PDA

View Full Version : please clarify Expected Odds vs Implied Odds


09-18-2001, 06:41 PM
Greetings poker geniuses, I have a question for you all.


I bought Theory of Poker a year ago when I was just starting out. I found a lot of it to be a bit overwhelming due to my inexperience. I've played quite a bit since then and decided to pick it back up and read it cover to cover again.


Here's my question: it seems that what David calls Expected Odds is what you would really like to know at any given moment at the table, but I see Implied Odds come up much more frequently in discussion. Why is that? Am I correct in understanding that the Implied Odds are just the Expected Odds assuming that you are only going to call *one* more bet, and fold if you don't catch a card that completes your hand (ie., "take one off"). Or am I misunderstanding something?


Thanks,

Lance

09-18-2001, 06:59 PM
I THINK, but may be wrong, that "implied odds" and "reverse implied odds" are what you expect to happen later in the hand. Pots odds are what's happened to date. Effective odds, I think, are your implied odds added to your pot odds.


The fundamental question when deciding to call with an inferior hand is whether one's effective odds are greater than one's odds against winning (not to be confused with ones odds against making one's hand).


- Louie

09-18-2001, 07:51 PM
I should have included this in the original post (2+2, please forgive my copyright infringement):


effective odds, page 53:

"add all the calls you will have to make, assuming you play to the end...Then compare this figure to...the money in the pot at the moment plus all future bets you can expect to win, excluding your own future bets."


implied odds, page 55:

"your implied odds are the ratio of your total expected win when your card hits to the present cost of calling a bet."


reverse implied odds, page 59:

there's no explicit expression of a formula here, but they sound like implied odds when you can't be sure that your opponent(s) will call future bets.


I didn't include the pot odds passage because I think we all can to calculate those.


I think the more I read it, the more I think implied odds are just expected odds if you only plan to call one more bet instead of to the end????


Lance

09-19-2001, 12:36 PM
So, who are your going to liscen to: me or Sklansky?


"Reverse implied odds" is the money you can expect to give away once you make your hand.


Yes, it does appear you interpreted it correctly. If it is how you say, then there is no way of calculating when you may or may not continue. So you may take one card with your gut-draw (and calculate implied odds) but what if you snag a pair and now may or may not get to the river? Neither of Sklansky's definitions seem to apply.


I don't really like Sklansky's definitions; I wonder if he would change them if he could.


I prefer: "Implied Odds" to represent expected future bets, and can be either "good" (flush draw or "brave" hand) or "bad" (obviously vulnerable made hand or "scared" hand); and "effective odds" to be your pot odds plus your implied odds.


- Louie

09-19-2001, 08:26 PM
Your definition makes more sense, which is probably why I had to ask the question about D.S.'s definition in the first place. Put me on the order list for and advance copy of YOUR book.

09-21-2001, 09:42 PM
Effective odds relates to "ALL THE CALLS you have to make"


Whereas, implied odds relates to "calling A bet"


Implied odds help you determine whether or not "take one off", effective odds, whether to "take two off".


KJS