Confused about pot odds and winning long term

[university]

Friend of mine had this at a 4 handed, 2/4 table.

He's in the BB with J4 suited. UTG Raises, and it's called all the way to him. 7 SB in the pot. So at this point he's getting 7 to 1 odds.

He says it's an easy call. He's run some simulations and sees that J4 suited wins about 16% of the time, 4 handed. He does the math and sees that he needs a minimum of 6.25 to 1 odds to break even, and he's getting 7 to 1, so in his mind, it's an easy call.

Through Online Hold'em Inspector, I've run some simulations putting 4 people in the hand, giving the BB J4suited, and see that it's a loser in the long run.

Most any site that I've come across lists J4suited, even at a 4 handed game, as negative EV in the long run.

He thinks it's correct to call. I think it's losing money in the long run. Who's right?

I guess the root of the issue, is that if pot odds are all that's needed, and he's got correct pot odds (he's getting 7 to 1 and only needs 6.25 to 1) how come that hand is showing as -EV??

Thanks in advance...

[jba]

reverse implied odds.

J4 is expected to lose money postflop in a 4 way pot. If you hit a pair, you will very often lose a lot of money postflop when someone makes a better hand. When you do actually have the best hand, your confidence is low and you will be hesitant to bet and raise with vigor. While it is perhaps true that your preflop call is EV+, it is leading you into an EV- proposition.

contrast that with a hand with implied odds, like 22. In a four way pot you will fold your hands that are not best (ie, when you don't hit a set) immediately without investing anything further. When you do hit your set, you will be betting and raising, knowing that the chances are quite high that your hand is best. In other words, when you are putting more money in the pot postflop, you are confident you will be getting the best of it.

[Xhad]

Whenever someone looks at the odds in this kind of situation and concludes that you're supposed to call, they're usually making two fatal assumptions:

-That there is no betting on later streets
-That your opponents have random hands

Tell your friend you're supposed to put your opponents on ranges of hands, and that some of these "wins" the computer is giving him are situations where the raiser has AKo and the board comes something like 4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/club.gif T /images/graemlins/spade.gif 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif and misses everyone else.

[KidPokerX]

You fail to factor implied odds into your calculation. Your friend is proabbly right, given his 2/4 game, had he made his hand it would most likely get action.

[university]

Still a little confused.

First response seemed to indicate it might be +EV to see the flop, but -EV in the long run, because it's gonna cost you more than you earn to play those cards.

Second poster seemed to think the simulation may be a little faulty as it assumes random hands.

Third poster seems to think my friend was right.

Anyone else have an opinion on is it good to play cards with -EV as long as you have correct pot odds?

[muck_nutz]

The basic confusion here (as I think the first poster implied) is that your immediate odds are just one factor in your EV in a hand. Your EV is made up of how you play the hand out under all circumstances on all streets. You can think of your immediate odds as one way to quickly estimate your EV in a hand when the other factors don't dominate. In order to understand why your immediate odds maybe not be a good estimate of your EV you have to look at play later in the hand. J4 is a hand which is hard to play for many people on later streets. If you just flop a jack or a 4 its tough to know if you are ahead. So you tend not to extract maximal value yet you pay off at times. If you don't have a tough time in these places J4 might be +EV for you (but I wouldn't count on it if you or your friend are asking basic questions like this).

[Xhad]

Implied odds hurt this hand more than they help; you can't make a straight with it, the flush/two pair/trips won't come often enough to justify a call on that basis alone, and you will often flop one pair and have no idea if it's good or not.

Would you limp this hand on the button after seven limpers? Well, this is worse since someone showed strength and you're out of position after the flop.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Second poster seemed to think the simulation may be a little faulty as it assumes random hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was also the point about betting after the flop, which is more important. If you flop bottom pair out of position against the raiser, you are very likely to make Fundamental Theorem of Poker "mistakes" after the flop. For example, if the flop is 4 10 10, you are either drawing almost dead, or have the best hand, but the preflop raiser is going to bet either way, so you have to decide whether to call down or not, and sometimes you will decide incorrectly. Other times the flop will be 10 10 5 and you'll have six outs, but then PFR bets, everyone folds, and you fold despite getting odds to continue, whereas if you had stuck around you would get a four on the river (and the simulator is awarding "wins" for this, most likely). He's probably going to know when he has you beat more often than the other way around, especially since you don't have much "big hand" potential other than being sooted.