[vexvelour]

I originally posted this in probability and was told wrong forum. Since I regular this psych forum and enjoy reading what the posters here say, I would like to know what you guys think. I'm really looking for "you're on the right track" or "you're way the hell off"...and any explanations you feel necessary.
Thank you and sorry for the off-topicness. Please don't kill me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Hi. I have had problems with probablity (figuring it out, namely) since I began playing poker. I picked up a book last night that finally spelled it out in words that clicked. I think I am getting a good feel for it. I would like to make sure that I understand it correctly. Thanks for the time, I very much appreciate it.

First you figure out how many outs you have, minus outs that may give your opponent a better hand (number of cards in deck/number of outs). Then, you compare the size of the pot with the bet to you (pot odds).

The author then loses me. He says to figure out implied pot odds (ie: limit poker) and considering how many bets you think there will be in future rounds. I play NL and don't see how this could be a possibility. Should I skip this?

He then says to compare the implied pot odds to the odds against improving.

With this statement, it seems I would have to figure out those implied pot odds. Furthermore, he doesn't say how you should compare the two. Would you want them to be fairly close odds? I figured that if the pot odds were better than the odds against improving that it would be a good bet.

Thank you very much for reading and responding.