counting early round bets

[SeattleJake]

This may be common knowledge, but it seems to contradict what I usually hear. The consensus would be that once money is in the pot, it is no longer yours and should be ignored. I cannot see how future bets should not consider this money, but with the possible exception of being "pot committed", it is rarely encouraged.

On an early round bet you may be getting proper odds to call, but on a later bet that early bet is still not resolved. If you were getting 2:1 pot odds on your pre-flop bet, which you have a 33% chance of winning, then it's a good bet. Unless that bet is resolved there and then, you must carry it through to the next round.

Let's say your chances increase to 50% post-flop – it would be a mistake to bet the pot here, even though it would seem you are getting 1:1 for your money! If both of your opponents fold, you have risked 4 bets to win 2. You should only make a single bet, and if either or both of your opponents call, then they are making the mistake.

Now let's say your chances decreased to 25% post-flop – it would be a mistake to lead out betting, even if you think both of your opponents will call! You would be risking 2 bets to win 4. If your opponents bet into you though, it would be correct to call rather than fold, because now you'd be getting 5:1 on your new bet – the original bet is lost to you.

Eh?

[parachute]

[ QUOTE ]
This may be common knowledge, but it seems to contradict what I usually hear. The consensus would be that once money is in the pot, it is no longer yours and should be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct. (Well, the money itself shouldn't be ignored, but the fact that you put it in there should be.)

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot see how future bets should not consider this money, but with the possible exception of being "pot committed", it is rarely encouraged.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Pot committed" doesn't mean "I have put so much money in this pot that I have to try to win it back"; it means "there is so much money in this pot, creating such good pot odds, that I have to call".

It is perfectly fine, and proper, to consider the money you may be putting in the pot in the future when deciding whether to put money in the pot now. That's what the concept of implied odds is all about. But it is never correct to consider the money you have put in the put in the past as being any different from the money others have put in the pot.

Here's a thought experiment. You're walking past a table at which the flop has just been dealt, when a player keels over and dies. "Here," someone says, "take over his hand." You sit down and pick up his cards. Do you care how much money he put in the pot before you sat down? If so, why? If not, why would he have cared if you don't?

It is true that having put more or less money in the put has other implications. For a given pot size, if you put in less money it probably means that there are now more players, so your pot odds later on are likely to be better. Or if you put in more money it might be because you've raised in the past, representing strength, so that bluffing might have a better chance of succeeding. But from a mathematical point of view, that money in the pot is just money. It doesn't matter where it came from.

[SeattleJake]

I like the mental exercise, and I see the point, but my confusion still comes from wondering what happens to that original bet. If I cared enough to make the bet in the first place, and it never got resolved, why am I not supposed to care about it later?

First round I limp in and am met with 3 opponents, for a 1:3 bet. Second round I make a pot-sized bet and am called by 2 opponents, for a 1:3 bet. But part of the money I'm now planning on winning, are the bets from the first round. if I completely ignore that fact, than it doesn't even matter what I bet the first round, as long as I'm now getting pot odds on this bet. And in fact, I could have bet so much the first round, that now I'm getting the correct odds no matter what. But that doesn't make a lot of sense, since I would just be trying to win my own money back.

My other two options are A) consider each round of betting as completely separate, and ignore what's previously been put in the pot, or B) consider each round of betting as a chance to modify your total bet for the hand. I'd guess that these would end up being equivalent through Baye's Theorem. In either event though, it would seem that I should be concerned with the previous bets all along the way.

Am I still missing something?

[parachute]

It's a little hard for me to figure exactly where you're coming from, but here are two things that you may not be getting:

1) Of course it matters how much money has been previously put in the pot. That's what you're trying to win, after all. It just doesn't matter how much of it came from you and how much came from other people.

2) When you are considering your action for this round, you do want to think about future rounds as well. But you don't need to think about former rounds except for how much total money got put in the put as a result of them (and of course for trying to figure out what hands people have).

I also think you are confusing pot odds and pot equity. There's no such thing as "getting pot odds on this bet." Pot odds are used when deciding whether to call vs fold. Pot equity is used when deciding whether bet vs check (or raise vs call). Pot odds depend on the amount of money in the pot, pot equity depends on how good your hand is compared to your opponents' probable holdings.

[SeattleJake]

This is a little bit of a rambling, but I hope people can work through it, because it's starting to make more sense to me:

If you could look into the future and see the flop, you would bet according to how your hand is going to look, not how it looks now. So say you know you're going to flop a hand that has a 1:4 chance of winning. If you're getting 1:4 pot-odds now, then it would be correct to call. After the flop, it would seem that you're getting 1:5 pot-odds to bet. But you'd now be wagering a 2nd bet to win 4 for the entire hand. Your original bet has only given you artificial pot odds, and unless you also get 4 callers to this bet, you are already suffering from reverse implied odds. Either this bet or the original bet must be a mistake. They cannot both be correct, as your total pot equity for the hand does not match your expected win rate. If along with knowing the flop, you also knew that you were not going to get as many callers the second round, you wouldn't have called the first bet.

It may be incorrect to fold here, but by not improving and not getting the same number of callers this round as the last, you have lost money on this hand. If you improve from round to round, then you need fewer callers, but if you worsen, then you will always lose money on the hand. If you improve on the next round, then you must consider the previous round, otherwise you lose that original bet. So in essence, what you are really doing on every round, is betting that you will improve on the next round. If you do not improve, then that bet is lost. If you do improve though, you cannot yet claim that bet, because you actually have to win the hand as well. In this way, both the original bet and any new bet are connected. If you ignore the connection, then you are losing money.

[Doctor Jay]

[ QUOTE ]

They cannot both be correct, as your total pot equity for the hand does not match your expected win rate. [ QUOTE ]


If people fold, your pot equity changes.

Reading your thinking is making my head hurt, and is clearly wrong. It's great that your're thinking through this, and I know some great teacher will come clear this up for you. However, I must admit I am not that great at explaining things in a simple way. I'll only add this...decisions on each street in poker are independent from previous streets when it comes to what you bet. That doesn't mean that information from previous rounds is not important. Also, I'm not sure you understand the difference between pot equity and pot odds, but maybe I'm wrong. You're still using "pot odds" in this example to decide if you should bet which makes no sense. Again, I'm no good at explaining things, but I want to encourage you to continue to explore this until it makes sense or your game will suffer big time.

Good Luck

[StableHand]

Your thinking and writing is intriguing. I'm not sure I understand what you are aiming at, I'm not sure I'll be of any help clearing things up for you, but I'll try approaching one point where it seems you have strayed.

First off, this seems to be an issue that is governing all of your subsequent thinking:
[ QUOTE ]
If I cared enough to make the bet in the first place, and it never got resolved,

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you mean.

[ QUOTE ]
First round I limp in and am met with 3 opponents, for a 1:3 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Preflop you limp. You get one caller, SB completes, and BB forfeits his option to raise. Right? No-one is BETTING here, you are all CALLING.

[ QUOTE ]
Second round I make a pot-sized bet and am called by 2 opponents, for a 1:3 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

2) Now you make a pot-sized bet, because
a) you want to take the pot away right then and there,
b) you want to have the villains to put more money in the pot that you plan on taking away later, and/or
c) you want to charge the villains for their draws (i.e. ruin their odds for chasing their draws).

The first opponent CALLS your bet, and is getting pot odds of 2:1
The second opponent CALLS your bet, and is getting pot odds of 3:1.

In none of these scenarios do YOU need to consider "pot-odds". The CALLERS however should consider it carefully.



[ QUOTE ]
But part of the money I'm now planning on winning, are the bets from the first round. if I completely ignore that fact, than it doesn't even matter what I bet the first round, as long as I'm now getting pot odds on this bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

3) You are planning to win the WHOLE pot, which now happens to consist of 7 BB. WHERE the money came from, or HOW it got there has no relevance; in parts or in whole.

4) Correct. In this regard it doesn't matter how much money you put in the pot in the first round.

5) Again, you DO NOT calculate pot odds for making a BET.


[ QUOTE ]
And in fact, I could have bet so much the first round, that now I'm getting the correct odds no matter what. But that doesn't make a lot of sense, since I would just be trying to win my own money back.

[/ QUOTE ]

6) Again, you DIDN'T BET the first round, you CALLED (as did everyone else, except the big blind).

7) When acting on the second round of betting, you are first to act (after SB and BB presumably checked), your action should be based on one of the three scenarios under point 2), NOT "pot-odds.

8) The money once was yours. It no longer is. At the moment it is the "pot's". In a minute it will belong to whoever wins it.

9) The only time you need to consider pot-odds in this scenario is if any of the players that act before you BET, or if your bet is re-raised, and you need to calculate whether or not the pot is laying you correct odds to CALL.

10) Apart from 9) the only time you will have "correct odds no matter what", is when you go to showdown for free.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
6) Again, you DIDN'T BET the first round, you CALLED (as did everyone else, except the big blind).

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, when voluntarily putting money in the pot, whether calling or betting(meaning forcing the action) you are placing a bet. You're not calling for free.

b

[SeattleJake]

I think I was finally able to wrap my head around this, after going over effective odds in TOP again.

I was assuming that the mistake in my example was taking place in the second round of betting, but in reality it was during the first round. I was looking only at the pot odds and not the effective odds.

If I'm a 4:1 underdog on an early round of betting, I need pot-odds of at least 5:1 to call (NL). In this way I will be getting correct pot-odds on the last round of betting, no matter when it ends.

Example, I am a 3:1 underdog...
I call and get 3:1 pot odds pre-flop.
I bet pot post-flop and get 3 callers.
I bet pot on the turn and get 3 callers again.

It would seem like I am getting correct odds all along the way, but when all is said and done, I have only gotten 43:21 pot odds for the entire hand -- just over 2:1. Before the turn I was getting 11:5 pot odds total -- also just over 2:1. Looking at this with various other starting numbers indicates that x+1:1 pot-odds are what you're looking for when you have an x:1 chance in NL.

Of course this is oversimplified, ignoring folds and raises, but I think it makes more sense now.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say your chances increase to 50% post-flop – it would be a mistake to bet the pot here, even though it would seem you are getting 1:1 for your money! If both of your opponents fold, you have risked 4 bets to win 2. You should only make a single bet, and if either or both of your opponents call, then they are making the mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's flawed, because any time you have 50%+ equity, you're not betting to win what's in the pot, you're value betting. Except in the obvious heads-up case, you've got a commanding lead in the pot.

[SeattleJake]

I think I do understand this now. Even though you may never get the correct odds on subsequent rounds, you still bet for value to bring the odds closer.

It's like taking the odds on the line bet in craps -- the line doesn't give you correct odds, but you do get correct odds on the odds-bet you can place after the point has been established.

[pergesu]

If you have 50% equity, it's not about having correct odds. In fact, there's no possible way to lose money in the long run if you don't factor in rake.

If you've got 50%, and you're heads up, then you're 1-1 to win. In the long run, you break dead even. If there was one other preflop caller, then your EV is .5 SB per hand, because you're getting 1-1 on your money + 1 other bet, which you figure to win half the time. If you have two opponents that will both call, you're getting 2-1 on an even money shot.

When you're at 50%+ equity, you don't consider odds, you consider how many bets you can get into the pot.