No call on Flop cost me $1700 pot(30-60). Please advice.

[andyfox]

You'll find it in the Favorite Links to your left. Good tool for figuring out how often you'll win a hand given situation x.

[Kevin J]

I thought I might be misusing the term reverse implied odds. What I meant was... If he hits his straight on the turn and NOW puts many bets in and THEN goes on to lose to a flush on the river.... I'm not sure what the correct term is, but it seems it should be reverse something. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Gabe]

Twenty cents. You really do have to work on the math.

[Kevin J]

.

[bobbyi]

I said this in response to mmcd, but I'm not sure if you are going to read that: I think reverse implied odds is the correct term here. Under discussion is money that you are potentially going to lose on future streets (in addition to the money you must put in now). Whether you are going to lose this money because an opponent redraws or because you were already beaten is logically irrelevant. What matters is how often you are going to lose and how much it is going to cost you. It is a seven card game and the question of which player would have had the best hand were there no turn or river should never affect our thinking.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, i always put an UTG raiser on a set when a board comes 7 high. Please. Hindsight thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does this have to be hindsight thinking? He knows the opponent and we don't. This is an overly aggressive player. He's telling us that after raising preflop, this guy will automatically bet the flop, unless he flops a monster like a set or a straight. People like that exist. I don't understand why so many people on this thread (this isn't directed only at you) assume that he is wrong about his opponents. He is telling us that this a game where this player unexpectedly checking the flop typically means he is going to check-raise and that it is likely the other players will reraise, so we should take that as a given when we analyze the hand. Recently, I've seen several people gripe on this board that not enough posters provide descriptions of the opponents. Then, someone gives us a very specific and relevant description of how the game plays, and everyone wants to throw it out the window and assume that a raise isn't likely.

[mmcd]

Your definitions of I.O. and R.I.O are overly broad.

Implied odds are what allow you to make a call when you are getting insufficient immediate pot-odds for your drawing hand to hit.

Reverse implied odds are what allow you to fold your made hand even though you are getting sufficient immediate pot odds that your hand is best.

The other concepts you are referring to are certainly important and must be taken into consideration, but they are beyond the scope of implied odds/reverse implied odds.

Other concepts such as effective odds, accounting for redraws, discounting outs, "best-hand" vs. "favorite" etc. more readily address the situations to which you are referring.

In deep-stack big bet poker for example, the best implied odds situation (IMO) would be having a draw to some small goofball straight against top set. Your ability to get all the money in as a significant favorite when you hit is what gives you the implied odds. The fact that your opponent will have 10 outs against you when this happens doesn't mean that your hand has "reverse-implied odds".

[bobbyi]

Ok. I certainly understand what you mean and don't really want to debate the sematics. Your use of these terms is closer to the use in TOP than mine is. Despite that, my experience has been that these terms are used differently by different people (although there is an unsual amount of conformity on this board to the prevelant cross-talk amongst the posters), and I happen to think that Kevin J's usage was fine, but I understand the reasons that you don't. Personally, I think the distinction between a "made hand" and a "drawing hand," although sometimes a useful abstaction, in general does more harm than good, which is why I am leery of basing theoretical concepts on it.

[bernie]

Because based on his posts/responses, i think it was hindsight. Along with seeing monsters. The whole post, including the title is referring to hindsight. He may have had a feel for it, but im not going to give him that much credit for the read yet given what he's presented so far.

Putting an UTG pre-raiser on a set that fast on a 7 high flop is a little farfetched. Possible? Yes. But it's way too early to narrow it that far.

Although, it does look like a close play that can be tough to gauge in the heat of battle. He asked if anyone agreed with his thinking. I don't. From his read on the flop, (though he got it right this time, how many times has he missed his read? I think it may happen quite a bit.) to his read on his odds leading to his fold.

[ QUOTE ]
Recently, I've seen several people gripe on this board that not enough posters provide descriptions of the opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am one of those gripers. My gripes are primarily aimed at those who've been on the forum for awhile, who's games are decent and are usually playing 4 tables online. They should be able to provide a description.

He gave a good table description. The fact he thinks this flop hit some of the other coldcallers is even more reason to slide one off. They aren't going anywhere and will pay him off. They don't coldcall with crap so they can catch a piece of the flop and fold anytime soon.

Someone also made a statement about the poster playing any 2 suited. Let's remember, he was posting in the CO. He didn't limp in with this.

b

[elysium]

hi gabe

he's not getting correct odds to call since it is too likely to get check-raised, and the draw is to the straight with 2 to a flush on board. with that many opponents in there, his straight will often not hold up, and that directly effects his odds on the initial call.

from absolute last position, the call is only borderline, but o.k. notice also that he would like to have one of suit to the flush draw.