PDA

View Full Version : 'rithmetic from mcevoy quiz...

10-24-2001, 05:09 PM
Two players limped in, you have a 7-5 offsuit in the small blind, and you decide to call. The big blind then raises. What is your play?

Answer: Fold. Calling the the half bet was marginally acceptable, but calling a full raise with a 7-5 does not give you the pot odds to justify a call.


Arent the odds the same?


small blind + big blind + limper + limper = 3.5


3.5:0.5 or 7:1.


now big blind raises

so 3.5 + my 1/2 small bet + big blind + limper + limper = 7


7:1


am i wrong?
10-24-2001, 06:09 PM
Pot odds aren't the only thing to consider in making a decision. You are right that the pot odds have not changed, but that does not mean that the situation hasn't changed.
10-24-2001, 06:45 PM
The initial call may be okay because hitting a pair may be enough. Once there is a raise (from the bb no less which generally signifies a big pocket pair), hitting a pair will usually leave you still in chase mode.


Daniel has it right: pot odds have not changed but the situation has.
10-25-2001, 04:07 AM
The pot odds may be the same, the implied odds are not.


Danny
10-25-2001, 09:13 AM
1) the question only gives odds as a reason

2) the implied odds are better IMHO, if i flop a strong hand or strong draw i can check raise the bb and trap the field for extra bets, and i can expect action from the BB.

3) i woulda tossed that piece of cheese in the first place. i would like 1 more player to consider playing that hand.
10-26-2001, 11:21 AM
Aren't the implied odds reduced now? For your initial call you get kind of:


their_bets:0.5 = 2*their_bets:1


odds on your call. Now you have to call twice as much but you can't guarantee that the final pot will be twice as large so you get perhaps:


1.5*their_bets:1


Which is less... I know this is kind of fuzzy but I hope the main point comes across. If you could guarantee that the postflop action will result in a pot that is twice as big in the raised pot as the one in the unraised one nothing has changed. But you cannot assume this (in particular since it's probably not true...)


The point that the situation has changed is also a good one.


Sincerely, Andreas