Even DIPO seems like more math than necessary...King?

[bobdibble]

So, DIPO is an interesting method, and I see can learning it this way may be beneficial because it can be generalized to games other than holdem where the number of unknown cards may be different.

However, I have a method that I think is easier.

I memorized the outs to odds chart up to 9.

I call if:
implied_pot_size_in_bets > odds_against * bets_to_call

Like DIPO, the 0EV decisions are slightly off because I round the odds, e.g. I use 7:1 for a 6 outer in my calculations.

Doesn't a single multiplication seem the easiest of the methods?

[Webnasty]

I was thinking the exact same thing...

[Derek in NYC]

I've made exactly this point before as well. Im a memorizer, and it works well despite (1) slight rounding inaccuracies I make in the memorization such as 4 outs = 11:1 rather than 10.5:1, and (2) minor differences in odds from flop-to-turn, and turn-to-river. Memorizing up to 9 or 10 outs works good enough for limit holdem; for no-limit situations, where you might be thinking about being all-in on the flop, there are better methods.

Still, Bob, I'm with you. The one advantage that DIPO has over memorizing is that the formula as Yao lays it out necessarily includes the implied odds on the next street in the EPS variable. Players who dont use implied odds consciously as a consideration could be helped by DIPO. My general use of implied odds, however, is as more of a "plus" factor to justify some otherwise thinner calls (such as getting 8:1 on a gutshot rather than 11:1 in a multiway pot, where I close the action on the flip betting).

The problem with relying too much on implied odds, and the problem with baking in implied pot value, is that in some situations, the "value" of the implied odds is more ambiguous, such as if you dont close the action and the pot could be raised behind you, your out could create a redraw for somebody else thus reducing by reverse implied principles the "true" value of your out, etc.

I think it is dangerous to be overly formulaic with implied odds assumptions. Too many LAGs use the implied odds as a nonexistent justification for loose post-flop play.

By the way, I was just commenting to DriveTT that I owe you a beer someday for your most excellent Statking import program. I literally use it every time I play, and it has vastly improved my recordskeeping.

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I was just commenting to DriveTT that I owe you a beer someday for your most excellent Statking import program. I literally use it every time I play, and it has vastly improved my recordskeeping.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.. thanks.

I'll probably go to the next 2+2 gathering, so I'll take you up on it then. Hopefully bison won't knock it over.

I was actually down there for the one last weekened, but I missed the 2+2 event at the MGM. I played in the WSOP limit tourney and by the time I busted, the 2+2ers tables had already started breaking down at the MGM. So, no tourney money *and* I missed the donk fest.. sigh.

[King Yao]

Is memorizing odds more difficult or easier than DIPO? I'm not sure if its easier or more difficult - I think it depends on the person and how they like to think. But I'm positive there is a large number of people like you - that prefer the memorization. Frankly for me, DIPO is easier than the memorization - but not everyone is like me.

From post by others and emails I've received (including Derek), I've learned that different people prefer different methods - all of which have merit. Its more important to have a method that works for you specifically, so if you have it down pat, that's great.

I wrote the book with the attitude of teaching "why" and how to adjust for different situations. I thought DIPO fit in perfectly with this attitude. It is also what I use at the tables for myself. I don't like memorizing anything but I wanted to emphasis understanding, so I thought DIPO did that job well. But I also understand your point of view, and that's why I will include an appendix with other methods in future editions.

Thanks,
King

[bobdibble]

Gottcha. I'd actually be interested in hearing about some other methods as well. I would probably recommend dipo to a newbie at this point because it seems like it would work for games like omaha without modification, where as, I would have to memorize a new odds chart to account for the 2 extra cards. And DIPO would be huge in 7-card stud, I imagine.

Maybe I'll try to incorporate it when I learn some other games.

In any case, any method that avoids division is probably going to be favorable to the traditional method found in most books.

[larrondo]

When will the next edition come out, King?

[King Yao]

It will probably be a while. The second printing should be in a week or two, but those are only minor changes/corrections. When the inventory on the second printing start to dwindle down, I'll talk it over with my publisher at that time about a 2nd edition versus a third printing.

[skp]

I am going to get your book soon but can you (or anyone else who has read the book) give us an explanation of DIPO in a nutshell?

Thanks

[King Yao]

DIPO is an acronym for "Do I have Pot Odds?" Just an easy acronym affixed to a method to calculate pot odds while at the table. The information needed are:

Expected Pot Size on the next round (EPS)
Expected Outs
Non-Outs (unknown cards - outs)

Compare two numbers:
The Good Number: EPS x Outs
The Bad Number: non-outs

If the Good Number is greater than the Bad Number, then you have pot odds to call. If the Good Number is less, then you do not have pot odds to call.

An simple example I use in the book is:

Your hand: ATo
Board by the Turn: K-Q-4-3 rainbow

Expected Pot Size = 12 (I give details on what happened in previous streets and what the player is expecting to happen on the River to come up with this number.)

Outs = 4 (in this hand, I assumed an Ace is not an out due to the action on the Flop and Turn).

Non-Outs = 46 - 4 = 42 (46 unknown cards on the Turn)

Good Number = 12 x 4 = 48
Bad Number = 46 - 4 = 42

The Good Number is greater than the Bad Number, so you do have pot odds to call a bet on the Turn.

Obviously this is a simple example, and there are many other possible factors in other hands.

Some people seem to like this method, while others don't. Some like it, but with a slight variant (such as the one that Abdul Jalib wrote about in one of his essays). I like it and use it at the table myself. I also think its a good way to show what to think about, because it forces the player to think about outs throughout the hand. But at the same time, I can understand that other methods may be better for other people as it has been pointed out to me.