Crosspost about HOH v. 1 and its treatment of implied odds...

[blackaces13]

I'm reading HOH volume 1 and thoroughly enjoying it, but one thing I don't get is how throughout the book he talks of giving possible drawing hands, such as flush/straight draws, bad odds to call on either the flop or turn by betting less than the pot when both him and his opponent have a lot of chips left and his hand is strong enough that he WILL NOT LET IT GO ON THE RIVER EVEN WHEN A SCARE CARD HITS. If this is the case then how is offering a player 2.5:1 to call the turn for instance giving him a bad price when right after that he goes on to say that he'll call an all in on the river for about 3 times as many chips as he bet on the turn?

A good example of this is in "The Problems" section on p. 165. In this hand you have AK and raise preflop, get a few callers, flop TPTK, make a smallish bet and get called by one player only. There are 2 clubs on the board.

The pot is $370 on the turn and you hit trip kings, there are still 2 clubs on the board. Here's what he says:

"You need to bet enough so that he's not getting the right odds to draw to his flush...You both have much more than the pot at this point -- your chip count is $830, his is $860.

Against most opponents you should bet about $250 here. To call he would have to put in $250 for a pot of $620, about 2.5:1 odds. He's more than 4:1 to hit his flush so its a blunder for him to call if he knows what you have " [italics mine]

On the river another club comes which doesn't pair the board and Harrington basically says that in a tournament situation your hand is simply too strong to throw away at this point and that even if your opponent should happen to move in you will have to call.

So how your opponent not getting odds to call the turn if he had a flushdraw since he's got about $600 chips in implied odds? I don't see how a book which stresses pot/implied odds can say that you're forcing your opponent to make a "blunder" by calling the turn with a flushdraw getting 2.5:1 and then on the same page say that you have to call his roughly pot sized all in on the river if a club comes. Doesn't add up to me.

[zgall1]

I think he assumes that the opponent will not bet if a non-club comes on the river so therefore, the odds of 4:1 are the correct odds he should believe his opponent is facing.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he assumes that the opponent will not bet if a non-club comes on the river so therefore, the odds of 4:1 are the correct odds he should believe his opponent is facing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I don't know what you mean. Of course he won't bet on the end with a busted flushdraw. But if he can be reasonably sure that he will get your remaining stack if his card hits then he has more than enough in implied odds to make the call with position on you.

[The_Bends]

Isn't the problem here simply that with strong hands, especially in tournaments you can't help but give implied odds simply becasue you need to get a move on if you want to stay in the thing. Harrington is therefore dealing with the worst case senario on the turn by ensuring the most likely drawing hand does not have correct odds. The fact that he is forced by the tournament situation to call a push on the river does not make the turn play wrong.

[Jernej Zorec]

since u have trip K's
and board is paired, even if club comes on river and u move in he could assume that u hit a boat

[burningyen]

If you do a search of the book forum, you'll see this example has already been discussed at length. I agree with your criticism.

[hurlyburly]

He's talking about calling all-in.

The assumption is that the bet on the turn should fold the draw often enough that even if the flush card hits the river, the % chance of him moving in with a flush is lowered sufficiently that a laydown would be worse than a call. By betting the way he reccommends, the flush % goes down, bluff % goes up, and % of beating a second best hand increases.

He's not saying it's never going to be a better hand pushing.

[schwza]

i'm not sure if this is what harrington intends, but sometimes hero will have a bad hand like 66 and will not pay off on the river. in that case, villain could have correct implied odds for this hand in particular but still be making a mistake in general against hero's range of hands.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the problem here simply that with strong hands, especially in tournaments you can't help but give implied odds simply becasue you need to get a move on if you want to stay in the thing. Harrington is therefore dealing with the worst case senario on the turn by ensuring the most likely drawing hand does not have correct odds. The fact that he is forced by the tournament situation to call a push on the river does not make the turn play wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if he was really that concerned with making the call incorrect, including the implied odds then he could bet, say 400, instead of 250. Its really not that hard. I just think that he's pretty much ignoring implied odds on the turn here, at least judging by what is actually written in the book. I'm sure he considers implied odds in the hand but he doesn't WRITE anything about it so it doesn't help me.

If you can't cut his implied odds then WRITE THAT. If that's his point (which its not) he certianly doesn't make it, and as I said you CAN make it very wrong for a flushdraw to call the turn, even with implied odds.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do a search of the book forum, you'll see this example has already been discussed at length. I agree with your criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I know, I read the other thread in the book forum (after making my post) and decided that the book forum is NOT where I want to get my advice from. Not to use a broad brush but for the most part that forum seems to be comprised of 2+2 flagwavers who will blindly defend Mason and everything he produces despite any and all legitimate criticism.

I mentioned it was a crosspost.