Pot odds after a raise behind me...

[nmadd]

I'm a beginning player with a question about what is surely an easy concept regarding getting raised after I have bet during a round.

I understand this: Once I put money into the pot, it is not mine anymore. Think about the total size of the pot and not how much I've already put in there. This is easy, I get it.

Now the question: I bet on the flop, but it gets raised behind me and is one more bet back to me.
The first bet that I put in is in the pot and is no longer mine, right?
So, I use just one bet (the raise back to me) to calculate my pot odds? Or do I use all the bets that I need to put in during one round to calculate my odds?

I ask this because I read somewhere about making sure you close the betting with overcards (for example) so it doesn't get raised behind you and "screw up your pot odds" (or something to that effect). But isn't my first bet already in the pot?

Did I explain my question alright? Can someone help me understand this simple concept?

Thanks /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]

So, I use just one bet (the raise back to me) to calculate my pot odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. But you may adjust your total odds beforehand and give yourself less if you're pretty sure someone behind you will raise.

[sunek]

Hi
This posting discusses something similar:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1865742&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1
/sunek

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

What you need to address is the probability of the pot being raised behind you *before* you put the first bet in on the flop.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Now the question: I bet on the flop, but it gets raised behind me and is one more bet back to me.
The first bet that I put in is in the pot and is no longer mine, right?
So, I use just one bet (the raise back to me) to calculate my pot odds? Or do I use all the bets that I need to put in during one round to calculate my odds?


[/ QUOTE ]

As Kurn points out, you need to estimate the chances of it being raised behind you before you make your first call/bet. If there's been a lot of raising from those players, you need to consider that you'll be putting in two bets to see the next street. This is true in any situation, before or after the flop.

Before the flop may be even more important because you might try to limp in middle position with some really marginal stuff that wants to see a cheap flop and find yourself facing another bet because you didn't notice the game was aggressive and the players after you raised quite a bit.

Since you have one bet in and it's been raised, you're counting your bet as part of the pot when deciding to call the raise. Preflop it's almost always* right to call one bet back to you if you can close the action. It's usually right to call the turn bet also, but your pot odds and implied odds will tell you for sure.

Regards,

T

*I say "almost always" but I can't think of a situation where you wouldn't call a single bet. Perhaps there is one. Can any think of one?

[nmadd]

Thanks for the responses.

So, I should decide how likely a raise is behind before I bet. However, if someone raises unsuspectedly behind me, use just the single bet to calculate my odds. Thanks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[AngryCola]

Well, I'm about to show my ignorance here, but oh well.
One thing about pot odds has always confused me, and it's about time I figured it out.

Now, according to this thread, one should count their initial bet as part of the pot if it gets raised after they have put in their money. I usually hear more about this in regards to NL rather than limit, but I don't see why it should be any different.

Anyway, this seems to go against one quote from Sklansky's TOP that has always made my head fuzzy.

"If a player ahead of you bets and there is a possible raise to your left, you must be cognizant of the fact that that possibility cuts down on your odds. If, for example, there is a $100 pot and the bet is $20, you appear to be getting 6-to-1 odds ($120 to $20). However, when there is a raiser behind you and the original better calls, you are really getting only 4 1/2-to-1 if you call the raise. Although the pot has grown to $180, you must put in a total of $40. If the original bettor reraises, your odds drop to 3 2/3-to-1. The pot grows to $220 (assuming the opponent behind you calls the reraise), but you have to put in $60."


This is always how I have played it, and it's never been much of an issue to me as I usually play limit. But I'm trying to get better at my NL game, and this just confuses me. I also hear 'ol Sexton on the WPT quoting pot odds as if the players original bet before the raise was immediately counted towards the pot.


Now you guys see why I'm just a part-time player at low limits. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this for me. Thanks!

[nmadd]

[ QUOTE ]

"If a player ahead of you bets and there is a possible raise to your left, you must be cognizant of the fact that that possibility cuts down on your odds. If, for example, there is a $100 pot and the bet is $20, you appear to be getting 6-to-1 odds ($120 to $20). However, when there is a raiser behind you and the original better calls, you are really getting only 4 1/2-to-1 if you call the raise. Although the pot has grown to $180, you must put in a total of $40. If the original bettor reraises, your odds drop to 3 2/3-to-1. The pot grows to $220 (assuming the opponent behind you calls the reraise), but you have to put in $60."

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. Call me crazy but I would lean toward believing TOP.
Would this mean that I should use all of my bets during a certain round to calculate my pot odds?

If I bet and get raised, I should use both bets to calculate my odds, possibly dumping the first bet if I do not get the correct odds?

Who is going to clear this up for this newbie? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Goodnews]

I think what TOP is saying, that you have to be aware of an in coming raise from the left and put that into your pot odds.

You are BB with ATs and there is are a caller UTG and a riase on the button. And SB and you call.

For the sake of simplicity, the pot is now at 8 SB. and flops you a flush draw with some face cards. A bet is made by the small blind, and you have 9:1 pot odds on a 3:1 draw, however, it is likely that the preflop bettor will raise and you get a read on the UTG that he will raise, this brings your pot odds to 11:2 or 5.5:1. All assuming that the SB folds.

Now, you for some magical reason know that the preflop raiser will 3-bet, you are getting 14:3 or 4.3:1. Therefore it is a profitable call.

You can only take into calculation of pots you know will be raised, if the pot was raised and you didn't take it into your calculation, the money you originally called with is part of the pot and is no longer yours, therefore, in the situation above, after the 3-bet, your pot odds are 14:2 or 7:1.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, in the situation above, after the 3-bet, your pot odds are 14:2 or 7:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what it says.

TOP:
[ QUOTE ]
If the original bettor reraises, your odds drop to 3 2/3-to-1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still confused.
It can't be both.

Are your inital bets counted or not?

EDIT-
Again, this quote would seem to suggest that they are not.
[ QUOTE ]
However, when there is a raiser behind you and the original better calls, you are really getting only 4 1/2-to-1 if you call the raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[RacersEdge]

I don't see this as a contradiction. I'll try to explain if someone hasn't already later, but have to run now.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as a contradiction. I'll try to explain if someone hasn't already later, but have to run now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what a very informative and useful post.

Contradiction to what? Itself? To the other posters?

Again, you can't get around the fact that TOP is suggesting that your original bets don't count towards the pot.

EDIT-

I understand what Kurn and Goodnews are saying about estimating the chances of a raise before you put in your initial bet. But what is the ultimate true math here? Again, TOP suggests that your inital bets ultimately aren't part of the pot.

TOP (again):
[ QUOTE ]
However, when there is a raiser behind you and the original better calls, you are really getting only 4 1/2-to-1 if you call the raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[nmadd]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as a contradiction. I'll try to explain if someone hasn't already later, but have to run now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying in the example above that we are now getting 7-1 and TOP says we are getting 3 2/3-1. And that is not a "contradiction"? Now I have no idea. At least a 3000+ poster is confused with me. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Who is going to help?

[AngryCola]

I feel like I'm missing something really simple here, and know that as soon as someone explains it to me my first thought will be, "Ah! Of course! How silly of me."

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm about to show my ignorance here, but oh well.
One thing about pot odds has always confused me, and it's about time I figured it out.


[/ QUOTE ]

You and me both. This is a passage from TOP I've always found impossible to really comprehend. I figured as I went along, I'd figure it out. So far that hasn't worked out for me.

At the risk of showing MY ignorance, I'll take a crack. I think Sklansky is describing the thought pattern that should be used by a player who is contemplating calling the initial $20 bet. He seems to be going through the thought processes that should be used by a player as they think about what a player behind them might do.

The thing that is confusing to me is the last part where he says you have to call $60. If you've gotten to the point where there's a raise behind you and a reraise by the early player, you'll be putting in $40 to call the two raises cold not $60 - that original $20 is in the pot. You'd use the $60 figure to compute your equity, but not the pot odds, as far as I can tell.

He also doesn't continue the example to point out that the original raise will probably cap it. In this sandwich, you're the meat.

That's all I got.

T

[Dave H.]

[ QUOTE ]
"If a player ahead of you bets and there is a possible raise to your left, you must be cognizant of the fact that that possibility cuts down on your odds. If, for example, there is a $100 pot and the bet is $20, you appear to be getting 6-to-1 odds ($120 to $20). However, when there is a raiser behind you and the original better calls, you are really getting only 4 1/2-to-1 if you call the raise. Although the pot has grown to $180, you must put in a total of $40. If the original bettor reraises, your odds drop to 3 2/3-to-1. The pot grows to $220 (assuming the opponent behind you calls the reraise), but you have to put in $60."


[/ QUOTE ]

Howdy AC...

If you absolutely knew or suspected that you knew what would happen prior to your putting in your $20 bet in the example above, i.e. that someone to your left would raise and the original better would call, then YES, you could count on having to contribute $40 to a $180 pot and you could then consider your pot odds to be $180:$40 or 4.5 to 1.

By the same token, If your reads were so good that you could (prior to contributing anything to the pot) predict that, not only would the person to your left raise, but that the original better would reraise and be called by the raiser on your left, then you would know POSITIVELY that you would be contributing $60 to a $220 pot for 3 2/3:1 pot odds.

Those are pretty big "IFs". But, IF you are certain, then it can't be argued that those are, in fact, your pot odds, i.e. 4.5:1 or 3 2/3:1 depending on what you know will happen.

But, if you DON'T know, then you are making independent decisions with each contribution. So, the first contribution will be based on a $20 contribution to a $120 pot for 6:1 odds. Now, if person on your left raises and is called, the pot is $120 + your $20 + raiser's $40 + original better's $20 call = $200 and your pot odds to call at that time are $200 : $20 or 10:1 and the first bet that you put in a moment ago is considered gone (i.e. part of the pot).

This is an oddity because, IF YOU KNEW FOR CERTAIN what would happen, your pot odds would actually be greatly reduced. However, if your reads are NOT that good (which they probably are not), then when you are deciding to call the raise, your pot odds have actually gotten much better, i.e. 10:1, whereas if you KNEW what was going to happen, you may never have called the first bet.

This isn't a whole lot different than the following:

There is $20 in a pot and it's a $5 bet to you. You have pot odds of $25:$5 or 5:1 and you would probably fold with many hands. Now what if you KNEW that 7 others behind you would call the $5 bet and that there would be no raises and I mean KNEW that positively. In that case, you would be risking $5 for $60 and many hands would be playable. Again, a pretty big IF...

[AngryCola]

Hi Dave,

I get that. But you're missing the point of my question. I understand all about estimating the chances of a raise behind me and such, but this quote is not saying that. It is saying your original bet does not count towards the pot once it gets back to you. I've tried to read it any number of ways, but there is no getting around what it is saying.

I'm going to quote this one more time.

[ QUOTE ]
However, when there is a raiser behind you and the original better calls, you are really getting only 4 1/2-to-1 if you call the raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That implies that the true math of the situation is dictated by all the bets you have commited to the pot previously in the round. As in, they don't count as part of the pot until the next round of betting.

I still think I'm missing something, but you guys haven't really addressed this specific issue yet.

If it's just a matter of Sklansky explaining something in a slightly off way, I can buy that. But so far nobody has really shown me why this statement is not implying that your orginial bet is not part of the pot.

Perhaps I am nitpicking too much here? I can completely understand how it applies in the examples provided by Dave and others. But I don't understand how that quote is not saying your initial bet is not part of the pot.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
You'd use the $60 figure to compute your equity, but not the pot odds, as far as I can tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an answer that finally makes some sense to me.
I wonder if Mr. Sklansky was just explaining the thought process in a slightly weird, or dare I say, incorrect way.

If that's the case, I feel a lot better.
Because I've never been able to figure that quote out.

[Dave H.]

AC, I think I see the confusion.

[ QUOTE ]
"If a player ahead of you bets and there is a possible raise to your left, you must be cognizant of the fact that that possibility cuts down on your odds. If, for example, there is a $100 pot and the bet is $20, you appear to be getting 6-to-1 odds ($120 to $20). However, when there is a raiser behind you and the original better calls, you are really getting only 4 1/2-to-1 if you call the raise. Although the pot has grown to $180, you must put in a total of $40. If the original bettor reraises, your odds drop to 3 2/3-to-1. The pot grows to $220 (assuming the opponent behind you calls the reraise), but you have to put in $60."


[/ QUOTE ]

The above is the original quote. Please allow me reword it slightly because I believe that is the problem. Here goes (and I will try hard not to change much here).

If a player ahead of you bets and there is a possible raise to your left, you must be cognizant of the fact that that possibility cuts down on your odds. If, for example, there is a $100 pot and the bet is $20, you appear to be getting 6-to-1 odds ($120 to $20). However IF YOU KNEW THAT THERE WAS a raiser behind you and that the original better WOULD call, THEN YOU ARE REALLY GETTING ONLY 4 1/2-to-1 if YOU WILL BE CALLING THAT RAISE. Althought the pot has grown to $180, you WOULD BE PUTTING in a total of $40. IF YOU KNEW THAT THE original bettor WOULD reraise AND YOU WOULD BE CALLING, your odds drop to 3 2/3-to-1. The pot WOULD grow to $220 (assuming the opponent behind you WOULD call the reraise), but you WOULD have to put in $60.

Did that do it?

[Dave H.]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's just a matter of Sklansky explaining something in a slightly off way, I can buy that. But so far nobody has really shown me why this statement is not implying that your orginial bet is not part of the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

IT IS, in fact, implying that your original bet is NOT a part of the pot, because the whole statement IMPLIES that you KNOW POSITIVELY what will happen during that betting round. That is, you KNOW that you will have to put in a $40 total contribution for a $180 pot (NONE OF YOUR $ IS IN THAT POT YET) or that you KNOW you will have to put in $60 for a $220 pot (AGAIN, NONE OF YOUR $ IS IN THAT POT YET).

[SheridanCat]

Thanks for weighing in, Dave. But I have a related question.

[ QUOTE ]
IS IN THAT POT YET) or that you KNOW you will have to put in $60 for a $220 pot (AGAIN, NONE OF YOUR $ IS IN THAT POT YET).

[/ QUOTE ]

But the thing here is. At no time will I need to put in $60 in one pop. I'll be putting in $20 and then $40 but at no time do I have to think about all that combined. To say that I'll put in $40 to make a pot of $220 is correct.

I understand that DS is being pretty theoretical here, but I think his wording is just a mistake. There, I said it. I know S&M hide behind that "we're not English teachers" disclaimer, but in this case it really undermines the example, I think.

Regards,

T

[Dave H.]

[ QUOTE ]
But the thing here is. At no time will I need to put in $60 in one pop. I'll be putting in $20 and then $40 but at no time do I have to think about all that combined. To say that I'll put in $40 to make a pot of $220 is correct.

I understand that DS is being pretty theoretical here, but I think his wording is just a mistake. There, I said it. I know S&M hide behind that "we're not English teachers" disclaimer, but in this case it really undermines the example, I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

True enough, you do NOT have to put it $60 at a pop. But he's just giving us something to consider. He's saying that IF YOU KNEW YOU WOULD, IN FACT, HAVE TO PUT IN $60 on this round of betting, AND YOU KNEW THAT THE POT SIZE WOULD BE $220 at the end of this round of betting, would you ever contribute the first $20 to begin with? If you KNEW ALL THAT, then you would also know that your pot odds would be 3 2/3 : 1 and you probably would NOT put that initial $20 in. As I said in my first response, those are a lot of IFs, but that is definitely the point he is making.

But I absolutely agree that the wording should have been loaded with subjunctives (WOULD, COULD, etc.)

Dave H.

[SheridanCat]

Thanks, Dave. This helps.

Regards,

T

[nmadd]

Okay, so as for my original question:
The raise back to me should be counted as just one bet for pot odds purposes, UNLESS I was ABSOLUTELY sure that it was going to be raised behind me. In that case I should use the total of the bets that I would have to put in the pot to determine my odds.

1)If that is the case: If I was so sure that it was going to be raised behind me and mess up my odds, why would I bet in the first place? Why would we even need to be discussing this?

2) If this is the correct answer: How "SURE" do I have to be to include a raise behind me in my pot odds calculations?

I may be even more confused now than when I first asked the question. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

edit: I'm a slow typer. Two posts above me helped me out a little bit.

[SeeWillie]

In short, you should certainly count the money you have already contributed to the pot when deciding whether to call a raise or 3-bet.

It is obvious that your decision to call the initial bet may have been correct given your pot odds at the time, without considering the chance of being raised. And your decision to call the 3-bet is also correct by that point. But I think the point of the passage is that, on the whole, by not anticipating the raise and/or 3bet, you made a bad initial call.

I think the reason that Sklansky does not count the money already in the pot is because he is looking back at the whole round to evaluate the play. If you look back at the whole round of betting in the 3-bet example, by the end you have put in $60 toward a pot of $220 for 3 2/3 to 1 pot odds. If you have 8 outs, the round went poorly for you. Looking back, you put in $60 to a $220 pot for 3 2/3 to 1 pot odds, and only hit your draw 1 time in 4.75. In evaluating the whole round to see how it went, you don't count the money you put in.

I think the point of the passage is to anticipate raises when appropriate, and avoid putting yourself in a position where the whole round is bad for you, even though each individual call seemed correct. You can only do this by looking back at the whole round of betting once all bets are in. To evaluate what happened on the entire round, you do not count any of "your" calls toward the pot.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that DS is being pretty theoretical here, but I think his wording is just a mistake. There, I said it. I know S&M hide behind that "we're not English teachers" disclaimer, but in this case it really undermines the example, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Judging from this discussion, I think that's the case.

I don't feel bad about not understanding it now, as I was just reading it more literally than it was intended. But I still think it should have been written in a much clearer way.

I'm still glad I asked this question, as it's proving to be a useful thread. No doubt these posts will help other beginners who are confused about that bit of TOP.

[AngryCola]

Thanks for the input Dave. Does it feel weird trying to help me understand something for once? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

But you may want to consider laying off the caps. a little bit.

[nmadd]

Sooooo......as a simple answer to my initial beginner question:

a) If I suspect a raise behind me will mess up my pot odds...I probably don't want to put the initial bet in.
b) If someone raises behind me but I did not see it coming...use how many ever bets it is back to me to calculate my pot odds.

Is this correct?

[SeeWillie]

Taking another stab:

1) Well, the short answer is that you bet because you think you have the best hand. The long answer is that the decision to bet is based on pot equity, NOT pot odds. If you bet AND it is raised AND you still think you have the best hand, you should 3-bet because you have pot equity. If you think you are behind because of the raise, then you should consider pot odds compared to your odds of improving (plus the chances that your hand still might be good). There are usually some discussions of pot equity around, and you might also look through the FAQ sticky post in the micro-limits forum (the first post in that forum).

2) If you think you are behind, then you wouldn't bet. But the discussion is relevant when you face the decision of whether to call a bet from the player in front of you. In doing so, you should consider the possibility that you will be raised by another player yet to act. If the player yet to act capped preflop, and is known to be aggressive, then there is a good chance he will raise. So you better count on putting at least 2 bets in the pot when calculating pot odds. You will never be SURE, but you should take all these factors into account when deciding to whether to call an initial bet when you are not closing the action for the round.

I am a slower typer, hope this isn't a waste of everyone's time!

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Sooooo......as a simple answer to my initial beginner question:

a) If I suspect a raise behind me will mess up my pot odds...I probably don't want to put the initial bet in.
b) If someone raises behind me but I did not see it coming...use how many ever bets it is back to me to calculate my pot odds.

Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I feel that I can answer this after reading through and attempting to understand all of the responses.


A) It just depends on how much they 'mess them up'. This is an area of the game which requires a lot of estimation.

B) Yes, and count your original bet as part of the pot.

[Dave H.]

lol AC...you should be like me (beyond help!).

Yes, I know, I have always used caps for emphasis when I should be using italics. Just easier for me I suppose. I understand that it's taken as a SHOUT, but I assure you it's only for emphasis.

Anyway...LOL

[SeeWillie]

As for (a), it is more correct to say that "If you suspect a raise behind you will mess up your pot odds...you probably don't want to call the initial bet by the player in front of you." Or, if you think you are behind and no one has yet put in a bet, then you are correct that you should check it through to the anticipated raiser, then calculate your pot odds when it gets back to you.

As for (b), yes, you are correct.

[nmadd]

Alright, I think I have it.

Thanks for the help. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[RacersEdge]

To put in in perspective, just imagine the game "suddenly" became NL - meaning after you call the original bet, the player to your left goes all-in with many more chips thna in the pot. Well, if you had perfect knowledge and would have known he would go all-in, you would never have called the bet in the first place since a call would give you slightly more than 1-1 odds. The same concept is taking place in this example - just no so extreme.

The idea of the your money just being part of the pot realy only applies in a pure sense with the blinds. IOW, that big blind you put in required no decision process of whether you should post it - you 100% must because it's a rule. So if 3 player cold call a raise including the SB, you are truly getting 9-1 odds to complete the BB.