Yet Another Pot Odds Question

[Dave H.]

Thank you...yes, that tells me how to determine my effective odds. I understand that given your explanation.

Now you need to get your hammer out and beat this into me:

I can see how you use effective odds (basically 2:1) when you have TWO cards to come. But when you miss on the first card, why would your odds not change at that point and force you to return to pot odds? I believe this is the only point of confusion left in my understanding of this principle.

Thanx for your patience!

P.S. I enjoyed your "discussions" with Mangatang. That actually helped me "cement" this stuff in my head!

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you need to get your hammer out and beat this into me:

I can see how you use effective odds (basically 2:1) when you have TWO cards to come. But when you miss on the first card, why would your odds not change at that point and force you to return to pot odds? I believe this is the only point of confusion left in my understanding of this principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let me try to go about this another way.

We all understand (hopefully) regular pot odds. Let us use the 4:1 for one card only as an example. It's understood that about 4 times you will miss your flush, and 1 time you will make it, therefore in this instance you call if the pot is laying you over 4:1 for your money. I'm aware that you understand this, but it helps build my point.

Now, lets take your flush draw and use the 2 cards to come odds. Understand this: When you use 2 cards to come odds, you must see 2 cards. Your odds do not change on the turn because you have missed.

Think of it this way. When you make that call at 2:1 it is for the turn and the river. Do not think of it as a seperate decision. The 2:1 odds mean that you will catch your flush 1 out of 3 times when you see your hand through to the river. The blank falling on 4th street does not change this fact.

It's simply a matter of taking your odds for both streets combined, and therefore missing on the turn has no impact on the fact that you will make your flush by the river 1 out of 3 times. Think of the turn card and the river card as a combination. You are calling based on that combination, not the 2 halves of the combination. Get it?

You are playing the odds for the combination of 2 streets, instead of the individual streets, as our friend Mangatang suggests is correct.

I hope I have been successful in "beating" this into you. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] If you are still confused, perhaps it is the way I am explanaining this topic. Good luck. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

EDIT- Maybe a bit of your confusion stems from the fact that you just instictively know that if you miss on the turn your odds can't be as good as they were before that blank rolled off. You would be correct. If you were to take that bet on the turn, you would only have one card remaining, and would be about a 4:1 dog.

The point is your turn call isn't a seperate decision. It is a completion of your flop call. The money you put in on the turn should have already been factored in on the flop, when deciding whether you had odds to see both streets. just because you are throwing money in the pot on the turn does not mean that you are making an odds based decision at that point in time.

You are simply putting money in the pot that you already figured you would have to pay when you made your decision on the flop. Refer to my last post if you are still confused as to how you can figure this out.

The effective odds issue seems to be one of the hardest for a lot of people to wrap their minds around. They make up for this by just using 1 card odds, because they are slightly easier to figure. They are not making incorrect decisions, but they do miss out on certain profitable situations.

In the situation you described the irony is that most of the time you will end up with the same result. You are almost always getting 4:1 1 card odds or 2:1 for 2 cards. So, it's almost academic when dealing with flush draws and the modern structure of a SB and a BB. Not to mention that small stakes games are often so soft it's profitable to draw to a gutshot on the turn, let alone a real draw such as a 4 flush with 2 cards to come. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Dave H.]

I understand. Now, if I may use another example please. I'm trying to apply the same logic to this example; please tell me if I'm doing this correctly:

I have a pocket pair BEFORE the flop. I know that my odds of making a set or better with the remaining 5 cards are 4.2 : 1. I'm determined to see all five cards. Does this mean that all I need are 4.2 bets in the pot for EACH card that I see?

If so, in microlimit games, I'm just about always getting these odds per bet, so why wouldn't I almost always take the pocket pair all the way to the river?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that all I need are 4.2 bets in the pot for EACH card that I see?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would this be the case? If you wanted to look at it in a vaccum that way, the answer would be that you needed a total pot of 4.2 bets for every 1 bet that you contributed to the pot, but bet sizes change. That's why with effective odds, you must convert everything to small bets or big bets.

I may not be right in my explanation of effective odds in the set situation, and anyone who is smarter than I should step in and explain it better than I could. The main problem here is that after the flop, most of your set chances are gone if you miss. Then the realistic way to look at it is drawing to a 2 outer with 2 cards to come.

Read my previous reply again. I added a few paragraphs. As for your new example, it leads me to believe that you still aren't quite grasping a few fundamentals.

Your new example is a bit difficult to explain. You would have to know all the action for the entire hand, as opposed to 1 street. You would have to know how many people would stay till the river, etc. You will have to do the math on this one yourself.

The difference in this case is that drawing to a set isn't as clear cut as drawing to a flush. Often, you will hit your set and it won't be good. This isn't nearly as much of a problem with flush draws.

Let me recommend a great book on hold'em odds that I picked up a few weeks ago. It's called "Hold'em's Odds Book", by Mike Petriv. You can order it from Gamblers Book Club. Run a search on google. This is a great book for explaining all the detailed odds of hold'em. It also serves as a great primer for understanding probability in all poker situations. I think this book would be great for you. Good luck.

Now if you nice folks will excuse me, I have birthday relaxing to get to! [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[AngryCola]

David Sklansky probably explains effective odds better in one paragraph, than I do in numerous posts. I will quote a short bit of it here.

"Figuring effective odds may sound complicated, but it is a simple matter of addition. You add all the calls you will have to make, assuming you play to the end, to determine the total amount you will lose if you don't make your hand. Then compare this figure to the total amount you should win if you do make the hand. This total is the money in the pot at the moment plus all future bets you can expect to win, excluding your own future bets. Thus, if there is $100 in the pot at the moment and three more $20 betting rounds, you are getting $160-to-$40. When you think your opponent won't call on the end if your card hits, your effective odds would be reduced to something like $140-$40. If, on early betting rounds, these odds are greater than your chances of making your hand, you are correct to see the hand through to the end. If they are not, you should fold."

-David Sklansky pg.53 of The Theory of Poker

Hope this helps. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Dave H.]

You probably aren't going to believe this, but I just finished reading that section for the umpteenth time. Nice timing! No go eat some cake!...and thanks again.

[AngryCola]

This is a repost of something that I just wrote on the probability forum. I thought it would be good to post it here, for any of the beginners who had been interested in this discussion.

9 outs - That is the number of outs you have with a 4 flush on the flop. So lets go from there.

Turn Probability and Odds
9 Outs = 19% probability
(47-9)/x:1 = 4.2:1 odds against

River Probability and Odds
9 Outs = 20% probability
(46-9)/x:1 = 4.1:1 odds against

Now lets look at odds for two cards to come, and I do mean both cards. All of these figures assume 9 flush outs.

HIT ONE OUT = 31.6% probabilty or 342 combinations

HIT TWO OUTS = 3.3% probability or 36 combinations

TO HIT ONE or TWO OUTS =
35% probability or 378 combinations or odds against of 1.9:1

These figures are for 2 card combinations, which are used when determining effective odds. The point is you aren't getting 1.9:1 on the turn card alone. So, you can't say "Well before when i made that call on the flop, I was getting 2:1, and now I've missed so I'm getting 4:1." Which, as I understand it, is how Dave still sees it. 1.9:1 assumes you will see both cards. So therefore you can be getting nothing BUT 1.9:1 for both cards.

What you can say is, "Well, I made that 4.2:1 call on the flop, and now Ive missed so I'm getting 4.1:1." Of course now your odds are slightly better, because you have missed on the turn (1 less non-out that can fall off the deck). The point is, if you start thinking about it as 2:1 on the flop, and 4:1 on the turn, you will most certainly be wrong. If you must think about it in single street terms, think of it as 4.2:1 to see the turn, and 4.1:1 to see the river. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[AngryCola]

Quick note about the math I provided. x = 9, the number of outs you have with a 4 flush.

[RayGarlington]

It seems you are being overly harsh with Managatang. The mechanical approach he suggests isn't wrong, and does with few exceptions correlate with your effective odds approach. It seems to me, that effective odds give you a rationale for playing certain draws that you strictly shouldn't play otherwise. Also, when using the effective odds approach, you need to keep in mind you are rationalizing and should drop the hand if something untoward develops. (Managatang is also correct in suggesting you should drop the hand rather than blindly play it out. If the board pairs and a fit of raising breaks out, it is probably time to opt out of your draw.)

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems you are being overly harsh with Managatang. The mechanical approach he suggests isn't wrong, and does with few exceptions correlate with your effective odds approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, it is not MY approach. I learned it from TOP, and I doubt even Sklansky would tell you that it was HIS. It's simply a matter of fact. Using immediate pot odds vs. effective odds will always have their subtle differences.

I admit I WAS harsh on Mangatang (whom I respect), but my reason for being harsh wasn't because of the immediate pot odds approach he was advocating. It was his assertion "no no no, it MUST be done this way". In fact that is the whole reason that I got involved in this discussion (as I recall).

The original poster was confused about effective odds. What are they? When do you use them? How do you use them? Mangatang's answer was basically saying, "Dont, they are stupid. Here is the right way." He never explained effective odds, and Dave was left confused.

In all of my posts, I've never said using immediate pot odds vs. effective odds was all that bad. My writing on this issue has been for the sole purpose of educating Dave, and anyone else who was still confused about that pesky effective odds idea.

There are a few ways to deal with more than 1 card to come. My original point was that telling someone "there is only 1 way, and your question is irrelevant" is no way to go about answering a question such as Daves.

On a positive note, after much discussion, Dave finally gets it! Some good was done, after all. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]