A question about a comment Daliman made

[Harmonica]

Hi

I was wondering whether anyone could explain point 2 for me, I am I right in thinking that the only way to get 2-1 pot odds is if you get as far as seeing the flop, because you wouldn't be able to get those odds preflop would you.

Thanks in advance


I'll give you your first 2, which you likely already know;

#1 Play ultra tight first 2 levels.

#2 Call almost any raise from a single player allin giving you 2-1 pot odds if less than 1/3rd of your stack with any 2 cards.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering whether anyone could explain point 2 for me, I am I right in thinking that the only way to get 2-1 pot odds is if you get as far as seeing the flop, because you wouldn't be able to get those odds preflop would you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. Here's a hypothetical preflop example.

You're on the bubble in a Stars tournament at the 200-400/25 level. You're in the big blind. You have an average stack (~3000), UTG and the SB have 4500 chips each, and the button has the other 1500 chips.

Antes total 100, the SB is 200, and you post your 400.

UTG folds, the button pushes all-in for 1500, and it's up to you in the big blind.

Total in the pot now = 1500 + 400 + 200 + 4(25) = 2200. It's 1100 to you to call.

The pot is laying you exactly 2:1 preflop.

[se2schul]

You *can* get those odds preflop, like when someone is about to blind out and has mismanaged their stack.

Take this example:
3 people left.
Blinds 200/400
X Button (T5000)
Y SB (T500)
Hero BB (T2500)
Blinds are posted (T600)
X folds
Y goes All-In
The pot is now T1100 and Hero only has to call T300.
That is better than 2:1 preflop.

ss

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi

I was wondering whether anyone could explain point 2 for me, I am I right in thinking that the only way to get 2-1 pot odds is if you get as far as seeing the flop, because you wouldn't be able to get those odds preflop would you.

Thanks in advance


I'll give you your first 2, which you likely already know;

#1 Play ultra tight first 2 levels.

#2 Call almost any raise from a single player allin giving you 2-1 pot odds if less than 1/3rd of your stack with any 2 cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a stack of 1000.

Player to your right bets 100. You call. Next play pushes for 200. Player to your right calls. There's now 500 chips in the pot, giving you 5-1 on your money, for 1/9 of your stack.

Perhaps this isn't the typical situation, or (hopeufully not) flat out wrong. Comments from those more experienced?

[Daliman]

As shown, there are several ways this can happen. Watch for them and learn to recognize pot odds at all times, especially when comleting preflop action.

[se2schul]

Daliman,

What's the reasonning for calling a single all-in if you are getting better than 2:1 from the pot. Isn't this only a good bet if your opponent will be pushing with random cards? In reality, I think he'd likely be pushing with better than random cards, and may need better pot odds to call than that.

Thanks,
ss

[sofere]

The problem with this is that you have to play after the flop, so your implied odds are probably not good. If the player pushed all-in for 200 and it was folded to you, and you were last to act, you should call with any two. If the caller before you was all in with his call as well, then you should call with any 2.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is that you have to play after the flop, so your implied odds are probably not good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand why you don't play after the flop with any two cards, but isn't it fair to assume that the inital raiser pushed with a non-random hand. Assume that he chose decent cards to push with, then you are probably behind when you call with any 2. So, why is it that 2:1 pot odds is enough to compensate for this? Sorry if I'm belabouring the point, I just don't understand yet.

ss

[etgryphon]

I think the answer to this is that if you have live cards

i.e. cards that are not in your opponents hand
Opponent: K J
You: 7 5

On average your opponent is only going to win 66% vs. Your 33%. So the 1:2 pot odds make this a winning play. So when you only putting less than 1/3 of your stack in over time you will be able to come out like a bandit, especially in a SnG when a player get eliminated.

Get a poker calculator and run a few hands to see what happens. You won't be nearly as dominated as you might think.

-Gryph

[sofere]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the reasonning for calling a single all-in if you are getting better than 2:1 from the pot. Isn't this only a good bet if your opponent will be pushing with random cards? In reality, I think he'd likely be pushing with better than random cards, and may need better pot odds to call than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because, if i'm not mistaken, so long as your cards are live (i.e. not dominated), then you will never be worse than a 2:1 dog (23o vs AKs is a 2:1 dog). Also, if this situation arises, it means that the guy who pushed is extremely short stacked, and will likely be pushing almost any two.

[adanthar]

There are some exceptions to this rule and 2:1 isn't quite right - ie, if a tight player pushes in MP, you have to give him credit for *something*, which will often be a pair. If you have a real 42o-ish dog you should probably fold unless you're getting, say, 2.3 or higher.

But it's always close, and it's a nitpick more than a real criticism. If you just follow that guideline you won't be wrong *that* often.

[lacky]

in this situation I think you are giving his push too much credit. to get to the 2:1 situation MP is pushing very shortstacked. It's always better to push with some chance of winning the blinds that to be blinded, so I would push lots of different hands here.

Steve

[Michael C.]

As someone said, there are exceptions, which I'm sure Daliman understood since he was just generalizing. If you have 2-4 vs. an MP who is three turns away from being blinded off, you wouldn't take exactly 2-1 odds, since at BEST you are a 2-1 underdog, and if he has a pair higher than 5 or an ace with one of your cards you are a huge dog. And a lot of the hands an MP pushes with in that situation are small pairs. But what does a LOT mean? What percentage of the time do you think an MP actually has a PP? I'm not talking the pure math only since this is a selective situation where the MP has chosen to play this hand as opposed to waiting for one of the next three. What effective odds would you need in this situation? Thanks.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]

Get a poker calculator and run a few hands to see what happens. You won't be nearly as dominated as you might think.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now it makes sense. At a glance, this rule seemed counter intuitive to me, but as others have pointed out, I'll likeley be a 2:1 dog.

Also, many of the hands I ran in the calculator showed that I was better than a 2:1 dog, making this an insta-call.

Thanks,
Steve