Re: Pot Odds Question
[ QUOTE ]
What I was suggesting was that for each of the unsuccessful attempts you had the same 10:1 pot odds. The pot odds didn't change just the size of the wager and the size of the pot. So I don't think it's a case of apples and oranges but of different sized apples.
But if I understand what you are suggesting - if you have the same 4 outer on the river - let's say for the nut inside straight draw (about a 9:1 probability) and one time you have to bet 2$ to win $20 and another time you have to bet $10 to win $100, those two events have to be considered completely independent of each other. So even though you might win a few of the $20 pots and you might lose more of the $10 wagers, thus creating a net loss on the same play that isn't a consideration here because they are entirely independent events.
Is that correct?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that's all correct. I think you see what we're saying, but this might make it even clearer:
What your example is essentially saying, what with its very low sample size and the contrivance that you win the small pot but lose the big ones (with the same odds), is really nothing more than "Wouldn't it suck if you made the same correct play 10 times, and you only won the one time the pot was the smallest?"
Yes, that would suck. But it's not statistically/mathematically relevant. It should not factor into your decision-making. Which I think you see now, but this seems a concise way to sum up.
Crooked
|