Yet Another Pot Odds Question

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
What a PERFECT explanation!! I finally understand it!! You know, I hope every beginner reads this because it's so important to understand, and you explained it very, very well.

Thanx a bunch for the time and the thought you put into this response!

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, you claimed to have read TOP, but it explains it just as well as cooker did. Not to take away from what he posted, but if you had read that section of TOP that many times you would have understood it before cooker explained it to you. That's why I didn't bother with explaining the math to you.

There is plenty of math in TOP that explains all of this.
Nothing cooker said is not contained within TOP, or worded in such a way that makes it more difficult to understand than how cooker presented it. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Dave H.]

Sir, I thank you humbly for your response. In my original post, I stated that I had read that section over and over again. Perhaps I was just "ready" to understand it. I'm not sure. I'm just grateful for your response and his and anyone's who would help me finally understand this. I'm certain you'll help me with other questions I may have in the future. I actually have a degree in math and taught for several years a long time ago, but probability was always difficult for me.

...and I sure that his explanation will help many others who may not have read TOP. It will probably even encourage them to purchase the book. So far, everything I've read made sense except for that one section.

Many thanks again to those who read these posts and help us less experienced learn from your experience! Maybe one day we can return the favor...

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What a PERFECT explanation!! I finally understand it!! You know, I hope every beginner reads this because it's so important to understand, and you explained it very, very well.

Thanx a bunch for the time and the thought you put into this response!

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, you claimed to have read TOP, but it explains it just as well as cooker did. Not to take away from what he posted, but if you had read that section of TOP that many times you would have understood it before cooker explained it to you. That's why I didn't bother with explaining the math to you.

There is plenty of math in TOP that explains all of this.
Nothing cooker said is not contained within TOP, or worded in such a way that makes it more difficult to understand than how cooker presented it. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

All true. I have read many of the 2+2 books, and I feel like I have taken a lot of good information away from them. I am still relatively new (only been trying this poker stuff since September), so I like to respond to these posts in order to reinforce and clarify the concepts for myself, but since I did learn to play from TOP, HEP, and HEPFAP, much of what I say does come out sounding a lot like those books. I also appreciate any corrections of my mistakes from more experienced players.

[Mangatang]

I suggested using the pot odds of one card to come, as opposed to using the pot odds of two cards to come. I know that advanced players can consider both effective odds and implied odds, but I've found for beginners it's much simpler and easier to just use the pot odds of one card to come. The results end up being "close enough" for beginning play.

If a player uses the odds of making his hand with two cards to come, he would be chasing a gutshot on the flop with 5.5:1. You can calculate effective odds and implied odds all you want, and you'll rarely find this to be a correct call.

If you just go by the approximation that you need 11:1 pot odds to chase a gutshot, you won't be too far off from the correct play. Yes, you can say that this is being over conservative, because you're not considering 2 cards to come and you're not considering implied odds. But, I think these things cancel out those times that you make your straight and still get beat by a better hand (full house or flush). It also helps beginning players to chase less often, if they have to have current pot odds before calling with a draw.

Here's an example:

There are 3 limpers to you on the button, you call with QsJs, and the BB checks. The flop comes AcKd2h. You have a gutshot straight draw with 4 outs. BB bets out and there is one caller to you. You are getting 7:1 pot odds. Now the person who thinks you can count both cards to come thinks, "I'm getting better than 5.5:1, so I can chase my gutshot." Which everyone will agree, is wrong here.

If you consider effective odds, and you assume the same person will bet, and same caller on the turn, you are looking at 11:3 odds, or 3.6:1. Even assuming implied odds of two additional bets on the river, you only get 5:1 odds. Clearly this is not a profitable call, because you need 5.5:1 with two cards to come.

Now, if you had just kept it simple and used the 11:1 odds with one card to come as your threshold on the flop, you could have quickly and easily seen that this was not a profitable call.


Now, lets look at a case where it is a profitable call.

Let's say this time there are 4 limpers to you with your QsJs, you call and the SB completes and the BB checks. On the same flop, you get a gutshot draw. There is a bettor and 4 callers in front of you. You're getting 12:1 pot odds now. Just using my simple 11:1 odds threshold, you have a profitable call.

But let's see if we get the same answer using effective and implied odds. Assuming you'll get 3 people for one bet in front of you on the turn, your effective odds are 18:3 or 6:1. So you have the odds to call a 5.5:1 proposition. If you add implied odds, you have an easy call.

So, while the concepts of effective and implied odds are important to understand for the advanced player, beginners can accomplish almost the same play, just by using the following approximations of odds to hit your hand on the next card:

11:1 gutshot
5:1 open-ender
4:1 4-flush

It's also important that you use one card only, because you really don't know what will happen on the next card. You may get a raise and a reraise before it gets to you, which would kill your odds. Then your flop assumption that you would see 2 cards is now wrong (assuming you correctly fold on the turn). So, your original odds were incorrect to begin with. Using the odds of the next card only, eliminates this mistake, because you made sure that you had the odds to see the next card. If your correct play is to fold on the turn, you still made the correct flop call.

[AngryCola]

*sigh*

I see you think only advanced players can use effective odds, that's not the case at all. If it was a NL game, I would agree with you. But, theres a reason effective odds are written about and exist, because they are useful.

All this stuff about not knowing what you will have to call on the turn is completely ridiculous. The action rarely changes that much from the flop to the turn. I always know what I will have to call at least 90% of the time. I understand your point, and for NL it's a good one. However, for limit games you are just costing yourself money as a beginner and learning bad habits.

You say:
[ QUOTE ]
So, while the concepts of effective and implied odds are important to understand for the advanced player, beginners can accomplish almost the same play

[/ QUOTE ]

And then you go on to say in almost the next sentence:
[ QUOTE ]
It's also important that you use one card only, because you really don't know what will happen on the next card.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant have it both ways. Beginners don't want to learn "the easy way" and what you are suggesting would mean that even advanced players couldn't use effective odds. This is a contradiction and it will be confusing to new players.

Something is either useful or it isn't. Effective odds are useful. The action on the flop will almost always give you an accurate idea of the turn action. Have you heard of the free card play? Well, there is a reason that play works. Opponents are predictable on the turn.

How about when you wait until the turn (multiway) to protect your hand with a double bet? There is a reason in small stakes games that you should do this. Ed Miller and Sklansky have talked about it in their books. The reason is that if you raise on the flop, people will almost always check to you on the turn. You bet, and they call your one bet. Whereas, if you had just called on the flop, the pot would be smaller and you could charge your opponents with a double big bet on the turn.

Neither of those two strategies would work at all, given your assumptions of not "knowing" what will happen on the turn. So, shall we throw them out the window with effective odds, as well? I think not.

The real answer is that effective odds, the free card, and waiting until the turn to raise all deal with the action on the turn being predictable. There are some cases when it's appropriate to "take a card off" but not see both streets. That does does not mean that we should just forget about teaching beginners effective odds for fear of "confusing" them.

Effective odds are a useful tool for a limit player at almost all levels. If you have the stones to try the free card play, you can use effective odds with confidence and ease. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Mangatang]

I still say that just using these odds for the next card to come, you're not going to be too far from the correct play.

11:1 gutshot
5:1 open-ender
4:1 4-flush

These are a lot easy to remember and play with, and they have been doing great for me. Again, if you try these out on several situations, you'll find that they correspond with any of your combersome effective odds or implied odds calculations. And yes, I am using these rules at limit ring games. I don't play no-limit ring games.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
you'll find that they correspond with any of your combersome effective odds or implied odds calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the case, at all. But, you are correct in thinking that you may use these odds. Again, effective odds are not cumbersome. I'm sorry if it is difficult for you, but it is really an easy concept.

Your faliure to address any of my points about "not knowing the action" on 4th street leads me to believe that you have no counter point to them. Effective odds are your "real odds". The TOP states this much. If you do not wish to use them, that is your decision.

My original point stands. Don't go telling people "no no no" when you yourself are giving incorrect answers. I'm glad it has worked for you, but that doesn't make it a fact. See the TOP for reasons why.

I'm not going to try and convince you any further, however. If you wish to cost yourself money, and use incorrect odds, that is your decision. Just don't go around chastising people for giving the REAL answer, as opposed to your practical one.

Effective odds and implied odds are practical. You really need to step up your game if you can't use them effectively. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Dave H.]

Thanx again for your explanation. I think you've stated it in your note, but just to clarify...
In my four flush example, I only need 2 to 1 pot odds for a single bet on the flop because of 2 cards to come, correct? If I miss, do I then need 4 to 1 for a single bet on the turn because of only 1 card to come?

Thank you.

[AngryCola]

No your appx. 2:1 odds are for seeing both cards. That means your odds are 2:1 against hitting the flush on the turn or the river.

Heres a quick explanation:
Take the odds the pot is laying you on the flop and add the probable turn bet (from the flop bettor) to them. Compare this against what you have to call now (on the flop), plus what you will have to call on 4th street.

Current pot + future turn bet of original flop bettor = your 2 cards to come pot size.

Your current call + turn call = what you must compare against the pot when using 2 cards to come odds.

The results are your effective odds. Hope this helps. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[AngryCola]

**DELETED** **DUPLICATE POST**