Implied Odds

[GrunchCan]

This is what I do when I'm deciding if I should call a bet based on implied odds. Is this right?

Let's say that I have a hand that is a 1:12 dog to win with 1 card to come on the turn. There is $4 in the pot, and an opponent bets $1. I'm getting 5:1 on a 12:1 shot. Now I ask myself if I can make up $7 (12-5) if I hit my card on the river. If the answer is yes, I continue. If no, I fold.

Is this right?

[vulturesrow]

Yes this is correct. And its one of the nice things about NL vs. limit. As you well know, in limit poker its hard to make up a lot of bets on the river. In NL it can be pretty depending on the villain.

[gulebjorn]

You have to call 1, for a 12:1 shot, you need to make 12$ in return. There is 4$ in the pot already. Which means you have to extract another 8$ from him. So a 4$ pot, he bets 1$, you call, pot is 6$, you bet 8$, he calls. That is the break-even point. Anything beyond is profit.

Of course, you have to guess that you will make another $8 on average. He will sometimes fold because a scare card comes, or because he was bluffing or whatever.

[FreakDaddy]

Yes, but I wouldn't apply this concept much from the turn-river, as it's more difficult (unless you've really nailed down the range of hands to one or two) to know if you can make this difference up. From the flop to the turn though I make this call if the stacks are deep enough for me to get paid against a solid second best hand.