Sklansky's Implied Odds

[Smokey98]

I consider myself to be an intellegent man, however I'm finding it difficult to understand what the hell he is trying to say in chapter 5 &6 in TOP. Is there any other text that is easier to understand?

[TomCollins]

I have not read TOP (forgive me), but Implied Odds mean-

You do not need to have the correct odds to make a call IF you will make additional money when you make your hand.

So if I am chasing a hand that is 4-1 against me, and the pot is laying me 7-2 odds, it may be worth it for me to call anyway, because if I make my hand, my opponent will call a bet from me. So if the pot size is $35, and it costs me $10 to call, it makes sense, even if I only hit 25% of the time. Because when I miss my hand, it cost me $10, but when I make my hand, I will bet $10 and get called. So I net $45 instead of $35. And clearly $45 on $10 is worth 4-1.

In no limit, this is much more important, because with deep stacks, you can chase even when getting very poor odds if your opponent will likely pay you off if you hit your hand.

Also, use this term when making an awful call but you make your hand and pull a bad beat on someone.

[Louie Landale]

4:1 would be 20%, not 25%.

Yup; pot-odds is money in the pot; implied odds is money not yet in the pot. And lets not forget that you must consider that YOU may invest poorly later if YOU make the hand. Drawing to a straight when the opponent already has a flush falls into this category.

Reverse or "bad" implied odds comes into play for good but vulnerable hands. Yes, you may win often enough to justify playing, but you will often have to pay off better hands. Trouble hands fall into this category when someone else raises. KJ may win more often than 87s; but many of those wins and losses feature checking-and-crying-calling on the river.

These reverse-implied odds can and often do turn a call into a fold. But the authors are INCORRECT when they suggest that, once your figure your hand is still worth calling, they should turn a raise or bet into a call or check. No. If you have a favorite hand then bigger pots is good for you now AND reduces the affects of reverse implied odds. Having said that, I think Sklansky came up with a hoplelessly unrealistic pot-limit example where reverse implied odds prevented the favorite from betting; but not from raising.

- Louie

[pilamsolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, use this term when making an awful call but you make your hand and pull a bad beat on someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that at the NL table.....

[Cerril]

NL is really weighted toward implied odds. Limping is genuinely more often justified at the NL table with substantially worse cards because if you catch a monster you can usually make a whole lot more than you could with the same thing at a limit table.

Of course it's easy to go way too far with that. One of the major errors I've seen with people trying to use implied odds is that they think they can get money out of people if they make their hand that they can't. If your opponent is too tight or observant or has correctly put you on a draw, what you can get out of them is much smaller than what you can bet

[Doubling12]

Yes! I try very hard to make this point with people. If there are 6 limpers to a pot and you have bottom 2 pair on the flop, the only person going broke on that hand is you. The whole point of implied odds is the person does not suspect you have a spec hand, because you raised (or called a raise) with it preflop.

[m2smith2]

That is an instant classic. I'd love to see someone use that on Hellmuth.