 19-out boards etc, then you would want to make more tables for that and other scenarios where straight possibilities add to the initial board dealer outs. I definitely want to have a simpler strategy than that, with fewer tables.


If the idea is to add inside straight possibilities to instant dismissal, then this dismisses also those cases where an Ace on the board has the Q viable by succession, then reverse succession would return the K only to bettable.

I'm having trouble with good examples, hopefully this one is OK. I had to edit out a flawed one. In this case, there are 15 board outs making a K bettable, and the presence of the Ace offsets the inside straight. The Q on the board influences things. Note that it is a close call.



So I am admitting two things. One, I might eliminate "reverse succession" and stick to the LVA wording, see footnote, for a simpler strategy, your input appreciated. I also admit I am keeping this thread alive in case anyone wants to bet me, now I will say up to $80 if the Wizard will determine the winner if needed.

* the actual language on the LVA strategy card is just "any 4-straight", so I am not following that perfectly and perhaps LVA/Grosjean intend that to include even straight possibilities with 2 gaps.

Last edited by: odiousgambit on Jul 19, 2021

the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder

I'm finally satisfied that in order to have charts or tables, a simple strategy is going to be it.

'reverse succession' certainly goes into 'not simple' so i am going to drop that, even though I use it myself.

I think that might leave me vulnerable, so in the next version i put out I'm not accepting any bets.

the LVA strategy card keeps to a simple strategy by saying to fold kicker against 4-flushes and 'any' 4 card straight, then count outs for the remaining. You can see with the next examples it's not perfect either

fold:

but change to K, bet, but you don't get here if you fold against any 4-straight

Quote: odiousgambit

I'm finally satisfied that in order to have charts or tables, a simple strategy is going to be it.

'reverse succession' certainly goes into 'not simple' so i am going to drop that, even though I use it myself.

I think that might leave me vulnerable, so in the next version i put out I'm not accepting any bets.

the LVA strategy card keeps to a simple strategy by saying to fold kicker against 4-flushes and 'any' 4 card straight, then count outs for the remaining. You can see with the next examples it's not perfect either

fold:

but change to K, bet, but you don't get here if you fold against any 4-straight

I guess I would have called both at table. Top one is 19 outs and bottom one is 15 right?

Quote: odiousgambit

I'm finally satisfied that in order to have charts or tables, a simple strategy is going to be it.

'reverse succession' certainly goes into 'not simple' so i am going to drop that, even though I use it myself.

I think that might leave me vulnerable, so in the next version i put out I'm not accepting any bets.

the LVA strategy card keeps to a simple strategy by saying to fold kicker against 4-flushes and 'any' 4 card straight, then count outs for the remaining. You can see with the next examples it's not perfect either

fold:

but change to K, bet, but you don't get here if you fold against any 4-straight

The top one has 23 outs, you’re missing the eights it fill the straight.

Quote: unJon

Quote: odiousgambit

I'm finally satisfied that in order to have charts or tables, a simple strategy is going to be it.

'reverse succession' certainly goes into 'not simple' so i am going to drop that, even though I use it myself.

I think that might leave me vulnerable, so in the next version i put out I'm not accepting any bets.

the LVA strategy card keeps to a simple strategy by saying to fold kicker against 4-flushes and 'any' 4 card straight, then count outs for the remaining. You can see with the next examples it's not perfect either

fold:

but change to K, bet, but you don't get here if you fold against any 4-straight

I guess I would have called both at table. Top one is 19 outs and bottom one is 15 right?

5s-3
6s-2
7s-3
9s-3
Ks-4
As-4
8s-4

23 outs

Quote: Mission146

Quote: unJon

Quote: odiousgambit

I'm finally satisfied that in order to have charts or tables, a simple strategy is going to be it.

'reverse succession' certainly goes into 'not simple' so i am going to drop that, even though I use it myself.

I think that might leave me vulnerable, so in the next version i put out I'm not accepting any bets.

the LVA strategy card keeps to a simple strategy by saying to fold kicker against 4-flushes and 'any' 4 card straight, then count outs for the remaining. You can see with the next examples it's not perfect either

fold:

but change to K, bet, but you don't get here if you fold against any 4-straight

I guess I would have called both at table. Top one is 19 outs and bottom one is 15 right?

5s-3
6s-2
7s-3
9s-3
Ks-4
As-4
8s-4

23 outs

Ugh. Thanks. Agree.

I want to make a few general statements here that are absolutely not directed at any one person.

For the majority of people, this represents why the mathematically best way to gamble is not to gamble at all. If you think it's fun to try to figure out different games and minimize the House Edge against you (maximize returns), then this statement is either more true, or less true, but doesn't stop being true.

I am going to pay some compliments here. Let's take a look at OdiousGambit---OdiousGambit, from what I can tell and have seen, is a more educated gambler than a very high percentage of gamblers, safely over 90%, just in my non-qualified opinion. In terms of other attributes, OdiousGambit is a very intelligent and perceptive man, to be clear, he's no less than 3x more intelligent and perceptive than I am...and probably several multipliers more than that.

With all of that said, we have statements made here about a game that we have been discussing for weeks. The same exact, "Miss," as was repeated from a post a couple or two weeks ago that unJon, also an extremely intelligent person and gambler, missed.

The problem is that Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em is a fundamentally negative expectation game, so any, beating of it is going to generally rely on comps, mispays, dealer mistakes and that sort of thing. When it comes to online casinos, as permitted, it can also often be one of the better (allowed) games to play on certain promotions. Of course, certain promotions in more recent jurisdictions are such that you could just pick a game blindly (or almost) and still have a big advantage.

The point is, that much thought and many words have been spent trying to figure out a way to lose the least on a game---AND STILL MANAGE TO GET SOMETHING VERY FUNDAMENTAL WRONG!!!!

Straight fills are a fundamental concept in ALMOST ALL poker games, so when you're missing these with all the time in the world to think about it, what are you going to do at the tables?

To be clear, I'm not tooting my own horn. I'm a below average gambling writer, a poor mathematician, a bad poker player and also an idiot.

And, yet, I GLANCED at that board and immediately identified the missing piece of the puzzle. Second nature. Instant.

And, as ever, it remains a negative expectation game.

Even the, "BEST," Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em players---not that there's any way to be the, "Best," at losing---are going to miss things and not realize the full value of the game. Hell, some people are going to go out there and try to make, 'Informed,' decisions based on the cards of other players that they have seen and, as often as not, make a decision THAT'S EVEN MORE WRONG!

Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em is a negative expectation game. But, I have developed a simple and cohesive strategy that you may use to optimize value without missing too many dealer outs:

Quote: Mission146

5s-3
6s-2
7s-3
9s-3

these are the initial board outs if you separate looking at these first, then add the outs that have 4 cards each. There is no set way generally, but for the tables I made this is their basis. Makes 11 Initial Board Outs.

Quote:

Ks-4
As-4
8s-4

23 outs

and these are the remaining outs in the one example, making 23. In the other example, only the 8 outs for Aces and 8s count, making 19. So the person using the LVA strategy card could get the right answer by counting outs, but is directed to dismiss both cases as a previous step.

Using the tables on a simple basis, K is bettable as you are not going to be directed to dismiss 4-straights with a gap. However, you could conclude the Q is bettable too, without using an advanced strategy [reverse succession]. I have concluded that it's a convoluted mess to try to just make tables that fit everything.

Just don't play the game and the House Edge is 0%.

Or, do play the game, make more or less the right decisions, and have fun. Only gamble what you can EASILY afford to lose.

Why rake your brain over the coals to try to figure out a near-optimal way to play the game when a good enough one has already been figured out? It's July. There's fishing, kayaking, canoeing, lazy days on the porch sipping iced tea and brushing up on your Kant.

This doesn't matter. As long as you are not playing this game a ton, and I mean, A TON...the value that you will gain by making the right decisions and recreating a strategy chart that works better for you will NEVER be realized as compared to the time wasted spent doing this. How many hands would you have to play to be getting added value of, let's say $5 per hour, studying a handful of specific calling decision points that already have a good enough strategy that you can use anytime?

Or, maybe I'll do it one day because I will be getting paid to do it. And, I will still almost never use it at the tables because the only way I will play this game is if I know, in advance, that the dealer is making one mistake or another. A mistake that makes my Expected Value so phenomenal that I would never care about a few borderline calling decisions.

I mean, sure, online. But with that, I'll just use the UTH calculator on a device sitting on a different IP address.

Re: Mission's 'general statements' post.

Thanks for the compliments, but of course that's neither here nor there. You may be wondering why someone who seems to have something going for him, according to Mission anyway, ha, would get so obsessed with this thing. For the record, I was hoping the Wizard was going to be able to use the tables as charts in his page on UTH. At this point it's something I couldn't ask him to look at. I will say, though, that the "can't outkick the board" part of the Grosjean strategy should not be missing entirely like it is [I think] from his "Wizard simple strategy"

For you other points, I speak at least for myself that I am not looking to beat this game or any game. I am interested in making it cheap entertainment, this does depend on Comps partly. Yes, one of the reasons I won't make it even cheaper is due to errors, I do not play error free.

While the WoO game does technically represent a game with a House Edge, it is not possible to lose money playing it.

Quote: Mission146

Why rake your brain over the coals to try to figure out a near-optimal way to play the game when a good enough one has already been figured out? It's July. There's fishing, kayaking, canoeing, lazy days on the porch sipping iced tea and brushing up on your Kant.

I hope I answered that question, upthread. At this point I just want to have it the best I can get it, and won't mention it to the Wizard.

I'm still doing some fishing etc , sir. And I brush up on my Cant plenty already, the kind of Cant that doesn't have an apostrophe!

OK, here goes. Will be a blogpost unless someone finds a glaring error. Not accepting bets now.

Presenting here a version of the 18/21 out strategy that allows a player to mostly eliminate the need to count the Dealer Outs to determine whether kickers are 'bettable' in Ultimate Texas Holdem [UTH]. You hopefully will find many of the indicated actions to take become automatic or second nature. You can also just adopt some of them now, then more later.


Bettable Kicker definition In the tables to be just referred to as 'Bettable'. You do bet with such in the 1X river stage. Of course you can still lose, otherwise an out would not be an out! It is a matter of whether the kicker allows the dealer to reach sufficient outs or not, in order to fold or bet as best strategy. 


Initial Board Outs definition The outs that are counted by the cards on the board, which is a maximum of 15 outs coming from 5 cards which would have 3 cards each that could be an out. A pair reduces the Initial Board count to 11, etc. A distinction should be made with this and 'Dealer Total Outs' which take the Initial Board Outs and add the other Outs for cards not on the board and which add 4 outs each. Though you do not count the outs with this strategy, it is derivative from that process.  For the tables I am using the abbreviation Init-Bd for 'Initial Board'


Succession definition Determining a certain card in a certain situation is bettable will be modified by the presence of higher ranking cards on the board. When one out-ranker is present, the succession rule maintains that the next lower kicker is bettable. For example, in hole-card kicker situation 2, I indicate a King is bettable . If an Ace is present on the board that will mean a Queen is now bettable as well. If both Ace and King are present on the board, two out-rankers, the succession rule says now a Jack is bettable, etc. 


This is a simple strategy and incorporates Succession which varies from the LVA simple strategy. The LVA strategy card says to fold if you have only a kicker against a 4-Flush or "Any 4-Straight", then count the outs in the remaining scenarios. This creates some scenarios where the kicker is eliminated before counting these outs, but could have been bettable. Using the Succession strategy, you do not fold against "any" 4-straight, only open-ended ones. This creates some scenarios where the kicker is indicated as bettable when instead you should fold. There is an Advanced Strategy to deal with that once you learn the simple strategy. I have put the Advanced Strategy below the Tables.  


One solution to deal with it all would be to have more tables with all the various scenarios, but I have not made such tables. If unhappy with the compromise you can instead send off for the LVA strategy card, which has no tables like this, or learn a full Grosjean strategy, which must be available somewhere. 


All situations below are for the 1X decision point where you have failed to get a pair or better and your final possibility comes down to kickers. You determine if you can outkick the board using a hole card, or whether you should determine if the board should be bet on its own, your best kicker unable to outkick the board. This is a matter of dealer outs as well. In the former case, which I will call a hole card kicker situation, 21+ outs indicate to fold, while in the other case usually 18+ outs indicate folding. No dealer two-card combinations are counted as dealer outs in the simple 18/21 outs strategy. The below is designed to avoid having to count the dealer outs, though you should note it is derivative of that strategy and in one case I have you count the outs. Such exceptions to the 18/21 Outs rules that might exist are not noted in the tables. 


When using the tables, refer back to the numbered explanations that come first here for fuller explanation. 


You Can Outkick the Board


Hole Card Kicker Situation 1 . Your kicker should not go up against a 4 card flush or open-ended straight on the board, fold instead of using kicker. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 2. Unpaired Rainbow Board with Initial Board [Init-Bd] representing 15 outs. King is bettable, succession rule is in effect. With a low ranking kicker, a good alternative to the succession rule for situation 2 is to look for the out-ranking cards, there can only be one of that Set missing from the board for your kicker to be bettable. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 3. Board has One Pair, Initial Board representing 11 outs. Q is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 4. Board has Trips, Initial Board representing 7 outs. J is bettable, succession rule is in effect, and we see a pattern here. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 5. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing 7 outs, important. J is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 6. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing only 4 outs!! This is when the unpaired board card is lower than either pair, thus irrelevant when paired by dealer or player. 10-card is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 7. Board has 4 OAK, Initial Board representing 3 outs.  7-card is bettable, succession rule is in effect. note that counting to 21+ outs is not viable strategy here. Memorize this, don't counts outs.


You Can't Outkick the Board


The following is for when your kicker can't outkick the board. The situation is different because a single card can't trump all other outs in some cases. 


Situation 1. If the board doesn't have a pair or better, "don't play the board" per LVA strategy card. 


Most of the other situations below use the 18+ rule. 


Can't Outkick Situation 2. One pair, Initial Board representing 11 outs, and there are 3 cards not in the pair. All 3 need to be Ace through Jack, any combination, otherwise there are 2 cards that the dealer could have that will add 8 more outs = 19. If the pair consists of AA, KK, QQ, or JJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is in effect. 


Can't Outkick Situation 3. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing 7 outs. Q is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 


Can't Outkick Situation 4. Board has Trips, Initial Board representing 7 outs, with two cards not part of the Trips. These two need to be Ace through J, any combo again, to keep the dealer from having enough possible outs. If the Trips consist of AAA, KKK, QQQ, or JJJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is in effect. 


Can't Outkick Situation 5. Board has Two Pair, with Initial Board representing 4 outs! The one other card is lower again than the pairs, irrelevant when paired by dealer or player. This time the 2 pair need to contain a pair of Jacks or higher, otherwise dealer can have Ace through Jack and 16 more outs. Look for this situation and this time I finally agree to just count the outs! If 18+, fold. 


Can't Outkick Situation 6. Board has 4 OAK, Initial Board representing 3 outs. 10-card, for the other card, is bettable, succession rule is in effect. This seems to be a 21+ outs situation        

       
     

       

               
     

You Can Outkick Board	Action Indicated (see other text also)
1 . Board = 4 card flush, open-ended straight	Fold the kicker
2. Unpaired Rainbow Board	K is bettable, succession rule in effect.
3. Board has One Pair	Q is bettable, succession rule in effect.
4. Board has Trips	J is bettable, succession rule in effect
5. Board = Two Pair, Init-Bd 7 Outs	J is bettable, succession rule in effect
6. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 4 outs!	10 is bettable, succession rule in effect.
7. Board has 4 OAK	7-card is bettable, succession rule in effect

     
     
     

       

       
             

You Can Not Outkick the Board	Action Indicated (see other text also)
1. The board doesn't have a pair or better	"don't play the board"
2. Board Has One Pair	Unpaired 3 board cards, A-J, any comb, bettable, succession to A-10
3. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 7 outs	Q is bettable, succession rule in effect
4. Board has Trips	2 board cards not in Trips, A-J, any comb, bettable; succession to A-10
5. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 4 outs!	Need one pair JJ+, count the outs! If 18+, fold.
6. Board has 4 OAK	10-card is bettable, succession rule is in effect.

Qualified Straight definition [Advanced]: Actually certain 4-card straights and any 3-card straight flush. The 4-card straight is qualified if it has one gap, while the 3-card straight flush could have 2 gaps. 


Reverse-Succession definition [Advanced] The presence of qualified straights on the board is a reverse-succession condition. Instead of expanding the cards that are bettable, the presence of such means going up to the next higher ranking card. 


Strategy Explained [Advanced] For example, these could take the situation of an unpaired rainbow board that you can outkick from determining a Jack is bettable with the presence on the board of an Ace and King, reversing back to Q because there is a qualified straight [as per definition]. Having a K for kicker could also turn into "fold" with Reverse-Succession, since if that reverses to Ace bettable, you should have already played an Ace if you have one.