When opponent is getting "correct" odds to draw, why do you bet??

[teddyFBI]

I've got a question I think must have a very simple answer, but I can't wrap my mind around it.

Imagine a very large pot between you and one remaining opponent in a limit hold'em game; let's say you're 100% sure he's on a flush draw (and you currently hold an overpair of aces), and because of the large pot size, he's getting the "correct" odds to call your turn bet.

Given that he's getting the "correct" odds to call, why is it that you want to bet anyway. One of Sklansky's theorums (i forget from which book) states that any time one opponent is "making" money, another one is "losing"...so given that he's getting the correct odds to call you're bet, why is it that it's still advantageous for you to bet (which it obviously is).

If this is a stupid question with an obvious answer, forgive me. It's 5am right now.

[Luzion]

[ QUOTE ]
I've got a question I think must have a very simple answer, but I can't wrap my mind around it.

Imagine a very large pot between you and one remaining opponent in a limit hold'em game; let's say you're 100% sure he's on a flush draw (and you currently hold an overpair of aces), and because of the large pot size, he's getting the "correct" odds to call your turn bet.

Given that he's getting the "correct" odds to call, why is it that you want to bet anyway. One of Sklansky's theorums (i forget from which book) states that any time one opponent is "making" money, another one is "losing"...so given that he's getting the correct odds to call you're bet, why is it that it's still advantageous for you to bet (which it obviously is).

If this is a stupid question with an obvious answer, forgive me. It's 5am right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wha? Im honestly very surprised you would ask this question. Dont you play the NL1000 games?

Its really as simple as putting in as much money as possible when you hold the greatest edge. So you bet. And he calls because he also has "an edge" too; as in he has odds to call and is making money too.

You immediately benefit because you are so far ahead with top pair; any extra bets that go in is gravy. The guy chasing is very behind; however calling extra bets is justified because in the long run... winning the pot every now and then earns him a small profit... thus he calls. Both parties benefit.

Well, look at it mathematically.

In this situation, you're about a 4-1 favorite. So your opponent would need pot odds of 4-1 to call, even if he knows he has no implied odds. If the pot is 400 dollars, and you bet 50 dollars into it, he's getting 8-1 odds, making a call correct. But also, if you bet the 50 and he calls, you've made your payoff on a win equal to 450, instead of 400. Since you'll win 80% of the time, then that works out to making $50 80%, and losing $50 20%, for an EV of +30. So you betting and your opponent calling means you are both making the right play.

[itsmesteve]

Aside from what the previous posters have stated- you still have an edge and more equity in any money going into the pot- you also bet to prevent your opponenet from having infinite odds. Would you rather give him 10:1 to draw out, or let him do it for free?

[AaronBrown]

You've got some excellent answers, I'll take a slightly different slant.

Skansky's theorem has to be taken in relation to what you get from straightforward play. You already own positive equity in the pot, whether you collect it plus a bonus or lose it depends on the river card, but you can't affect that.

The question is whether you can eke out additional equity. That can only come from a mistake by your opponent. Not necessarily a true mistake, he may be acting rationally from his point of view, but something he wouldn't do if he could see your cards.

You don't have much scope to do that here, unless he is a complete idiot. You could mutter, "Come on baby, one more heart and I make an Ace high flush!" and hope he folds even if he gets his flush. You could swear, "Another damn Jack high! I should switch to lowball!" and hope he bets even if he misses. Neither one is likely to work, nor are subtler ploys.

But never overlook the opportunity to induce a mistake. Even if it doesn't work, it can set up something for a later hand.

[Dave G.]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that he's getting the "correct" odds to call, why is it that you want to bet anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

You want to bet because it is +EV for you. You are gaining value on every additional bet that goes into the pot, because your hand will win the majority of the time (he will miss his flush the majority of the time). In other words, you have a pot equity edge.

The thing that's tricky about this is that, in this large pot, all his calls are also +EV. You are both playing perfectly if you bet and he calls. Note that him raising would reduce the EV of his play. Since calling maximises his EV, calling is correct for him.

The both of you are in a +EV situation heads up, even though you have the best of it. This is counter-intuitive at first. As Sklansky states, if someone is making money, someone else must be losing it. Well, the players who are losing money in this situation are all the other players that contributed to the pot and forfeited their share of it by folding.

All that dead money is how you can both be in a +EV situation. You gain additional profit by putting more money into the pot, and he gains profit by drawing to win it.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the players who are losing money in this situation are all the other players that contributed to the pot and forfeited their share of it by folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think this is correct. what if the pot has been built up by only the two players involved? how does it make sense that they are now winning money from themselves, and thereby simultaneously winning and losing? it doesn't.

the fact is that the dead money leaves both players, at this stage of the hand, with +EV in the hand. if you bet, you move some of his +EV over to you, so he is losing some value even though he is still +EV to call. that's where the winner/loser breakdown comes in.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
One of Sklansky's theorums (i forget from which book) states that any time one opponent is "making" money, another one is "losing".

[/ QUOTE ]

In a theoretical (expectation) sense, which I think you're referring to here, both players in the pot can be making money due to the "dead" money already present -- i.e. the player that is behind doesn't have a negative expectation if he calls. So, in your hypothetical example, neither player is losing money by playing the way you describe -- it's just that the betting player is making *more* for each additional bet than the calling player.

I think your source of confusion is that there *must* be a winning player and a losing player in every pot -- there's not. There can be 2 players that have a positive expectation, it's just that the one that is more likely to win the hand at showdown is more positive.

[OrangeKing]

Remember also that the player on the flush draw would rather that extra bet from each of you not go in the pot; he's losing money on that bet you're both putting in there. He just wants to stay in the hand because it's still profitable due to all the extra money already in the pot.

[spaminator101]

he may have odds to call but hes not even money to call so your both making money at this point you bet because you expect to win and betting creates a better pot also you bet because betting reduces the odds that your opponent would be getting