UTH, the 21 Outs

I have extensively analyzed all the UTH decisions several years ago and think I know this game very well. However . . .

I have several times tried to read the strategy above, but I just don't understand it. there are too may phrases and words with unconventional meanings. Outkick the board? succession? Referring to two hole cards as "a bettable kicker?"

I guess I'm stupid.

Quote: gordonm888

I have extensively analyzed all the UTH decisions several years ago and think I know this game very well. However . . .

feedback appreciated. let's see ...

Quote:

I have several times tried to read the strategy above, but I just don't understand it. there are too may phrases and words with unconventional meanings. Outkick the board?

Comes from LVA strategy card . Means your best kicker has the potential to win if the dealer, and you, wind up having no better hand than a kicker. You bet instead of fold over half the time, at least, I'd say, for best strategy at 1x decision point.

Quote:

succession?

I did come up with this term. You either need this or a table with, I dunno, 50 entries? All I can suggest is reading the definition again and the examples. Try to use the tables with the Wizard trainer game, comparing what the table says to counting dealer outs and that resultant decision. If you play a lot, and count outs, you have to come across realizing the King is nearly always bettable [edit], or a 'raise' as the wizard says, against an unpaired rainbow board. And then the Queen, and when it is. That is the start to realizing what it is about.

Quote:

Referring to two hole cards as "a bettable kicker?"

Now I'm the stupid one because I can't find where I do that.

Quote:

I guess I'm stupid.

Nah, you may just find it isn't fitting how you think. I do suggest going beyond the Wizard simple strategy though. But you can just count dealer outs if it fits you better.

Quote: gordonm888

... I have several times tried to read the strategy above, but I just don't understand it. there are too may phrases and words with unconventional meanings. Outkick the board? succession? Referring to two hole cards as "a bettable kicker?"

Quote: me

You can also just adopt some of them now, then more later.

if it continues to be impenetrable, this advice is not to be missed.

Prompted by your feedback, I've added another definition.

>>>

Definitions


Kicker definition The usage here is a little different from the normal usage in a poker game, where a kicker is a tie breaker in a showdown between otherwise equivalent hands. The usage here includes that, but also can mean the highest ranking card in what is usually referred to as a "high card only hand". Also, to determine you "can't outkick the board" means to dismiss your hole cards as if they don't exist, instead you "play the board". This means a decision about whether the board is likely enough to be a push so that you don't want to fold.

[the other definitions follow]

Quote: gordonm888

I have extensively analyzed all the UTH decisions several years ago and think I know this game very well. However . . .

I have several times tried to read the strategy above, but I just don't understand it. there are too may phrases and words with unconventional meanings.

I agree, just plain too much to look at. I can't even get through it all. Perhaps I'm just too familiar with the game and strategy already.

Well, you can see why I can't ask the Wizard to wade through it. Remember when you were a kid, you always loved to learn a new game? Then one day you realize it wears you out to learn a new game all the time, and you start to groan at the idea of it . I think that's the case here.

The funny thing is, I thought there would be a few people who stumbled across the same thing I did, which was to realize that in the one circumstance, the King is almost always good as kicker, the Queen a large proportion of the time. And want to expand on that. If anyone did and appreciated the work I did, they remained silent.

If you find the whole business of 'can outkick, can't outkick' mystifying, then you can blame the LVA strategy card and presumably Mr. Grosjean. And your game has a huge hole in it, I'll say that much.

In any case I posted the whole business as a blogpost so it would be easy to find, and I reworked it so that the tables are near the top, https://wizardofvegas.com/member/odiousgambit/blog/#post2309

K,Q,J,J,10,7

A-J, Q, 10

[condensed version]

Quote: odiousgambit

Well, you can see why I can't ask the Wizard to wade through it. Remember when you were a kid, you always loved to learn a new game? Then one day you realize it wears you out to learn a new game all the time, and you start to groan at the idea of it . I think that's the case here.

The funny thing is, I thought there would be a few people who stumbled across the same thing I did, which was to realize that in the one circumstance, the King is almost always good as kicker, the Queen a large proportion of the time. And want to expand on that. If anyone did and appreciated the work I did, they remained silent.

If you find the whole business of 'can outkick, can't outkick' mystifying, then you can blame the LVA strategy card and presumably Mr. Grosjean. And your game has a huge hole in it, I'll say that much.

In any case I posted the whole business as a blogpost so it would be easy to find, and I reworked it so that the tables are near the top, https://wizardofvegas.com/member/odiousgambit/blog/#post2309

I think the case is actually a bit the opposite and people who are fundamentally good at a game just don't want to learn a new way to...I guess it's not even a new way to play it, because that hasn't changed, but a new way to think about it.

That's what has been tough about this discussion for me. The whole discussion is predicated upon coming up with a new (to me) condensed strategy for a game that I already know how to play in the first place and, a few very very small decimals of EV here and there aside, pretty much already did play near optimally. So, it's like, "Unless this strategy is going to be condensed, and also result in flawless play what do I need this for?"

With everything that we are fine-tuning with this new strategy and new terminologies, weeks later, we're still missing inside straights the dealer could have when we are counting 21 outs---so what the hell was the point of the strategy? We're still missing one of the most fundamental concepts of poker-based games---inside straight possibilities.

I appreciate the work that you did, definitely, you've poured a large amount of mental energy into this. I understand that you expanded on that and part of your strategy is basically what I would call a," Check down," list. I'm sure people that don't already have the game down (and also their own terminologies for things burnt into their brain) will find this very useful---which is of course the target market anyway! I certainly don't need ANY UTH strategy card for anything.

The big sell is that players can mostly eliminate the need to count the dealer outs. My only concern is that, if they do mostly eliminate that need, then they're probably going to %^$(^% up counting the dealer outs when they do have to do it. Also, the sell doesn't really appeal to me (but, again, I already know how to play the game), because I have dealer outs counted in well under a second after the river comes out:

But yeah, you looked at the LVA strategy card (whatever the hell it says, I have never seen it) and said, "Hey, let's put this in a situational framework. Here is the situation, this is what you do."

That might be very helpful to new players looking at this game. It's good work. It's impressive even to try. You'll just forgive me if it does nothing for me personally because counting 21 outs is so automatic for me in the first place. It would take me longer to look it up on the chart than it would for me to just count the outs. I probably have the outs counted before the dealer has fully retracted his hand.

I guess my point is just that most people should ignore the strategy chart, not because it's not good (it is good), but because MOST people should never play UTH in the first place if they think they have any prayer of even sniffing the full value of the game which, by the way, is negative anyhow.

The only way they should play the game is if they can, 'Cheat,' using the WoO calculator because they are playing it online one way or another AND it is the best game available to them for a particular promotion. It's just a difficult game.

They also almost certainly still screw up even with the chart. Three-Card Poker is probably a better game for most people, play Q64, or better, even then Wizard's page says:

https://wizardofodds.com/games/three-card-poker/

Quote:

Many people have asked me what I mean by queen/6/4, wondering for example whether queen/7/3 is greater than queen/6/4. In any poker based game hands are scored first according to the highest card, then the second, and then the third, and so on if there are more. So a queen/7/3 would beat queen/6/4. The queens tie so the second highest cards are used to break the tie, and a 7 beats a 6. The third card does not matter in this case because the hand was resolved by the second card.

See that?

They don't know that Q73 is better than Q64, which can only mean that they should never gamble as long as they live. I had general poker hand rankings completely down at the age of seven years old. I'm not being sarcastic; I literally knew how poker kickers worked at the age of seven years old. They put it on a little card that came in some Bicycle decks of cards, for one thing.

Oh....well, what about A52 is that better than Q64? A five and a two are lower than a six and a four. /sarcasm

But, most people are not intellectually bested by, "Play Q64, or better," and should play 3CP because, even using the strategy chart, I tend to think most people will make enough UTH mistakes that 3CP effectively becomes the better returning game for them.

Actually, they ought just play Craps because they would get a low house edge without the need to ever think about anything. (I know you play Craps, so that's not directed at you)---I'm talking about people who could never attempt to make comprehensive strategy charts for semi-complicated games.

BTW Aceside gave me some dap along the way, I want to thank him. And for all who agree with the below points, and let me know, I do thank you for your feedback.

Quote: Mission146

I think the case is actually a bit the opposite and people who are fundamentally good at a game just don't want to learn a new way to...I guess it's not even a new way to play it, because that hasn't changed, but a new way to think about it.

That's what has been tough about this discussion for me. The whole discussion is predicated upon coming up with a new (to me) condensed strategy for a game that I already know how to play in the first place and, a few very very small decimals of EV here and there aside, pretty much already did play near optimally. So, it's like, "Unless this strategy is going to be condensed, and also result in flawless play what do I need this for?"

You evidently are able to count the outs without even realizing you are counting them. I'm serious. It's a 3 step process for newbies. Step one, you note the outs on the initial board. Step 2, note cards missing from the board that are 4-card outs. Step 3, count. OK, even I soon was melding step one and two together, but evidently all 3 steps meld together as one function for you. I never got there.

Quote:

With everything that we are fine-tuning with this new strategy and new terminologies, weeks later, we're still missing inside straights the dealer could have when we are counting 21 outs---so what the hell was the point of the strategy? We're still missing one of the most fundamental concepts of poker-based games---inside straight possibilities.

The Wizard's Simple Strategy skips over it too, though I guess he'd defend himself and say he doesn't tell you to skip inside straights with one gap, he just doesn't mention them. The LVA strategy card says to dismiss 'all' 4-card straights at the outset when you just have the kicker decision. I looked into that, and can't exactly remember why that makes sense, but it does for simple strategy. Your ease with recognizing them makes you a little blind I think.

Quote:

I appreciate the work that you did, definitely, you've poured a large amount of mental energy into this. I understand that you expanded on that and part of your strategy is basically what I would call a," Check down," list. I'm sure people that don't already have the game down (and also their own terminologies for things burnt into their brain) will find this very useful---which is of course the target market anyway! I certainly don't need ANY UTH strategy card for anything.

The big sell is that players can mostly eliminate the need to count the dealer outs. My only concern is that, if they do mostly eliminate that need, then they're probably going to %^$(^% up counting the dealer outs when they do have to do it. Also, the sell doesn't really appeal to me (but, again, I already know how to play the game), because I have dealer outs counted in well under a second after the river comes out:

The one time you have to count dealer outs with this one is so rare you can play the Wizard trainer game for I don't know how long, days maybe, and not run into it fully qualified with JJ+ as part of the pairs. But, OK, I agree you need to know how to count outs, but you won't need to. [Does it make sense to makes a distinction between 'do need' and 'won't need'? ha ha]

Quote:

But yeah, you looked at the LVA strategy card (whatever the hell it says, I have never seen it) and said, "Hey, let's put this in a situational framework. Here is the situation, this is what you do."

That might be very helpful to new players looking at this game. It's good work. It's impressive even to try. You'll just forgive me if it does nothing for me personally because counting 21 outs is so automatic for me in the first place. It would take me longer to look it up on the chart than it would for me to just count the outs. I probably have the outs counted before the dealer has fully retracted his hand.

I'd like to see you in action, how fast you play.

Quote:

I'd like to see you in action, how fast you play.

I just did a five minute test and did 41 hands in five minutes on WoO.

Of course, there's some variance on that. I had 14, "Insta-Raise," hands, so I might get more or less than that if I did it again. Actually, if the 14 Insta-Raise hands, four of them were in a row which---while not extremely unusual, is notable. 14 Insta-Raise hands is roughly expected in that sample size as it's expected to happen something like 37-39% of the time...I forget exactly what.

I don't know if I was trying to play as fast as possible, because I imagine I'd make mistakes if I did. The hand that took me the most time was a pair of eights on the board with K J 10 because I had to think about the push, but decided the dealer had too many straights.

Board: 8, 8, K, J, 10

So, if you count outs for this hand, you have:

8's-2
K's-3
J's-3
10's-3
A's-4
Q's-4

With that, the out count gets you to nineteen. No flushes on the board. Queen beats me anyway, so now I have to worry about 9-7 and inside pairs. Three-Flush with it is an obvious insta-fold, but not the case this time.

Each inside pair with cards that I don't have in my hand is about 0.6%, based on the cards I know, so that's going to include your 2's, 3's 4's 5's and 9's...(I had 6, 7) because remember, a single Queen or Ace is beating you anyway.

So, those five ranks combine for about 3% probability, give or take a little...and is actually giving a little. By itself, that's the equivalent of roughly 1.3 outs.

I've got 6's and 7's blocked, but dealer could still have those pairs wired and some 9-7 straights. I basically had to ask myself if that was the equivalent of 0.7 outs, or more, took a guess and decided that it probably was---correctly folded.

Will respond to the rest next post.

Quote: Mission146

I just did a five minute test and did 41 hands in five minutes on WoO.

stay tuned [later]

Quote:

Of course, there's some variance on that.  I had 14, "Insta-Raise," hands, so I might get more or less than that if I did it again.  Actually, if the 14 Insta-Raise hands, four of them were in a row which---while not extremely unusual, is notable.  14 Insta-Raise hands is roughly expected in that sample size as it's expected to happen something like 37-39% of the time...I forget exactly what.  


I don't know if I was trying to play as fast as possible, because I imagine I'd make mistakes if I did.  The hand that took me the most time was a pair of eights on the board with K J 10 because I had to think about the push, but decided the dealer had too many straights.  


Board: 8, 8, K, J, 10


So, if you count outs for this hand, you have:


8's-2
K's-3
J's-3
10's-3
A's-4
Q's-4

OK, as comparison, with the no-count strategy, with 6,7 for your hole cards, it's a 'can't outkick' table.  For one pair on the board, the cards that are un-paired have to be A-J, any combo, so this is a fold. 


Oh, one thing that could be unclear with it, and it catches me too with not enough practice because it's too rare. Succession check for out-ranking cards only applies to the pair, so the presence of those high cards in the cards that are unpaired is not relevant for succession rules to kick in. 

Quote:

With that, the out count  gets you to nineteen.

It's an 18+ for folds situation. You can stop right there.

Quote: odiousgambit

stay tuned [later]


OK, as comparison, with the no-count strategy, with 6,7 for your hole cards, it's a 'can't outkick' table.  For one pair on the board, the cards that are un-paired have to be A-J, any combo, so this is a fold. 


Oh, one thing that could be unclear with it, and it catches me too with not enough practice because it's too rare. Succession check for out-ranking cards only applies to the pair, so the presence of those high cards in the cards that are unpaired is not relevant for succession rules to kick in. 


It's an 18+ for folds situation. You can stop right there.

That all may be the case, but the words in the chart are meaningless for me because I would have to compare my hand to the chart. I can just do the math. The math is faster.

Quote: Mission146

That all may be the case, but the words in the chart are meaningless for me because I would have to compare my hand to the chart. I can just do the math. The math is faster.

I really do disagree in the cases where you play the board. It becomes instant decision. Skip all the rest of it but learn the cases where A-J is what you look for. Don't look at the chart, it's too easy to memorize

Also, it seems the 18+ change from 21+ is a hole in your game, sir

Trial 2: Five minutes, 47 hands, zero errors.

This one was interesting because I had three consecutive Insta-Raises on three separate occasions, so that made it a bit faster. I had either seventeen or eighteen Insta-Raises in total, which is roughly as expected. The only specific sequence I remember is 99, K5 (off) and AK (off).

I might have been a little slower, except none of the, "Last decision," points were at all difficult in this sequence, except for one out count that was needed to decide whether or not to play for the push. It wasn't a difficult scenario (straightforward 21 count), except I did have to stop for that. You should also keep in mind the maximum rate that the game can even play is taking up some of this time.

For all of that, I finished down seventeen base bets. Isn't that fun? Well, I guess that's what perfect play on a -EV game will get you, isn't it?

It's important to keep in mind that I am NOT EVEN GOOD at this game, not that it would matter if I was, because it's a negative expectation game anyway. I figure every 200-300 hands I will likely make a mistake at the second decision point, which means I am AWFUL at this game.

Most people, taking their time, will play this game worse than I do playing as fast as I am capable---and I am AWFUL at this game---so what does that tell you? They should NOT worry about any strategy chart because they should not play this game in the first place unless there is something that is the case outside of the cards on the table and a mostly competent dealer.

This is a negative expectation game. What? Are they going to lose better than other people lose? Losing is losing.

For most people, it would be like playing Magnus Carlsen in chess---he will beat you quickly, decisively and effortlessly. They will have learned nothing from him beating them. Hopeless endeavor all around. They will not even learn how to be better at chess, even if they analyze the game, because they won't ever be able to figure out why Magnus Carlsen beat them if he is playing as well as he can.

It's easy to figure out why one should lose at UTH---there's a House Edge. If everything in the context of the game is done properly, a player can ONLY have a losing expectation. In the long run, every single player WILL lose. One and all. Thus, they should not play in the first place unless there is some factor that changes that fact.

People should NOT play games to LOSE. They should play to WIN. Losing is failure. If a player is playing this game at all, absent some other factor, they have already failed to play the game optimally by the mere act of playing it in the first place.

And...they will probably be worse at losing than I am...and I already completely suck at this game.

Quote: odiousgambit

I really do disagree in the cases where you play the board. It becomes instant decision. Skip all the rest of it but learn the cases where A-J is what you look for. Don't look at the chart, it's too easy to memorize

Also, it seems the 18+ change from 21+ is a hole in your game, sir

My ass, it is. I played that set of hands perfectly. Zero errors. I'm not saying I would never make an error (quite the opposite, actually, which is why nobody should ever play this game), but I can't play a particular set of hands perfectly better. I played that set of hands perfectly. How can I do better than perfect?

When is it 18 outs to count vs 21?

Quote: unJon

When is it 18 outs to count vs 21?

Apparently, a hole in my game.

Who needs to be able to instantly know the rough probability on a dealer having a particular inside pair given the number of unknown cards, comparing that to the number of pairs that the player's hand does not have at all blocked, multiplying, converting that to outs, adding that to the current number of outs that are easy to determine...figure out the other possible two-card dealer outs, estimate a rough probability on that, convert that to the dealer out card equivalent, add to the 20.3, realize that the result is safely over 21 and know to fold?

Within three seconds.

Serious hole in my game, there.

And, again, I play UTH terribly. Thus, if you are not better than this, you should not play it, either.

Quote: Mission146

My ass, it is. I played that set of hands perfectly. Zero errors. I'm not saying I would never make an error (quite the opposite, actually, which is why nobody should ever play this game), but I can't play a particular set of hands perfectly better. I played that set of hands perfectly. How can I do better than perfect?

Well I've been finding out new ways to insult people lately and I just found out what gets to Mission!! Sorry!

But you gave an example where you were pondering 21 outs when you only needed to get to 19. I can believe you got to 19 instantly but the rest of that post *had* to have you taking time. Maybe you didn't take the time while you were playing and only mused about it afterwards, but I missed it if you said that.

will wait for cooler heads before addressing Mission's other points, and in the meantime answer Unjon

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: Mission146

My ass, it is. I played that set of hands perfectly. Zero errors. I'm not saying I would never make an error (quite the opposite, actually, which is why nobody should ever play this game), but I can't play a particular set of hands perfectly better. I played that set of hands perfectly. How can I do better than perfect?

Well I've been finding out new ways to insult people lately and I just found out what gets to Mission!! Sorry!

But you gave an example where you were pondering 21 outs when you only needed to get to 19. I can believe you got to 19 instantly but the rest of that post *had* to have you taking time. Maybe you didn't take the time while you were playing and only mused about it afterwards, but I missed it if you said that.

will wait for cooler heads before addressing Mission's other points, and in the meantime answer Unjon

Well, yeah. It's like me saying 2 + 2 = 4 and someone saying I didn't do that right.

Anyway, apology accepted.

Yes, it did take time. That's why it slowed me down and I played faster the second set of hands...plus more Insta-Raises. It took me about three seconds to figure out that calling/folding decision. Also, I had to silence my phone at one point in the first run, so I forgot about that.

Also, I couldn't help looking at the timer the first run, so the second run I put it where I'd have to turn fully around to see it.

Quote: unJon

When is it 18 outs to count vs 21?

This is missing completely from the Wizard Simple Strategy, which he warns you about it being simple after all.

Mission, too, should take note [coudn't resist, sorry] that for the cases where you "play the board" the rule is not 21 outs but 18 outs. An exception seems to be a 4 OAK on the board where as far as I can tell, it's 21 outs again.

I learned this from the LVA strategy card, and confirmed it with the Wizard calculator

Quote: odiousgambit

You evidently are able to count the outs without even realizing you are counting them. I'm serious. It's a 3 step process for newbies. Step one, you note the outs on the initial board. Step 2, note cards missing from the board that are 4-card outs. Step 3, count. OK, even I soon was melding step one and two together, but evidently all 3 steps meld together as one function for you. I never got there.

Thank you for the intended compliment and I agree. It should be a prerequisite for anyone who intends to play this game in a live casino. If a person does not instantly recognize the number of dealer one card outs, then they should simply never play this game. They should practice on the WoO game until they DO instantly know the number of dealer one card outs. I'm still terrible at this game, most people are worse than I am, thus most people should never play it absent something that really swings the overall expectation into the profitable.

Quote:

The Wizard's Simple Strategy skips over it too, though I guess he'd defend himself and say he doesn't tell you to skip inside straights with one gap, he just doesn't mention them. The LVA strategy card says to dismiss 'all' 4-card straights at the outset when you just have the kicker decision. I looked into that, and can't exactly remember why that makes sense, but it does for simple strategy. Your ease with recognizing them makes you a little blind I think.

Someone who does not recognize these, instantly, as dealer outs should never play ANY five-card hand poker based game, much less this one.

Quote:

The one time you have to count dealer outs with this one is so rare you can play the Wizard trainer game for I don't know how long, days maybe, and not run into it fully qualified with JJ+ as part of the pairs. But, OK, I agree you need to know how to count outs, but you won't need to. [Does it make sense to makes a distinction between 'do need' and 'won't need'? ha ha]

Memorizing a chart for one specific game in order to play marginally less badly helps a person play a game that they should not be playing in the first place less badly. Learning how to recognize and count outs will help a player play many games less badly and actually forces them to, God forbid, think. I am thinking. You are thinking because you are coming up with a chart. Thinking is good. Making decisions using a chart without understanding why they are the right decisions is bad.

Quote: Mission146

Trial 2: Five minutes, 47 hands, zero errors.

I checked it out and go at half that speed, greatly assisted by learning the automatic play I advocate. I checked it out and with my satellite internet service it can't go faster than about 15 per minute, and that's when you click on 'raise' instantly, right or wrong.

Dude, you are fast.

[snips]

Quote:

For most people, it would be like playing Magnus Carlsen in chess---he will beat you quickly, decisively and effortlessly. They will have learned nothing from him beating them. Hopeless endeavor all around. They will not even learn how to be better at chess, even if they analyze the game, because they won't ever be able to figure out why Magnus Carlsen beat them if he is playing as well as he can.

You are absolutely correct about this. Every time I would play a really good player, I learned nothing. Even studying the game afterward didn't really help much.

re: the rest of your post. Well, you are making the point about it being better not playing at all, I agree. It's also better financially for me that I quit hunting, fishing, going to movies, fine dining, the list goes on and on. OK I will concede that most people who aren't gamblers think "especially gambling" . But I feel you are constantly criticizing that we are trying to beat a -EV game. You are saying we are stupid. Now you have me going!! Sorry. I usually delete stuff like that after I write it but maybe I need to show I'm human too, ha ha

As for claiming you 'suck' at the game, come on, clearly you do not. As for you not being able to beat a -EV game either, yeah we know that.

Quote: odiousgambit

I checked it out and go at half that speed, greatly assisted by learning the automatic play I advocate. I checked it out and with my satellite internet service it can't go faster than about 15 per minute, and that's when you click on 'raise' instantly, right or wrong.

Dude, you are fast.

Thank you for the compliment. Please note that I am still terrible at this game, so if a person cannot play perfectly faster than this, then they should not play this game at all. I will make a mistake (usually second decision point) if I play enough hands. Probably 200-300.

If you asked me to play this game in a casino, I would say no. I am not comfortable that I play this game well enough to justify sitting down at a table with no element that provides me an advantage. We have a mutual friend who has asked me to play this game several times, even offered to, "Put me up," on it...and you can ask him---I have declined every time on the grounds that I do not know this game well enough to play it competently.

Quote:

[snips]

You are absolutely correct about this. Every time I would play a really good player, I learned nothing. Even studying the game afterward didn't really help much.

re: the rest of your post. Well, you are making the point about it being better not playing at all, I agree. It's also better financially for me that I quit hunting, fishing, going to movies, fine dining, the list goes on and on. OK I will concede that most people who aren't gamblers think "especially gambling" . But I feel you are constantly criticizing that we are trying to beat a -EV game. You are saying we are stupid. Now you have me going!! Sorry. I usually delete stuff like that after I write it but maybe I need to show I'm human too, ha ha

As for claiming you 'suck' at the game, come on, clearly you do not. As for you not being able to beat a -EV game either, yeah we know that.

I am awful at the game. It is a negative expectation game. Anything less than absolute perfection is total failure when you can only lose in the first place. Play that is sub-optimal is unacceptable, absent some other factor that lends a decisive advantage.

It's hard enough to win when you have an advantage, much more when you are supposed to lose. Play enough hands, and mathematically speaking, you reach a point where winning has become impossible---not that very many people will actually play that many.

I'm not saying anyone is stupid; I am saying that playing this game is stupid.

Quote: odiousgambit

This is missing completely from the Wizard Simple Strategy, which he warns you about it being simple after all.

Mission, too, should take note [coudn't resist, sorry] that for the cases where you "play the board" the rule is not 21 outs but 18 outs. An exception seems to be a 4 OAK on the board where as far as I can tell, it's 21 outs again.

I learned this from the LVA strategy card, and confirmed it with the Wizard calculator

Got it. Thank you.

I’ve always just played Wizard Easy strategy when I play. And as you’ll note from my earlier post in this thread, I don’t play it perfectly as I missed the 4card straight.

My one tweak, which I have no idea if it’s correct is that I add a one count to the outs if there’s a three flush or three straight on the board. I think the chance of the dealer having two of the right suited cards, for example (3.6%) is close enough to the chance he had a particular out (4.4%).

(Math corrected)

Quote: unJon

Got it. Thank you.

I’ve always just played Wizard Easy strategy when I play. And as you’ll note from my earlier post in this thread, I don’t play it perfectly as I missed the 4card straight.

My one tweak, which I have no idea if it’s correct is that I add a one count to the outs if there’s a three flush or three straight on the board. I think the chance of the dealer having two of the right suited cards, for example (3.6%) is higher than the chance he had a particular out (2.2%).

Flush Blocker:

nCr(8,2)*nCr(37,0)/nCr(45,2) = 0.0282828282828283

No Flush Blocker:

nCr(9,2)*nCr(36,0)/nCr(45,2) = 0.0363636363636364

In either case on the flush, this is fine.

The straights are similar, but a little less. The reason why is because the unblocked straight is eight cards and the blocked straight is seven. You can do the same function because all possible combinations of these cards will have the dealer beating you with either a straight---or other combinations are an inside pair. The one card blocked straight with only one two-card way to make a straight is only seven cards for two card outs:

nCr(7,2)*nCr(38,0)/nCr(45,2) = 0.0212121212121212

A little under, but you probably still want to call this a full out if you are going to make a rule out of it, so I agree.

It's a very good tweak.

I'm actually glad I did this because it helps me improve my thinking on the one hand that had me actually actively thinking. I was wondering about the 79 two-card straights (one block) that the dealer could have as well as the 66 and 77 pairs the dealer could have that I had blocked, but just the 7-9 two-card straight was enough to make it a fold at that stage of the process, so thank you.

Quote: unJon

Quote: odiousgambit

This is missing completely from the Wizard Simple Strategy, which he warns you about it being simple after all.

Mission, too, should take note [coudn't resist, sorry] that for the cases where you "play the board" the rule is not 21 outs but 18 outs. An exception seems to be a 4 OAK on the board where as far as I can tell, it's 21 outs again.

I learned this from the LVA strategy card, and confirmed it with the Wizard calculator

My one tweak, which I have no idea if it’s correct is that I add a one count to the outs if there’s a three flush or three straight on the board. I think the chance of the dealer having two of the right suited cards, for example (3.6%) is close enough to the chance he had a particular out (4.4%).

(Math corrected)

The math I can't do, but the consensus seems to be to not count as an out anything that requires two dealer cards, both of his cards that is, to complete. I have noticed that a 3 card straight flush is picked up as a full out by the Wizard calculator, though... perhaps this is not true "every time"

I can't follow the last post by Mission

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: unJon

Quote: odiousgambit

This is missing completely from the Wizard Simple Strategy, which he warns you about it being simple after all.

Mission, too, should take note [coudn't resist, sorry] that for the cases where you "play the board" the rule is not 21 outs but 18 outs. An exception seems to be a 4 OAK on the board where as far as I can tell, it's 21 outs again.

I learned this from the LVA strategy card, and confirmed it with the Wizard calculator

My one tweak, which I have no idea if it’s correct is that I add a one count to the outs if there’s a three flush or three straight on the board. I think the chance of the dealer having two of the right suited cards, for example (3.6%) is close enough to the chance he had a particular out (4.4%).

(Math corrected)

The math I can't do, but the consensus seems to be to not count as an out anything that requires two dealer cards, both of his cards that is, to complete. I have noticed that a 3 card straight flush is picked up as a full out by the Wizard calculator, though... perhaps this is not true about "every time"

If I have some time later, I’ll run an example through the calculator and see what happens. What you want is a 20 out rainbow board compared to a 20 board with a three flush. Can then do same with up and down three straight.

Remember you don’t need a full out to make the best decision change between 20 and 21 outs!

Quote: odiousgambit

The math I can't do, but the consensus seems to be to not count as an out anything that requires two dealer cards, both of his cards that is, to complete. I have noticed that a 3 card straight flush is picked up as a full out by the Wizard calculator, though... perhaps this is not true "every time"

I can't follow the last post by Mission

In Poker parlance, "Blocked," just means that I have a card in my hand that could potentially help another player, but in the case of UTH, it's the dealer. Therefore, when I see a three-flush on the board and am concerned that the dealer might be wired in that suit, I either have a blocker or I don't. If I have one of that suit in my hand, then that means I have the dealer partially blocked as I have one of the cards that could otherwise give the dealer a two card flush.

If I don't have the dealer partially blocked, then I don't have any of the three-card community suit in my hand.

When it comes to, "Blocking pairs," if you have two cards that are not the same thing, then you are always partially blocking two inside pairs---either that or you have at least one pair using something on the board and your other card partially blocking an inside pair.

This sometimes comes into the equation in certain Texas Hold 'Em hands, probably most frequently with flushes and high cards. Take a community board like:

Qs Jd 4h 6h 9h

And imagine that I have QhKs, and for some reason I am not all-in already (which I should be) and my opponent has acted first and made a big bet:

Ignoring that the thought process might include an opponent's previous behavior, I might think:

Okay, did he catch the flush? I've got some two-card flushes blocked here with my Queen, so that's good. Is this a gutshot or backdoor straight situation? What did he do after the flop? K-10 maybe and then he catches the backdoor low out? I don't know, because I have a King blocked. You'd think a wired pair plays more aggressively here, especially aces, and again, I've got wired kings partially blocked on this one. I mean, a gutshot...are you really calling anything with 10/8 after this flop...is this guy really calling the preflop raise with 10-8, maybe suited, I guess, but that seems really unlikely.

Could be J-9, but do you really cede Jacks post-flop without testing the waters with a lead bet? You're only calling the preflop raise with J-9 suited, I would think.

So, he's maybe beating me with a Flush or he's basically just dead-calling an open-ended straight draw Flop and Turn? I don't think you would just be calling any kind of trips here, either, unless the nine GAVE him the trips. Check-Call, Check-Call and then a nine and he leads...it's either a bluff or it's a straight, flush or trip nines. If it's a straight, then it almost has to be K-10 and I have a king blocked. I have a flush card blocked.

Is there any value in shoving on this? No. There's nothing that calls a shove where I don't lose, so this is very much call or fold.

It's probably the flush, or he's repping a flush. I should have shoved the Turn after he called the flop. I'm going to get beat by a flush. I call.

Except, this wouldn't have happened because he would have checked after the flop and I would have shoved all-in, but you know how it is.

Mission, I’m beginning to understand why you aren’t very good at poker. :-)

Quote: unJon

Mission, I’m beginning to understand why you aren’t very good at poker. :-)

Please enlighten me. I am being 100% genuine in saying I'd really like to know! How should top pair not have just shoved post-flop?

Quote: Mission146

In Poker parlance, "Blocked," just means that I have a card in my hand that could potentially help another player, but in the case of UTH, it's the dealer. Therefore, when I see a three-flush on the board and am concerned that the dealer might be wired in that suit, I either have a blocker or I don't.

got it

If you want to check out some marginal situations, against an unpaired rainbow board, hole cards K,2 and Q,2 tend to be very marginal and we're often told by the Wizard trainer to fold if the dealer can scrounge up about anything extra.

I've added the below to my blog, the link is https://wizardofvegas.com/member/odiousgambit/blog/#post2310

>>>

No Succession Super Simple 18-21 UTH

The discussion made it occur to me that there are certain things to be gleaned from the strategy where you use Succession, that you can use even if you are someone who has a great comfort level with counting the outs and want nothing to do with Succession. I have especially found that it is quickly picked up for the common situations where you 'play the board', and on this last statement I'd say if you don't agree, you're hard-headed.


>>>


For the 'Can Outkick', 21+ outs:


Get this sequence down: K,Q,J,J


Then get this one down: rainbow, pair, 2 pair, trips .......... Which represents unpaired rainbow board, board with 1 pair, board w/2 pairs, board w/trips, resp.


Absent cards on the board that outrank, the K,Q,J,J cards, or better, that respectively go along with the other are instant-decision bettable. In all other situations including the presence of outranking cards, count the Total Dealer Outs


>>>


For the 'Can't Outkick' 'play the board', 18+ outs:


Get this down, A-J ............... where A-J means Ace thru Jack in any combination


Then this: Board with one pair and Board with Trips


Absent those same cards being present in the pair or trips, the cards that are not part of the pair or the trips need to be that A-J, otherwise fold. With the presence of A-J in the pair or the trips, count the outs, fold if 18+ . Any other scenario on the board, count the outs also


However you might note that the bettable cards never include anything more expansive than A-10 no matter what as long as we are talking about these two cases only.


>>>


There are exceptions but this is a simple strategy. I've tested very thoroughly with the Wizard calculator but will happily stand corrected if you can show it

Quote: Mission146

Please enlighten me. I am being 100% genuine in saying I'd really like to know! How should top pair not have just shoved post-flop?

Most importantly, you didn’t give effective stack and pot sizes so it’s an unanswerable question. I play much differently when we have a 200+ BB stacks vs 50BB stacks.

Second, I almost never give a 100% answer in poker. The answer is almost always a mixed Nash equilibrium.

Third, KQ sucks. Not as bad as K9. But still makes a lot of tempting second best hands.

Quote: unJon

Most importantly, you didn’t give effective stack and pot sizes so it’s an unanswerable question. I play much differently when we have a 200+ BB stacks vs 50BB stacks.

Second, I almost never give a 100% answer in poker. The answer is almost always a mixed Nash equilibrium.

Third, KQ sucks. Not as bad as K9. But still makes a lot of tempting second best hands.

I guess that's a fair point on the stack and pot sizes...and the fact that it doesn't change how I would play the hand is probably an indictment. Top pair, king kicker, is going to be a post-flop shove every time on a pot that I was the one to raise pre-flop on a rainbow board when the opponent checks. I'm almost always ahead in the hand here, so I want all my chips in there as soon as we can possibly do that please!

I guess it would have to be the small blind who called preflop for this to be the case, but it's a shove anyway. It's a shove if I don't have good position.

Quote: Mission146

I'm almost always ahead in the hand here, so I want all my chips in there as soon as we can possibly do that please!

quote truncated.

The right question isn’t if you are “almost always ahead” but if you are ahead of your opponents calling range. And I get that you will respond that you want your opponent to fold and are happy taking down the pot as is.

Quote: unJon

quote truncated.

The right question isn’t if you are “almost always ahead” but if you are ahead of your opponents calling range. And I get that you will respond that you want your opponent to fold and are happy taking down the pot as is.

I am NOT playing you at poker!

And let’s get back on topic. Here’s an interesting example.



19 out hand. So raise is the play. It’s marginal. Note that a 3 and 5 gives the dealer a wheel (though player has a blocker).

What happens if we turn that River card into a spade to also put a three flush on the board?



Now this 19 out hand is a fold! So is the three flush worth 2 outs? No but the combination of the gapped straight and flush is. Look what happens if we change that Ace into a King to remove the straight.



Back to a raise.

All of this is super marginal on the EV side. But interesting to me.

I couldn’t think of a 20 out board to test the flush without the straight impact.

Quote: unJon

All of this is super marginal on the EV side. But interesting to me.

me too. Sometimes I can't figure out why it's a fold. But all marginal, as you say.

Quote: odiousgambit

me too. Sometimes I can't figure out why it's a fold. But all marginal, as you say.

For now I’m sticking to 21 outs with three flushes and three straights counting as an out each. I’ll add the 18 outs if playing board to that. Thanks!

Maybe I’ll screw around later on whether up and down straights are worth more than an out.

Quote: odiousgambit

me too. Sometimes I can't figure out why it's a fold. But all marginal, as you say.

I need your help for this specific hand and this particular situation. If I am holding an Ace and a Jack and I see my neighbor player is holding a pair of Aces, should I make the 4X raise before the dealer turns over three community cards?
Where can I find the more advanced strategy if I can see my neighbor players' cards? Thank you in advance.

(Closest uth thread for me to complain)

$1150 in freeplay chips
- I keep freeplay chips on my wins

I'm betting $10 ante/$10 blinds, no trips
-when all free play chips are lost, I only have $585 :(

49% loss playing through $1150 in this .53% game!!
~100x the expected loss.

/Cue remarks about loss relating to my username

Quote: 100xOdds

(Closest uth thread for me to complain)

$1150 in freeplay chips
- I keep chips if I win

I'm betting $10 ante/$10 blinds, no trips
-when all free play chips are lost, I only have $585 :(

49% loss playing through $1150 in this .53% game!!
100x the expected loses.

Cue remarks about my username

link to original post

That can happen. Did the dealer get you on a few 4x raises? UTH is probably not the best game for grinding out free bets if that was your goal.

Quote: aceside

I need your help for this specific hand and this particular situation. If I am holding an Ace and a Jack and I see my neighbor player is holding a pair of Aces, should I make the 4X raise before the dealer turns over three community cards?
Where can I find the more advanced strategy if I can see my neighbor players' cards? Thank you in advance.

link to original post

I didn't realize no one answered

I think a pair of aces would give me pause

as for borderline cases, I have to think Eliot Jacobson has covered this one. This might at this point mean getting hold of his book, Advanced Advantage Play, but I think they're going for a reasonable price on Ebay now

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: aceside

I need your help for this specific hand and this particular situation. If I am holding an Ace and a Jack and I see my neighbor player is holding a pair of Aces, should I make the 4X raise before the dealer turns over three community cards?
Where can I find the more advanced strategy if I can see my neighbor players' cards? Thank you in advance.

link to original post

I didn't realize no one answered

I think a pair of aces would give me pause

as for borderline cases, I have to think Eliot Jacobson has covered this one. This might at this point mean getting hold of his book, Advanced Advantage Play, but I think they're going for a reasonable price on Ebay now

link to original post

Ace Jack is still a raise, for more hands, see:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/discountgambling.net/2010/01/15/practical-collusion-for-ultimate-texas-holdem/amp/

The thing to understand about Ace is the high card value, so your neighbor having Aces wired doesn’t kill you completely because it means there’s only one Ace the dealer could have.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: 100xOdds

(Closest uth thread for me to complain)

$1150 in freeplay chips
- I keep chips if I win

I'm betting $10 ante/$10 blinds, no trips
-when all free play chips are lost, I only have $585 :(

49% loss playing through $1150 in this .53% game!!
100x the expected loses.

Cue remarks about my username

link to original post

That can happen.

link to original post

but the variance of this game is around 20, similar to jacks or better vp?
If so, running really bad

Bad run, small sample size.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: aceside

I need your help for this specific hand and this particular situation. If I am holding an Ace and a Jack and I see my neighbor player is holding a pair of Aces, should I make the 4X raise before the dealer turns over three community cards?
Where can I find the more advanced strategy if I can see my neighbor players' cards? Thank you in advance.

link to original post

I didn't realize no one answered

I think a pair of aces would give me pause

as for borderline cases, I have to think Eliot Jacobson has covered this one. This might at this point mean getting hold of his book, Advanced Advantage Play, but I think they're going for a reasonable price on Ebay now

link to original post

Ace Jack is still a raise, for more hands, see:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/discountgambling.net/2010/01/15/practical-collusion-for-ultimate-texas-holdem/amp/

The thing to understand about Ace is the high card value, so your neighbor having Aces wired doesn’t kill you completely because it means there’s only one Ace the dealer could have.

link to original post

This is very helpful! There should be some way of calculating the effect of removal on the basic strategy of UTH if a certain card is removed, just like the illustrious-18 deviations in blackjack card counting. Based on the discountgambling information, I judge it is not very helpful for a player to peek at their neighbor’s hand cards because Only a few marginal decisions matter.

Quote: aceside

Based on the discountgambling information, I judge it is not very helpful for a player to peek at their neighbor’s hand cards because Only a few marginal decisions matter.

link to original post

yes, only helps for a few hands:
33,k3o-k6o,JTo, J9o, Q7o-Q9o

Quote: aceside

This is very helpful! There should be some way of calculating the effect of removal on the basic strategy of UTH if a certain card is removed, just like the illustrious-18 deviations in blackjack card counting. Based on the discountgambling information, I judge it is not very helpful for a player to peek at their neighbor’s hand cards because Only a few marginal decisions matter.

link to original post

That's true, but value is value if you can memorize the known card exceptions. It's a low HE game to begin with.