EasilyFound
04-19-2005, 06:22 PM
I was reading HOH. In his section on pot odds, Hand 4-9, he discusses how much to bet w/TPTK to make a flush draw get incorrect odds to call the turn.
Here is the example from Hand 4-9: On the flop, the pot contains $170 and the bettor has top pair, top kicker, with two clubs on the board, creating a flush draw. TPTK bets $100, and the other player, on a flush draw, calls. Now the pot, with both bets, contains $370. In the book, Harrington says that the $100 bet was too small and have the opponent "proper pot odds to call" to see the turn. The opponent was betting $100 to win $270, which is 2.7-1 odds. It is 4-1 to hit the flush on the turn, at which there presumably will be a round of betting.
Why is 2.7-1 odds "proper" odds to pay to draw for a flush off the flop? Is it because of implied odds? But if you miss the turn, you will face another bet, of unknown size, to draw again for the river. I would have thought that 2.7-1 would not be good odds in that situation.
Here is the example from Hand 4-9: On the flop, the pot contains $170 and the bettor has top pair, top kicker, with two clubs on the board, creating a flush draw. TPTK bets $100, and the other player, on a flush draw, calls. Now the pot, with both bets, contains $370. In the book, Harrington says that the $100 bet was too small and have the opponent "proper pot odds to call" to see the turn. The opponent was betting $100 to win $270, which is 2.7-1 odds. It is 4-1 to hit the flush on the turn, at which there presumably will be a round of betting.
Why is 2.7-1 odds "proper" odds to pay to draw for a flush off the flop? Is it because of implied odds? But if you miss the turn, you will face another bet, of unknown size, to draw again for the river. I would have thought that 2.7-1 would not be good odds in that situation.