Yet Another Pot Odds Question [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

AngryCola

11-15-2004, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, no, no. Always use the odds of hitting your hand on the next card only. So for a 4-flush on the flop, you need to be getting about 4:1 to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no, you are very wrong.

Effective odds (as another poster mentioned) is what you need to use for 2 cards to come. If you always see just 1 card, you are costing yourself money.

Effective odds, with 2 cards to come, seems to be one of the most misunderstood aspects of hold'em. Before you go telling someone "no no no" make sure you are right. You usually are, Mangatang, but not in this case.

On a side note, you are almost always getting 4:1 on both streets in low limit games, regardless. Also, never forget about including your implied odds for when you do hit your flush. This is important as well when the call is marginal (for other draws), as you will almost ALWAYS get paid off in 1 or 2 spots in small stakes games. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Cooker

11-15-2004, 04:34 PM

When using effective odds, you are basically thinking about going all the way to the river, so you must include the current and all future bets on both sides of the pot odds (you can even include some implied odds if you hit). In the case of a 4 flush, this means you only need 2 to 1 on the current plus all future bets in order to go to the river.

For your specific example, this works out as:

effective pot = $10 + $2 (other callers this round) + $4 (other callers on the turn) = $16

your effective bet = $1 (bet this round) + $2 (bet on turn) = $3

So your effective pot odds are 16 to 3 or 5.3 to 1, so you should definitely plan to call all the way to the river. For implied odds, you could also include the bet on the river if you hit into the effective pot, but you don't need to include your bet on the river into your effective bet, because you won't even call a bet on the end if you don't hit. In general, I would be more conservative with assuming the number of other players that will stay in to the river, but you specifically stated that all 3 would stay in. It is pretty well known that if 2 opponents will stay to the river with you, you are always correct to call all bets with a flush draw, since you will automatically be getting 2 to 1 on all current and future bets.

If your effective odds don't indicate a call, you may still be correct to take 1 more card, but then you must have a full 4 to 1 in pot odds not considering future bets.

If you have position and think a raise will buy you a free card on the turn, you only need to be getting 2 to 1 on a raise with the current pot, because you won't have to pay any extra bets to see the river. For this play, you must know your opponents are capable of slowing down enough, because getting reraised on the flop and bet into on the turn if you don't hit would be a disaster (and you must do this to tricky devils that try this play against you).

There are many considerations to playing these strong draws, but in low limit, you will often have enough callers post flop to allow a lot of flexibility in your play and still be getting correct odds. I think saying you must have 4 to 1 is really costing one a lot of profitable situations in low limit games.

In no limit you must almost always have 4 to 1 except in cases where you or your opponent is all in, in which case you only need 2 to 1 since there will be no future bets. This is because there is no way to accurately estimate the bet you will be facing on the turn if you miss in NL.

Dave H.

11-15-2004, 05:12 PM

What a PERFECT explanation!! I finally understand it!! You know, I hope every beginner reads this because it's so important to understand, and you explained it very, very well.

Thanx a bunch for the time and the thought you put into this response!

AngryCola

11-15-2004, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What a PERFECT explanation!! I finally understand it!! You know, I hope every beginner reads this because it's so important to understand, and you explained it very, very well.

Thanx a bunch for the time and the thought you put into this response!

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, you claimed to have read TOP, but it explains it just as well as cooker did. Not to take away from what he posted, but if you had read that section of TOP that many times you would have understood it before cooker explained it to you. That's why I didn't bother with explaining the math to you.

There is plenty of math in TOP that explains all of this.
Nothing cooker said is not contained within TOP, or worded in such a way that makes it more difficult to understand than how cooker presented it. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Dave H.

11-15-2004, 05:39 PM

Sir, I thank you humbly for your response. In my original post, I stated that I had read that section over and over again. Perhaps I was just "ready" to understand it. I'm not sure. I'm just grateful for your response and his and anyone's who would help me finally understand this. I'm certain you'll help me with other questions I may have in the future. I actually have a degree in math and taught for several years a long time ago, but probability was always difficult for me.

...and I sure that his explanation will help many others who may not have read TOP. It will probably even encourage them to purchase the book. So far, everything I've read made sense except for that one section.

Many thanks again to those who read these posts and help us less experienced learn from your experience! Maybe one day we can return the favor...

Cooker

11-15-2004, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What a PERFECT explanation!! I finally understand it!! You know, I hope every beginner reads this because it's so important to understand, and you explained it very, very well.

Thanx a bunch for the time and the thought you put into this response!

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, you claimed to have read TOP, but it explains it just as well as cooker did. Not to take away from what he posted, but if you had read that section of TOP that many times you would have understood it before cooker explained it to you. That's why I didn't bother with explaining the math to you.

There is plenty of math in TOP that explains all of this.
Nothing cooker said is not contained within TOP, or worded in such a way that makes it more difficult to understand than how cooker presented it. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

All true. I have read many of the 2+2 books, and I feel like I have taken a lot of good information away from them. I am still relatively new (only been trying this poker stuff since September), so I like to respond to these posts in order to reinforce and clarify the concepts for myself, but since I did learn to play from TOP, HEP, and HEPFAP, much of what I say does come out sounding a lot like those books. I also appreciate any corrections of my mistakes from more experienced players.

Mangatang

11-15-2004, 10:05 PM

I suggested using the pot odds of one card to come, as opposed to using the pot odds of two cards to come. I know that advanced players can consider both effective odds and implied odds, but I've found for beginners it's much simpler and easier to just use the pot odds of one card to come. The results end up being "close enough" for beginning play.

If a player uses the odds of making his hand with two cards to come, he would be chasing a gutshot on the flop with 5.5:1. You can calculate effective odds and implied odds all you want, and you'll rarely find this to be a correct call.

If you just go by the approximation that you need 11:1 pot odds to chase a gutshot, you won't be too far off from the correct play. Yes, you can say that this is being over conservative, because you're not considering 2 cards to come and you're not considering implied odds. But, I think these things cancel out those times that you make your straight and still get beat by a better hand (full house or flush). It also helps beginning players to chase less often, if they have to have current pot odds before calling with a draw.

Here's an example:

There are 3 limpers to you on the button, you call with QsJs, and the BB checks. The flop comes AcKd2h. You have a gutshot straight draw with 4 outs. BB bets out and there is one caller to you. You are getting 7:1 pot odds. Now the person who thinks you can count both cards to come thinks, "I'm getting better than 5.5:1, so I can chase my gutshot." Which everyone will agree, is wrong here.

If you consider effective odds, and you assume the same person will bet, and same caller on the turn, you are looking at 11:3 odds, or 3.6:1. Even assuming implied odds of two additional bets on the river, you only get 5:1 odds. Clearly this is not a profitable call, because you need 5.5:1 with two cards to come.

Now, if you had just kept it simple and used the 11:1 odds with one card to come as your threshold on the flop, you could have quickly and easily seen that this was not a profitable call.

Now, lets look at a case where it is a profitable call.

Let's say this time there are 4 limpers to you with your QsJs, you call and the SB completes and the BB checks. On the same flop, you get a gutshot draw. There is a bettor and 4 callers in front of you. You're getting 12:1 pot odds now. Just using my simple 11:1 odds threshold, you have a profitable call.

But let's see if we get the same answer using effective and implied odds. Assuming you'll get 3 people for one bet in front of you on the turn, your effective odds are 18:3 or 6:1. So you have the odds to call a 5.5:1 proposition. If you add implied odds, you have an easy call.

So, while the concepts of effective and implied odds are important to understand for the advanced player, beginners can accomplish almost the same play, just by using the following approximations of odds to hit your hand on the next card:

11:1 gutshot
5:1 open-ender
4:1 4-flush

It's also important that you use one card only, because you really don't know what will happen on the next card. You may get a raise and a reraise before it gets to you, which would kill your odds. Then your flop assumption that you would see 2 cards is now wrong (assuming you correctly fold on the turn). So, your original odds were incorrect to begin with. Using the odds of the next card only, eliminates this mistake, because you made sure that you had the odds to see the next card. If your correct play is to fold on the turn, you still made the correct flop call.

AngryCola

11-16-2004, 05:40 AM

*sigh*

I see you think only advanced players can use effective odds, that's not the case at all. If it was a NL game, I would agree with you. But, theres a reason effective odds are written about and exist, because they are useful.

All this stuff about not knowing what you will have to call on the turn is completely ridiculous. The action rarely changes that much from the flop to the turn. I always know what I will have to call at least 90% of the time. I understand your point, and for NL it's a good one. However, for limit games you are just costing yourself money as a beginner and learning bad habits.

You say:
[ QUOTE ]
So, while the concepts of effective and implied odds are important to understand for the advanced player, beginners can accomplish almost the same play

[/ QUOTE ]

And then you go on to say in almost the next sentence:
[ QUOTE ]
It's also important that you use one card only, because you really don't know what will happen on the next card.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant have it both ways. Beginners don't want to learn "the easy way" and what you are suggesting would mean that even advanced players couldn't use effective odds. This is a contradiction and it will be confusing to new players.

Something is either useful or it isn't. Effective odds are useful. The action on the flop will almost always give you an accurate idea of the turn action. Have you heard of the free card play? Well, there is a reason that play works. Opponents are predictable on the turn.

How about when you wait until the turn (multiway) to protect your hand with a double bet? There is a reason in small stakes games that you should do this. Ed Miller and Sklansky have talked about it in their books. The reason is that if you raise on the flop, people will almost always check to you on the turn. You bet, and they call your one bet. Whereas, if you had just called on the flop, the pot would be smaller and you could charge your opponents with a double big bet on the turn.

Neither of those two strategies would work at all, given your assumptions of not "knowing" what will happen on the turn. So, shall we throw them out the window with effective odds, as well? I think not.

The real answer is that effective odds, the free card, and waiting until the turn to raise all deal with the action on the turn being predictable. There are some cases when it's appropriate to "take a card off" but not see both streets. That does does not mean that we should just forget about teaching beginners effective odds for fear of "confusing" them.

Effective odds are a useful tool for a limit player at almost all levels. If you have the stones to try the free card play, you can use effective odds with confidence and ease. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Mangatang

11-16-2004, 07:55 AM

I still say that just using these odds for the next card to come, you're not going to be too far from the correct play.

11:1 gutshot
5:1 open-ender
4:1 4-flush

These are a lot easy to remember and play with, and they have been doing great for me. Again, if you try these out on several situations, you'll find that they correspond with any of your combersome effective odds or implied odds calculations. And yes, I am using these rules at limit ring games. I don't play no-limit ring games.

AngryCola

11-16-2004, 08:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you'll find that they correspond with any of your combersome effective odds or implied odds calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the case, at all. But, you are correct in thinking that you may use these odds. Again, effective odds are not cumbersome. I'm sorry if it is difficult for you, but it is really an easy concept.

Your faliure to address any of my points about "not knowing the action" on 4th street leads me to believe that you have no counter point to them. Effective odds are your "real odds". The TOP states this much. If you do not wish to use them, that is your decision.

My original point stands. Don't go telling people "no no no" when you yourself are giving incorrect answers. I'm glad it has worked for you, but that doesn't make it a fact. See the TOP for reasons why.

I'm not going to try and convince you any further, however. If you wish to cost yourself money, and use incorrect odds, that is your decision. Just don't go around chastising people for giving the REAL answer, as opposed to your practical one.

Effective odds and implied odds are practical. You really need to step up your game if you can't use them effectively. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Dave H.

11-16-2004, 11:52 AM

Thanx again for your explanation. I think you've stated it in your note, but just to clarify...
In my four flush example, I only need 2 to 1 pot odds for a single bet on the flop because of 2 cards to come, correct? If I miss, do I then need 4 to 1 for a single bet on the turn because of only 1 card to come?

Thank you.

AngryCola

11-16-2004, 12:00 PM

No your appx. 2:1 odds are for seeing both cards. That means your odds are 2:1 against hitting the flush on the turn or the river.

Heres a quick explanation:
Take the odds the pot is laying you on the flop and add the probable turn bet (from the flop bettor) to them. Compare this against what you have to call now (on the flop), plus what you will have to call on 4th street.

Current pot + future turn bet of original flop bettor = your 2 cards to come pot size.

Your current call + turn call = what you must compare against the pot when using 2 cards to come odds.

The results are your effective odds. Hope this helps. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

AngryCola

11-16-2004, 12:04 PM

**DELETED** **DUPLICATE POST**

Dave H.

11-16-2004, 12:33 PM

Thank you...yes, that tells me how to determine my effective odds. I understand that given your explanation.

Now you need to get your hammer out and beat this into me:

I can see how you use effective odds (basically 2:1) when you have TWO cards to come. But when you miss on the first card, why would your odds not change at that point and force you to return to pot odds? I believe this is the only point of confusion left in my understanding of this principle.

Thanx for your patience!

P.S. I enjoyed your "discussions" with Mangatang. That actually helped me "cement" this stuff in my head!

AngryCola

11-16-2004, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now you need to get your hammer out and beat this into me:

I can see how you use effective odds (basically 2:1) when you have TWO cards to come. But when you miss on the first card, why would your odds not change at that point and force you to return to pot odds? I believe this is the only point of confusion left in my understanding of this principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let me try to go about this another way.

We all understand (hopefully) regular pot odds. Let us use the 4:1 for one card only as an example. It's understood that about 4 times you will miss your flush, and 1 time you will make it, therefore in this instance you call if the pot is laying you over 4:1 for your money. I'm aware that you understand this, but it helps build my point.

Now, lets take your flush draw and use the 2 cards to come odds. Understand this: When you use 2 cards to come odds, you must see 2 cards. Your odds do not change on the turn because you have missed.

Think of it this way. When you make that call at 2:1 it is for the turn and the river. Do not think of it as a seperate decision. The 2:1 odds mean that you will catch your flush 1 out of 3 times when you see your hand through to the river. The blank falling on 4th street does not change this fact.

It's simply a matter of taking your odds for both streets combined, and therefore missing on the turn has no impact on the fact that you will make your flush by the river 1 out of 3 times. Think of the turn card and the river card as a combination. You are calling based on that combination, not the 2 halves of the combination. Get it?

You are playing the odds for the combination of 2 streets, instead of the individual streets, as our friend Mangatang suggests is correct.

I hope I have been successful in "beating" this into you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif If you are still confused, perhaps it is the way I am explanaining this topic. Good luck. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

EDIT- Maybe a bit of your confusion stems from the fact that you just instictively know that if you miss on the turn your odds can't be as good as they were before that blank rolled off. You would be correct. If you were to take that bet on the turn, you would only have one card remaining, and would be about a 4:1 dog.

The point is your turn call isn't a seperate decision. It is a completion of your flop call. The money you put in on the turn should have already been factored in on the flop, when deciding whether you had odds to see both streets. just because you are throwing money in the pot on the turn does not mean that you are making an odds based decision at that point in time.

You are simply putting money in the pot that you already figured you would have to pay when you made your decision on the flop. Refer to my last post if you are still confused as to how you can figure this out.

The effective odds issue seems to be one of the hardest for a lot of people to wrap their minds around. They make up for this by just using 1 card odds, because they are slightly easier to figure. They are not making incorrect decisions, but they do miss out on certain profitable situations.

In the situation you described the irony is that most of the time you will end up with the same result. You are almost always getting 4:1 1 card odds or 2:1 for 2 cards. So, it's almost academic when dealing with flush draws and the modern structure of a SB and a BB. Not to mention that small stakes games are often so soft it's profitable to draw to a gutshot on the turn, let alone a real draw such as a 4 flush with 2 cards to come. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Dave H.

11-16-2004, 02:13 PM

I understand. Now, if I may use another example please. I'm trying to apply the same logic to this example; please tell me if I'm doing this correctly:

I have a pocket pair BEFORE the flop. I know that my odds of making a set or better with the remaining 5 cards are 4.2 : 1. I'm determined to see all five cards. Does this mean that all I need are 4.2 bets in the pot for EACH card that I see?

If so, in microlimit games, I'm just about always getting these odds per bet, so why wouldn't I almost always take the pocket pair all the way to the river?

AngryCola

11-16-2004, 02:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that all I need are 4.2 bets in the pot for EACH card that I see?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would this be the case? If you wanted to look at it in a vaccum that way, the answer would be that you needed a total pot of 4.2 bets for every 1 bet that you contributed to the pot, but bet sizes change. That's why with effective odds, you must convert everything to small bets or big bets.

I may not be right in my explanation of effective odds in the set situation, and anyone who is smarter than I should step in and explain it better than I could. The main problem here is that after the flop, most of your set chances are gone if you miss. Then the realistic way to look at it is drawing to a 2 outer with 2 cards to come.

Read my previous reply again. I added a few paragraphs. As for your new example, it leads me to believe that you still aren't quite grasping a few fundamentals.

Your new example is a bit difficult to explain. You would have to know all the action for the entire hand, as opposed to 1 street. You would have to know how many people would stay till the river, etc. You will have to do the math on this one yourself.

The difference in this case is that drawing to a set isn't as clear cut as drawing to a flush. Often, you will hit your set and it won't be good. This isn't nearly as much of a problem with flush draws.

Let me recommend a great book on hold'em odds that I picked up a few weeks ago. It's called "Hold'em's Odds Book", by Mike Petriv. You can order it from Gamblers Book Club. Run a search on google. This is a great book for explaining all the detailed odds of hold'em. It also serves as a great primer for understanding probability in all poker situations. I think this book would be great for you. Good luck.

Now if you nice folks will excuse me, I have birthday relaxing to get to! /images/graemlins/spade.gif

AngryCola

11-16-2004, 04:48 PM

David Sklansky probably explains effective odds better in one paragraph, than I do in numerous posts. I will quote a short bit of it here.

"Figuring effective odds may sound complicated, but it is a simple matter of addition. You add all the calls you will have to make, assuming you play to the end, to determine the total amount you will lose if you don't make your hand. Then compare this figure to the total amount you should win if you do make the hand. This total is the money in the pot at the moment plus all future bets you can expect to win, excluding your own future bets. Thus, if there is $100 in the pot at the moment and three more $20 betting rounds, you are getting $160-to-$40. When you think your opponent won't call on the end if your card hits, your effective odds would be reduced to something like $140-$40. If, on early betting rounds, these odds are greater than your chances of making your hand, you are correct to see the hand through to the end. If they are not, you should fold."

-David Sklansky pg.53 of The Theory of Poker

Hope this helps. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Dave H.

11-16-2004, 05:01 PM

You probably aren't going to believe this, but I just finished reading that section for the umpteenth time. Nice timing! No go eat some cake!...and thanks again.

AngryCola

11-17-2004, 10:07 AM

This is a repost of something that I just wrote on the probability forum. I thought it would be good to post it here, for any of the beginners who had been interested in this discussion.

9 outs - That is the number of outs you have with a 4 flush on the flop. So lets go from there.

Turn Probability and Odds
9 Outs = 19% probability
(47-9)/x:1 = 4.2:1 odds against

River Probability and Odds
9 Outs = 20% probability
(46-9)/x:1 = 4.1:1 odds against

Now lets look at odds for two cards to come, and I do mean both cards. All of these figures assume 9 flush outs.

HIT ONE OUT = 31.6% probabilty or 342 combinations

HIT TWO OUTS = 3.3% probability or 36 combinations

TO HIT ONE or TWO OUTS =
35% probability or 378 combinations or odds against of 1.9:1

These figures are for 2 card combinations, which are used when determining effective odds. The point is you aren't getting 1.9:1 on the turn card alone. So, you can't say "Well before when i made that call on the flop, I was getting 2:1, and now I've missed so I'm getting 4:1." Which, as I understand it, is how Dave still sees it. 1.9:1 assumes you will see both cards. So therefore you can be getting nothing BUT 1.9:1 for both cards.

What you can say is, "Well, I made that 4.2:1 call on the flop, and now Ive missed so I'm getting 4.1:1." Of course now your odds are slightly better, because you have missed on the turn (1 less non-out that can fall off the deck). The point is, if you start thinking about it as 2:1 on the flop, and 4:1 on the turn, you will most certainly be wrong. If you must think about it in single street terms, think of it as 4.2:1 to see the turn, and 4.1:1 to see the river. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

AngryCola

11-17-2004, 12:14 PM

Quick note about the math I provided. x = 9, the number of outs you have with a 4 flush.

RayGarlington

11-17-2004, 02:41 PM

It seems you are being overly harsh with Managatang. The mechanical approach he suggests isn't wrong, and does with few exceptions correlate with your effective odds approach. It seems to me, that effective odds give you a rationale for playing certain draws that you strictly shouldn't play otherwise. Also, when using the effective odds approach, you need to keep in mind you are rationalizing and should drop the hand if something untoward develops. (Managatang is also correct in suggesting you should drop the hand rather than blindly play it out. If the board pairs and a fit of raising breaks out, it is probably time to opt out of your draw.)

AngryCola

11-17-2004, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It seems you are being overly harsh with Managatang. The mechanical approach he suggests isn't wrong, and does with few exceptions correlate with your effective odds approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, it is not MY approach. I learned it from TOP, and I doubt even Sklansky would tell you that it was HIS. It's simply a matter of fact. Using immediate pot odds vs. effective odds will always have their subtle differences.

I admit I WAS harsh on Mangatang (whom I respect), but my reason for being harsh wasn't because of the immediate pot odds approach he was advocating. It was his assertion "no no no, it MUST be done this way". In fact that is the whole reason that I got involved in this discussion (as I recall).

The original poster was confused about effective odds. What are they? When do you use them? How do you use them? Mangatang's answer was basically saying, "Dont, they are stupid. Here is the right way." He never explained effective odds, and Dave was left confused.

In all of my posts, I've never said using immediate pot odds vs. effective odds was all that bad. My writing on this issue has been for the sole purpose of educating Dave, and anyone else who was still confused about that pesky effective odds idea.

There are a few ways to deal with more than 1 card to come. My original point was that telling someone "there is only 1 way, and your question is irrelevant" is no way to go about answering a question such as Daves.

On a positive note, after much discussion, Dave finally gets it! Some good was done, after all. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dave H.

11-17-2004, 05:44 PM

I, for one, totally agree that some good was done. Even the arguments (discussions?) were enlightening! The thread entitled "Confused about odds in Holdem" in the Probability forum continued the discussion at length if anyone is interested...especially beginners like me! I started out very confused and feel like I could teach the concept now (well, almost!).

Grail

11-18-2004, 04:35 PM

I have 1 problem with using effective odds. You never really know what is going to happen on the turn. What if the flop betters bets out and someone in front of you, or worse yet in back of you raises? What if the flop better doesn't bet?

It just seems 'safer' to me to make my calls 1 street at a time and leave myself more flexable to the fast changing SS tables. This may be less of an issue at higher stakes when people play a little more predictable.

hustalasta

11-18-2004, 05:21 PM

I have 1 problem with using effective odds. You never really know what is going to happen on the turn.

You never really know what card is going to come on the turn, but you are making a prediction on how often a good card will come. How often will the table you are at make an effective odds call profitable? What if everyone checks through on the turn (have you never seen this happen on a low limit table?). If something happens outside of your effective odds calculation then you need to re-evaluate.

Mangatang

11-18-2004, 05:28 PM

Hey guys. I've been out of town on business for a few days and just got back to read all the responses.

Grail, you are correct when you say that it seems "safer" to use the odds of the next card. Actually, to be even more correct, you should say that it is the more conservative approach. Yes, you may miss out on a few slightly +EV draws, but you will never be calling incorrectly.

Another point that I think Cola is either misunderstanding or miscommunicating is what to do on the turn after you used effective odds to make your flop decision. On the turn, it's easy, you can use the 4:1 for the next card (plus whatever implied odds you think is suitable). If the current situation, with one card to come, tells you you should fold, then you SHOULD fold. It's not +EV to make an incorrect turn play, just to complete your flop assumption of seeing two cards. Once the turn card comes out, the past is the past. You can't go on just based off of the information that you had on the flop.

It's the reason you can't base a roulette bet off of the wheel's history. Yes it would be a very safe bet to say that the ball would land on red at least 1 out of the next 12 spins. But once the ball landed on black 11 times in a row, it is no more likely to land on red than black for the next roll.

It's the same thing in poker. On the turn, forget about any correct or wrong play you made to lead up to this point, just make the correct play now.

Dave H.

11-18-2004, 05:40 PM

Funny you should have that problem. In my last post back to AngryCola (see the "Confused about Odds in Holdem" thread in the Probability Forum), who gave me a ton of advice on this topic, I raised this same issue. Playing in microlimits as a beginner, loose players abound and the assumptions that one uses with effective odds can be shattered easily by the next street. For me, it was almost as if I couldn't grasp the concept because I had a mental block that said "Can't be very useful to me". However, now that I finally understand what AngryCola had to practically "beat" into me (lol), I can see that they are just another tool. As I believe hustalasta mentioned, you would have to reevaluate on the next street if your assumptions get shattered. But, as was pointed out to me, if the texture of the game is such that your assumptions turn out to be correct often enough to make effective odds a useful tool, then NOT using them could cause you to miss profitable opportunities in those cases where using effective odds required a smaller pot size to bet or call.

Hope this helps.

AngryCola

11-18-2004, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Another point that I think Cola is either misunderstanding or miscommunicating is what to do on the turn after you used effective odds to make your flop decision. On the turn, it's easy, you can use the 4:1 for the next card (plus whatever implied odds you think is suitable).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong, and I bet even Dave could explain why to you at this point. I'm not confused about anything related to this issue. Your effective odds deal with the turn AND river cards! Not individual streets, no missing on the turn recalculation is required, etc, etc, etc. I've said that so many times I feel like Im talking to a brick wall. Effective odds deal with bets made on 2 card combinations, there is no splitting up the combination. That's what makes it a combination.

Effective odds deal with 2 card combinations, not single street probabilities. You are misunderstanding what effective odds are. You DO NOT re-evalute your decision on the turn when using effective odds, PERIOD. Plus, if you used effective odds on the flop, and then immediate odds on the turn (repeatedly and on purpose), you would be really f'ed up.

Again, and this is the last time I'm going to say it:

When you are dealing with effective odds, you are betting on a 2 card combination. Missing on the turn has NO RELEVANCE. If it does to you, then you must go back to using immediate pot odds. In that case then you shouldn't have been using effective odds on the flop in the first place. My post "Some numbers to chew on" deals with all of this. Thank you and goodnight. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

EDIT-
[ QUOTE ]
It's the reason you can't base a roulette bet off of the wheel's history. Yes it would be a very safe bet to say that the ball would land on red at least 1 out of the next 12 spins. But once the ball landed on black 11 times in a row, it is no more likely to land on red than black for the next roll.

It's the same thing in poker. On the turn, forget about any correct or wrong play you made to lead up to this point, just make the correct play now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess we should inform Mr. Sklansky that section of TOP is no longer needed. Thank you, Mangatang, I'm sure David will appreciate you pointing out how the effective odds section is useless, and will cause the next revision of TOP to exclude any mention of effective odds. The free card play is useless, because people are somehow now balls on a roulette wheel whose actions are somehow now completely random events as opposed to playing stles, etc. Thanks again, Mangatang. I had no idea my opponents were mindless roulette balls.

Mangatang

11-18-2004, 06:47 PM

Now I know for sure that you are misunderstanding not only odds in general, but game theory too. You've got to understand that once you're at the turn, what you did before makes absolutely no difference. You don't continue on your draw, if you don't currently have the odds to do so, just to make your flop assumption correct.

Think about this.

I fully understand effective odds. I know that they are used on the flop when you have two cards to come, but that's the final place you use them. Once you get to the turn, there's only one card to come, so you need to be getting 4:1 for flush draw, 5:1 for an open-ender, and 11:1 for a gutshot (plus what ever implied odds you can estimate).

Cola, from your logic, you would say that the 12th spin of a roulette wheel, after it hit 11 blacks in a row, would be 11:1 in favor of hitting red. When in fact, it's still 1:1.

Can someon else help me explain it to Cola?

AngryCola

11-18-2004, 06:52 PM

That is not the final place you use them. For the love of god, read the effective odds section of TOP. And reread my post as I do not think our opponents are roulette balls.

AngryCola

11-18-2004, 06:55 PM

"Figuring effective odds may sound complicated, but it is a simple matter of addition. You add all the calls you will have to make, assuming you play to the end, to determine the total amount you will lose if you don't make your hand. Then compare this figure to the total amount you should win if you do make the hand. This total is the money in the pot at the moment plus all future bets you can expect to win, excluding your own future bets. Thus, if there is $100 in the pot at the moment and three more $20 betting rounds, you are getting $160-to-$40. When you think your opponent won't call on the end if your card hits, your effective odds would be reduced to something like $140-$40. If, on early betting rounds, these odds are greater than your chances of making your hand, you are correct to see the hand through to the end. If they are not, you should fold."

-David Sklansky TOP

Also, Mangatang, read my post "some numbers to chew on" If you still don't understand, I can't help you. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

AngryCola

11-18-2004, 06:58 PM

You know what, I'm tired of explaining this concept about 2 card combinations and effective odds over and over, and being called clueless by someone that tells me I should be using 2:1 on the flop, and then 4:1 on the turn. How completely ridiculous that is, unless you are all-in. I understand what I'm talking about, now Dave understands it too. You want to question whether or not you should USE effective odds, thats fine by me. But dont get confused about what they are. I'm done with this thread, have fun kiddies, but understand that I have no doubts what the differences are between immediate pot odds and effective odds.

You must use one or the other. NOT BOTH. I'm done, and I'm out. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Mangatang

11-18-2004, 07:02 PM

Here's an example:

There are 2 limpers to you. You limp along with JTs on the button. The SB fold, and the BB checks.

The flop comes Q 9 2. You have an open-ender. It's checked to the second limper who bets. At that point you are getting 5:1 pot odds (which is good enough to draw one card in seach of your straight). But let's say you decide to calculate your effective odds. To do so, you need to estimate who you think will call this bet, and who will bet on the turn. Let's assume that you guess that only one of the two remaining players will call this flop bet, and you assume that the same guy will bet it on the turn. That means that you are getting 9:3 effective odds, or 3:1. Since 3:1 is greater than the 2.5:1 that you need to complete your straight with two cards to come. So you call.

And as expected, the BB fold, and the first limper calls the flop. The turn brings no help. But the actions goes different than anticipated. The first person bets, and the second person raises. At that very moment, you are getting 6.5:2, or slightly greater than 3:1.

At this point, you only have one card left to come. You know the odds of you hitting your straight are 5:1, so you correctly fold your hand.

It doesn't matter that your flop decision was using effective odds assuming that you would see 2 cards to come, you still should fold on the turn. Making a call on the turn when you clearly don't have the odds to do so, doesn't somehow make it correct because of your flop decision.

AngryCola

11-18-2004, 07:03 PM

Tell me I have no understanding of odds or probabilities one more time. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1270319&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

AngryCola

11-18-2004, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Making a call on the turn when you clearly don't have the odds to do so, doesn't somehow make it correct because of your flop decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I didn't know that. Gee, thanks. That was never the point. Again, you are arguing that you shouldn't be USING effective odds for the reasons you stated above, THATS FINE. I'm sorry, Mangatang, I've been talking about this issue for days, and I'm a little tired of discussing it. That is why I am getting frustrated with you. You are right, and at the same time you are wrong about me not understanding odds. I do understand them. Dave wanted to know what effective odds are. You told him you shouldn't bother with them. Again, this is a fair point. But don't lecture me about what effective odds are, because I know. Effective odds deal with 2 card combinations. "You are correct to see your hand through to the end" is a quote that comes to mind.

Think about it like this. If you were wrong about your effective odds estimation on the flop, then yes, you would have to change to immediate odds. IVE NEVER DISPUTED THIS. In fact I have told Dave as much in the probability forum. That was never the point!

If you estimate yoru effective odds correctly (as is easier to do than you apparently think), then there is no reason to re-evaluate your turn call. It's that simple. If you have MADE A MISTAKE, then yes you must re-evalute. But, only if you have made an error. Your comparison of poker opponents to roulette balls, again, leads me to believe that you would think the free card play is completely ridiculous. Why use it? You don't know for SURE your opponents will check to you.

Damn, I guess that's another section of TOP we need to inform Sklansky to leave out. I'm sorry Mangatang, I have been harsh with you, but I think it is a simple misunderstanding. Some of the things you are advocating I actually agree with.

But effective odds have NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING to do with missing on the turn. Again, your assertion that you should be using immediate pot odds is a valid point. I was just explaining what effective odds are. Not whether you should use them, but what they are. I have done that. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't insult my intelligence again. Goodbye, and have a nice day. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Mangatang

11-18-2004, 07:25 PM

Ok. It seems that we are arguing the same point. I thought in your earlier post that you advocated not considing at all what happened on the turn, and just calling no matter what, just because you used 2 cards to come in you flop effective odds calculation. But it seems that you were just saying that if the flop misses you, and all your pre-turn predictions remain the same (same amount of players and bets to you), then you still call the turn, which is correct. But, you would come to the same conclusion if you recalculated on the turn, using the odds of 1 card to come.

If you reread Dave's orinignal post in this thread, he was asking if you should use the odds of one or two cards to come when you use POT odds. That was the question I was answering. Dave did not ask about effective odds. I was just trying to give a simple answer that when using pot odds, you need to use 4:1 for a flush draw, not 2:1.

I agree, that I should have also included a reference to effective odds in my first explination, for completeness, but I didn't think that is what Dave was asking about.

AngryCola

11-18-2004, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, that I should have also included a reference to effective odds in my first explination, for completeness, but I didn't think that is what Dave was asking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad we could come to some common ground, as I have stated before, and will say again: I respect Mangatang's advice and almost everything he posts.

One thing:
Dave may not have been originally asking about effective odds, but he quickly became curious given our discussions. See the probability forum for details of this. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Maybe, I shouldn't have brought it up? Heh. Again, the whole reason I got involved in this topic is because you told him "No no no this is the only way". That kind of advice usually makes my blood boil. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Anyway, good to see the confusion got worked out. I really am out this time. /images/graemlins/spade.gif