Implied Odds working against us?
 

{this post might also belong in the Theory section but I put it here because these types of hands happen more frequently at small stakes. -g}

I'm wondering if sometimes table image or just aggressive play can give a weak player the implied odds that they need to suck out. This is a theory I just thought of now, so bear with me.

If you have called down a weak drawing hand because you know you are the best hand at the moment, some players might get the correct implied odds knowing that you are going to put more money into the pot. We've all cried about our bad beats and suck outs by bad players, but in the end maybe the odds were there.

Here's an example. You hold A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] in late position and are looking at a flop of A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. You bet the pot to protect your hand. Now suppose you are up against someone holding some crap like J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] who for whatever reason called your pre-flop raise. The pot odds are not there for his call to be correct, but implied odds might tell him that if another [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] slides off then there is a good chance that he can take all of your chips. If the next card is in fact a [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] then his call of the pot size bet was correct because you will most likely put more money in.

Am I looking at that wrong? I'm not really good at putting this into words, but I think you get the idea. I'm just trying to justify the suck outs that we have all run into and maybe this can partially account for it. What do you think and more importantly is there a way to avoid it?
-G

Re: Implied Odds working against us?
 

I think you have just hit on the explanation of implied odds.

Instead of figuring the pot odds (bet to pot), villain is computing the implied odds (bet to your stack), times the probability that you will pay him off when he gets there.

For instance, the other day, I had top 2 pr in a $15 pot on the turn. I was pretty sure villain had flopped a flush. I called his bet because he had $250 behind, and I have 4 outs, and I am 90% sure he has a flush and will pay off his stack if i hit based on his previous play.

I am 10.5 to 1 to hit my card.

10.5 X 15 < (250+30) x .9, so I call.

I spike full on river, bet all in and get called.

But I really don't think that implied odds worked 'for me' or 'against him.'

Implied odds are just a fact in NL and you need to adjust your bet sizes and calling standards accordingly.

Re: Implied Odds working against us?
 

Maybe this is common knowlege for a lot of NL players, but it just clicked for me. (LOL) I hope I can get more in this mindset from now on. I think it'll help with those tough decisions.

Re: Implied Odds working against us?
 

Cool, glad it clicked. This is why everyone here harps on betting at least 2/3 of the pot. Don't want to give them implied odds to hit whatever draw they are on.

You can do the math backwards b/f you bet. Might take some practice but soon will be routine.

Re: Implied Odds working against us?
 

just my 2cents...NLHE is ALL about implied odds. they are nearly the only odds that matter. you never get odds to call a PF raise with 65s or low pair but it is often a good idea nonetheless.

great that a light came on for you. i would spend alot of time exploring implied odds now if i were you. think about stack sizes when calling bets/raises. remember, the deeper the stacks, the more you have to look to hit str8s, trips, and flushes.

Re: Implied Odds working against us?
 

So you're trying to say that I should be calling raises with small PPs and low suited connectors most of the time?

The problem I have is, playing against all the fish on Party and Absolute, I can't tell if they're idiots calling me down to the river or if they've actually hit. More often then not they suck out on me even when I'm betting 2/3s of the pot. Absolute loves dealing me AA, KK, QQ and having villian suck out a straight with a runner, runner.

Re: Implied Odds working against us?
 

I think you can take the blue pill to fix this.

Re: Implied Odds working against us?
 

Not really sure what you mean by do the math backwards, but either way I think I've figured something out that I should've known a long time ago.
WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME???? lol

Re: Implied Odds working against us?
 

This is EXACTLY the reason why you can't be a calling station (even with reasonably strong hands) at No-Limit. It gives tricky players the implied odds to play just about any draw.

You play the Sheriff, you will get shot.

Re: Implied Odds working against us?
 

Not only do you have to play for implied odds, but you have to play in manner that denies them to your opponents. That means making great laydowns from time to time. You need to consider it a victory that the opponent overpaid for a draw and then did not get paid off by you when it hit. Of course you still need to pick off the bluffs.

To your example, last night in 50NL, I played a trashy J8s in LP against a min raise cause I knew the min raiser had a great starting hand. Based on this player, I thought it might even be aces or kings. In fact, when I called with this trash, I was hoping it was aces or kings. Because the implied odds are better.

Flop came AK7, one of my suit. Min bet to me, I called. Q of my suit. Min bet to me, I call. At this point I know hes holding two pair or trips and hoping to portray weakness or trying to milk me. River is a T that makes the board a rainbow. Now he bets 1.5X the pot, and I push. He calls thinking "who the hell would till be in the hand with just a runner or gutshot draw?" My payday was 20 times my investment in the hand.