Talk:Morton's theorem

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Poker (assessed as Low-importance).

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Opening comment

The premiss of the calculation: that the player with Q9 has four outs is wrong. He has five: 3 queens and 2 nines. I have corrected this, but then all the calculations based on it are wrong, and I'm not qualified to change them.

Actually, you're wrong. The Q of hearts is an out for the flush draw, so it's not an out for Q9. A card can't be an out for more than one player.

Want B to call. B should call

I have been trying to work out if this situation can ever happen. The situation I am talking about is if you the person with AK wants opponent B to call and it is right for B to call. I dont think this can happen due to the fact that the pot odds either justify him to call, and if they do they he should call whic you don't want and if the pot odds arent sufficient then you want him to call. Can someone please clarify on this matter.

This is not possible; it would require opponent A having a negative number of outs. Oddly enough, while playing with math around this, I've proven that the window occurs every time there are two or more opponents in the game who aren't drawing dead. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flush drawer on reverse implied odds?

I don't understand the comment that the player on the flush draw has reverse implied odds in a no-limit game. If anything, the flush drawer has pretty big implied odds: he is very unlikely to put money into the pot on the river after missing, and he is going to get called some fraction of the time when he hits his flush and bets out. So either I'm totally confused here (which is possible) or the comment in the text is incorrect. --JMike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.232.98 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In other words, if Brenda and Charles were to meet in the parking lot after the game and split their profits, they would have been colluding against Arnold. "

This sentence doesn't seem to flow from the previous sentence at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.77.58.34 (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morton's theorem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020321082918/http://pokerpages.com/articles/archives/caro06.htm to http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/caro06.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]