HOH v.1, Question about some of the hand examples...

[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.

[KeyToTheMint]

I am glad you brought this up.

Harrington only looks at pot odds in the discussion. He needs
to determine the implied odds. He is actually giving his opponent 4.8 to 1 odds (implied) and not 2.5 to 1 odds. However, since 2 of his flush outs make us a full house, my opponent is more than a 5-1 dog and still has incorrect odds to draw. He has made a mistake
(fundamental theorem of poker) and I haven't.

Nevertheless, by not mentioning the implied odds which is
most important, Harrington, is teaching the student a very poor habit: ie only look at your pot odds.

When I brought this example up I got called a "bad reader" who "doesn't understand" because my name is Mint and not Harrington. Readers of this board tend to be more than just casual readers of poker and yet some still couldn't grasp what I was saying about the ignored implied odds. It is for this reason I have difficulty calling the book great. Hand 4-9 needs 1 or 2 more sentences and then the book would be approaching greatness.

[konions]

I haven't seen the previous thread on this, but to be fair to Harrington he does say 'you don't want to bet so little that the flush draws have the proper odds ( including implied odds) to stick around'.

To be fair to you (!) this comment is made in the flop discussion and not repeated in the turn discussion where it is very important if you have decided that your trips made on the turn are too good to get away from even if the flush hits on the river.

In summary, I think I agree with you, but it is a matter of emphasis (and emphasis in the right place in the discussion) rather than Harrington ignoring implied odds completely.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
He is actually giving his opponent 4.8 to 1 odds (implied) and not 2.5 to 1 odds. However, since 2 of his flush outs make us a full house, my opponent is more than a 5-1 dog and still has incorrect odds to draw. He has made a mistake
(fundamental theorem of poker) and I haven't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply. So it seems that even if you will call an all in your opponent is still making a mistake in calling with a flushdraw albeit a slight one. I wish that the book itself would have taken the time to add in the above calculation since just saying that he's making a "blunder" to call at 2.5:1 and leaving it at that is oversimplified and doesn't stress the role of implied odds in a situation like this in NL poker which are just as important as the current pot odds if not moreso.