Why do people seem to ignore expected odds?

[Buckmulligan]

For some reason, when deciding whether or not to make calls in a lot of the posts I reed, people consider pot odds and implied odds but not expected odds. It seems like people make a habit of calling early bets when a late position raise seems very likely without taking that into account. For example, say you have KQs in MP1 and raise and MP3 3 bets and button Caps and SB calls the 3 cold... you call. Let's say there is now 8.00 in the pot and the flop comes AT8 rainbow, none of your suit and the guy from the SB, regardless of his fishiness leads out. I see a lot of posts saying that you can't fold here because you are getting 17:1 on your gutshot, but it seems like a blind conclusion. Clearly, you can expect a raise from at least one of the players acting behind you, and 35% probably a cap, so you end up seeing something like 25:4 for your gutshot. This is an example of people neglecting the nature of expected odds in big pots; to me, when it's a close call and a raise behind me seems inevitable, the lay down seems easy, but lots of players I see posting only focus on the money that is currently in the pot or the money they will win if their hand hits.

[Entity]

There is a problem with your conclusions.

First of all, I think you're talking about effective odds here, not "expected" odds. I've never heard expected odds referenced before, so I'm not familiar with the term -- but the description you are giving matches what effective odds are, which are references quite frequently, both in posts and in poker texts. Effective odds should always be considered in any odds calculation.

However, in the example you gave:

The pot is 4-handed. With BB's dead money, the pot is 17SB. SB has already shown a predeliction for calling lots of bets, so there's less of a chance he's folding than normal. Additionally, because of the texture of the flop, you can expect a raise occasionally, but not all of the time. 35% of the time may even be too high. KK, QQ, or JJ will rarely raise this flop behind you, and while AK, AA, and TT will, those account for only 15 hands.

So in your question, you're getting 18:1, but if you expect a 30% chance it'll get raised, reraised, and capped behind you (an overestimate in my opinion), you're looking at 29:4. By balancing those estimates, I think you'll still come out with the 10.5:1 you need to call, especially given the immense implied odds you will get when you spike your miracle card on the turn (the action you fear behind you will quickly become your best friend).

Anyone not considering effective odds in this situation is making a huge mistake. However, anyone giving too much credence to a belief that it will always be capped behind you (it rarely will), and forgetting the increased implied odds on the next street, is also making a huge error.

Rob

[Yads]

The bigger problem with your example is why are you calling pre flop when it's 2 back to you? Incorrect pre flop play can often make post flop play correct.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
The bigger problem with your example is why are you calling pre flop when it's 2 back to you? Incorrect pre flop play can often make post flop play correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

This call is much closer than you might think, getting 7.5:1. I'd fold but a call isn't far from correct here.

Rob

[Buckmulligan]

Actually you are right... I meant effective odds, my bad. I think your chances of getting raised behind are better than .35, considering you know a broadway pair is likely out, or at least AK and in these limits, people are bound to raise with hands as nasty as A6. The cold call is marginal with the KQs with two bets back, but its the kind of play you would make at a loose table; unfortunately, the raise behind you on the turn is even more consistent with the loose table than the idea of having equity with Kqs on a two bets cold call back around.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually you are right... I meant effective odds, my bad. I think your chances of getting raised behind are better than .35, considering you know a broadway pair is likely out, or at least AK and in these limits, people are bound to raise with hands as nasty as A6. The cold call is marginal with the KQs with two bets back, but its the kind of play you would make at a loose table; unfortunately, the raise behind you on the turn is even more consistent with the loose table than the idea of having equity with Kqs on a two bets cold call back around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on experience, I can almost assure you that you'll rarely see A6 either 3-betting preflop or raising this flop. Most low limit players are loose-passive, not loose-aggressive.

If they are inordinately loose-aggressive, you need to take this into consideration, and probably consider a fold much more seriously preflop.

Regardless, I think any estimate higher than 30% is an overestimate here, unless you have a specific read to counter that. The vast majority of low limit players are passive, and not aggressive.

Rob

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
If they are inordinately loose-aggressive, you need to take this into consideration, and probably consider a fold much more seriously preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? When it gets back capped on a tighter table you're more likely to be dominated than on a loose table. Is it because it will be expensive to play your flopped draws?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it because it will be expensive to play your flopped draws?

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking rhetorical questions again, are we? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

At a table where I know it's likely to be capped all the way to the river, I'm playing pocket pairs and AK here. KQs isn't going to hit the flop strong enough often enough for me to justify calling to the river; however, if the table slows down, as many do, once the cards fall, then KQs will usually have sufficient odds to play poker postflop.

The biggest problem with playing KQs postflop in this scenario (aggressive postflop table) is that you'll often be dominated, crushing your pair outs, and your draws will be expensive, but you'll usually be correct to be calling them.

With the button, I'd be far more likely to call, even in an aggro game. But OOP in an aggro game I'm folding, and honestly, I think that it's very close to a fold in most games.

Rob

[Buckmulligan]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with playing KQs postflop in this scenario (aggressive postflop table) is that you'll often be dominated, crushing your pair outs, and your draws will be expensive, but you'll usually be correct to be calling them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you would fold AQs preflop here too?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with playing KQs postflop in this scenario (aggressive postflop table) is that you'll often be dominated, crushing your pair outs, and your draws will be expensive, but you'll usually be correct to be calling them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you would fold AQs preflop here too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but it's close. I'm about as fond of AQs here as I am KQs.

Rob