HOH1 Problem 4-9

[Topso]

I'd like to revive a question posted by istewart a while ago. I hope he won't mind quoting verbatim:

[ QUOTE ]
pp. 165-168

Question regarding the flop action.

With the pot at $170,

"Action: You actually bet $100. Player E calls. The big blind and Player A fold. The pot is now $370.

You bet too little. If Player E is on a club flush draw, he got the proper pot odds to call."

Player E got 2.7-to-1 pot odds on a 4-to-1 shot. Perhaps this could be accounted for by implied odds, but then, in the segment on the river, when Hero makes trip kings,

"Against most opponents you should bet about $250 here [into a pot of $370]. To call, he would have to put in $250 for a pot of $620, about 2.5-to-1 odds. He's more than 4-to-1 to hit his flush, so it's a blunder for him to call if he knows what you have."

Can someone explain this incongruency to me?

Thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some posters attempted an answer, but I'm still confused. What Harrington says here seems inconsistent with the rest of the book.

Any comments?

[KeyToTheMint]

[ QUOTE ]


Question regarding the flop action.

With the pot at $170,

"Action: You actually bet $100. Player E calls. The big blind and Player A fold. The pot is now $370.

You bet too little. If Player E is on a club flush draw, he got the proper pot odds to call."

[/ QUOTE ]


He got the proper odds to call because, if he hits his flush
on the turn there are still 2 betting rounds to extract chips. Say he hits his flush and bets 100 into a pot
of 370, is his opponent going to fold top pair top kicker getting 4.7
to 1? On ther river if he bets another 100, is his opponent going to
fold top pair top kicker getting 6.7 to 1? Not likely. From the flush draw point of view, for 100 on the flop he wins 270 on the flop and another 200 (turn and river bets). He just got 4.7 to 1
(implied odds). Of course he could bet more and possibly extract more. For example, lets say he knows after hitting his flush, his opponent will call 100 on the turn, and his opponent has a 70% chance of calling 200 on the river. In the long run the two bets now
yield (100 + 140). So now the implied odds are 5.1 to 1.


[ QUOTE ]
"Against most opponents you should bet about $250 here [into a pot of $370]. To call, he would have to put in $250 for a pot of $620, about 2.5-to-1 odds. He's more than 4-to-1 to hit his flush, so it's a blunder for him to call if he knows what you have."



[/ QUOTE ]


Now there is only 1 betting round to extract chips. If the flush draw were to call on the turn and subsequently make his hand and win not only the pot, but all his opponets remaining chips, it still wouldn't be enough to cover the times he misses his flush and loses + makes his flush and loses. That is, he doesn't have proper implied odds and should fold if he knows what his oppponent is holding.

Just for fun let me rewrite a couple sentences from the book.
the above quoted book passage should read something like:


To call, he would have to put in $250 for a pot of $620, about 2.5-to-1 odds. However, he has the potential to win $1200
(pot size on the turn + your remaining stack). Therefore he is actually getting up to 4.8 to 1 implied odds (1200/250). He's more than 5-to-1 to hit his flush and win (since two of his flush outs make you a fullhouse), so it's a blunder for him to call if he knows what you have."

[Topso]

Thanks for your reply. What you are saying makes sense, but Harrington doesn't put it like that, does he? Maybe I need to re-read the Betting on the Flop section, but he mostly seems to say something like: "bet half to three quarters of the pot to give flush draws incorrect odds to call." He doesn't seem to take the implied odds into account.

BTW, I read your threads on HOH Exposed where you were quite scathing of Harrington. Have you had a re-think and changed your mind?

[KeyToTheMint]

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't seem to take the implied odds into account.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes your opponents implied odds are imaginary. See page
348.


[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I read your threads on HOH Exposed where you were quite scathing of Harrington. Have you had a re-think and changed your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its a very good book. I was just dissappointed with the editing of the text for which there is no excuse.