"Official" Live at the Bike thread (11/11) (10/20 NL Bluff Night)

[Russ McGinley]

DEVASTATION!

[bluffski]

for information on reverse implied odds please see THEORY OF POKER by David Sklansky. It has to do with calling bets when you dont know if your hand is the best hand

[gabbahh]

Not knowing the hole cards did Mike play this correct?
Or should he have gone all in on the flop or turn?

[bluffski]

reverse implied odds is the ratio between the amount in the pot (what you win if your opponent does not make their hand) versus what it will cost you to play until the end of the hand. One of the major factors behind considering implied odds is how hidden your hand is (how uncertain your opponent is of your hand); another is the size of future bets. For the latter reason, implied odds become more important in no-limit and pot-limit games than in fixed-limit games. For reverse implied odds, consider that you have a strong hand but little chance of improving and your opponent has a chance of improving to a hand stronger than yours, or possibly already has a hand stronger than yours (they have been betting and you are not sure if they are bluffing) - essentially a situation where you are not certain that you have the best hand. Say it is the turn and there is $12 in the pot and it is $4 to call (pot odds 3-to-1). If your opponent has a weak hand or misses their card they may stop betting in which case you would only win $12 (it costs $4 to find out you are winning). Otherwise, you have committed to playing to the end of the hand in which case it would cost you $8 to find out you are losing (pot odds 3-to-2). There are many variations to this scenario. The essential idea is that reverse implied odds should be considered when you are not certain you have the best hand; it will cost more in future betting rounds to discover this.

[cwsiggy]

good definition bugman

[surfinillini]

what's with Mo these days...is he runnin bad or just playing bad?

[cwsiggy]

both

[7n7]

Hey swig,

Got an answer back from Barry G. (via Shirley) about what he would do in the hand example from that book I posted.

See below for the answer and reference thread:

> I usually raise in this situation to define my hand. Often the chips
> stacks are such that I get all-in or get a caller all-in. When the
chips
> stacks are deep, you have to consider who calls or raises you.
Against
> some players, I am happy to get my chips in. Against others, a call
or
> raise behind me leaves me with a sick feeling.
>
> Barry

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...=11#Post3864713

[whalekock]

Is the term "reversed implied odds" the new "stop bet"

[mostsmooth]

theres a difference between reading something and studying something [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]