One Other Point
One of the fallacies of the "implied odds" argument is the assumption that you will win 100% of the time when you hit when you are not hitting to the nuts. Occasionally, you will find that your opponent is also on a draw and when you both hit he ends up with the best hand. When this happens you lose a lot. In the example given in the article, suppose your opponent is betting a set or two pair and the river is a heart that pairs the board? Now you lose some serious money at the river.
I have never been impressed with the "implied odds" arguments advanced by many because of the fact that you will not win all the time even when you make your hand. My tendency is to discount implied odds because of this fact and focus on current pot odds unless my draw is to the nuts.
|