Any other estimators out there?

[RockLobster]

In a separate post ("too old to change?" by rayrns) I admitted that I'm an estimator. Homer noticed. I had hoped that I was going to sneak that out w/o anyone noticing.

OK, well now it's out in the open. I count outs (clean and cloudy) and have the common scenarios memorized. But I estimate the pot size (when playing live) and my implied odds. When I stop and actually count, I find my estimates to be pretty close.

I'm amazed at people who know their exact implied odds for every hand that they're in. I'm envious, too.

Does this mean I can never be a serious player? Seriously. Estimating doesn't mean that I'm paying less than full attention to the game I'm in. The advantage (for me, anyway) is that I appear more relaxed (I am) and play more fluidly.

I have not taken the time to estimate how much money I'm losing by estimating, though /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif.

Any thoughts?

[rkiray]

I don't believe anyone ever knows exactly what their implied odds are. Not even Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson, S or M, Stu Unger, etc. The best anyone can do is estimate. I think this is why every book I've read section on implied odds seems hazy. You must use judgement. Pot odds are easy. Effective odds arn't bad (especially if you are head's up or last to act). But implied odds have too many variables. Especially in multi-way pots.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

You can get a pretty darn accurate count of what your implied odds are in certain situations. For instance, heads up against one person, it may be very clear that you can expect one bet from them on the river. In limit games, it can sometimes be clear what your implied odds are even in multiway pots. In no limit, your implied odds might be the entire stack of your opponent.

However, it IS usually somewhat unclear what the exact implied odds are in most situations. Therefore I don't think you're in as bad of shape as you think when you estimate, as most players do this as well. The trouble occurs when you're estimates are less than reliable, especially if you're getting it wrong on pot odds or effective odds. Also, if you are overestimating implied odds, obviously this causes trouble, as you're drawing short more often this way.

al

[rkiray]

I don't think you can be that sure even heads up unless the player is completely predictable or you have a very good read on them (perhaps a tell). They may be semi-bluffing or on a draw and will fold on the river. Based on an on-line database of over 94,000 hands most people fold between 30 and 50% of the time on the river. That is not a sure thing.

[anatta]

I think knowing your current odds (which implies knowing your outs, hand reading, estimating the chances of future raises on this betting round, etc.) vs. your pot odds, and having the "common scenarios" memorized is almost always sufficient.

Regarding implied odds, you can sense that no money, some money, or a lot of money is going to go in the pot based on your cards, opponents, and postition and adjust your play accordingly. Jeez, how are you supposed to do all this math and watch the ball game at the same time anyways?