King Yao "Weighing the Odds"

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't use DIPO for online play but it seems like a good system to use during live play to keep track of the pot and odds. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a waste of time, learn to eyeball the pot and count bets. There is enough to think about in B&M poker without having to do calculations in your head. Knowing precise odds is really really unimportant, since situations where precise odds are needed, are rare and probably close anyways. Just know the usual situations and the odds associated with them.

[SlantNGo]

It is a word, but I'm not sure that I used it in the correct sense [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] It's usually used when referring to a discrete set of values in a quantum mechanical sense.

[ QUOTE ]
nice post.


[ QUOTE ]
quantizes

[/ QUOTE ]


this is a word???

[/ QUOTE ]

[Derek in NYC]

[ QUOTE ]
Currently, I think, "Okay, I'm getting 8:1, and my odds to hit my gutshot are 10.5:1, so I can probably call with implied odds, as long as I can make back 2.5 SB later on in the hand".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your mental process is too loose. You're giving too much credit to the implied odds of your gutshot. You also need to consider that even if you hit your gutshot on the turn, on many boards, players will have redraws to beat you on the river. Discounting the immediate odds this much is a leak.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense, but your review sucks. Somebody writes a chapter on pot odds and you say skip it, this is covered elsewhere. That's like saying, I went to church and someone said something about God so I left because I've already read the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I called it "review" and not review. Actually my background is chess and I used to write real reviews on chess books for professional magazines, so I know that my "review" of this book is more something like a commented summary.

I understand your point pretty well, but please consider this: In chess we have books on openings. If some leading GM wrote a book on let's say the dragon variation, you can't just write a book on the very same dragon variation without adding something clearly unique (re-evaluation of certain critical lines, novelities and such). You will get trashed by reviewers if you do and rightfully so.

On the other side, if you want to write another book on chess for beginners and show them how the pieces move you can do that, but if we are honest, then there is no need for that and not without reason, there is no market for that either.

In my opinion good books should really take things a step further. Writing the 1001st book on the subject of calculating pot odds simply doesn't cut it, especially if it takes you more than half of your book to do so.

Now my issue with this book is probably not that it is "just another" book on a subject that has been covered countless times already, it is that some people on this board got so excited over it, that they treat it as something like a "must read". I am a victim of this hype and my "review" was intended to share this experience with the public.

If you think the book is great, no problem. I am actually happy for you. Unfortunately I can't share your enthusiam.

[Fantam]

[ QUOTE ]
Currently, I think, "Okay, I'm getting 8:1, and my odds to hit my gutshot are 10.5:1, so I can probably call with implied odds, as long as I can make back 2.5 SB later on in the hand".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your mental process is too loose. You're giving too much credit to the implied odds of your gutshot. You also need to consider that even if you hit your gutshot on the turn, on many boards, players will have redraws to beat you on the river. Discounting the immediate odds this much is a leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

HEFAP disagrees with you. p82 "Against players who give a lot of action, you can try for an inside straight on the flop when you have odds of only about 8-to-1."

With regard to Weighing the Odds in Hold-Em, I very much enjoyed the book and feel that it has helped me in consolidating some of the concepts, which I learned from SSHE, HEFAP and TOP.

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
Now my issue with this book is probably not that it is "just another" book on a subject that has been covered countless times already, it is that some people on this board got so excited over it, that they treat it as something like a "must read". I am a victim of this hype and my "review" was intended to share this experience with the public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason himself has stated that the book covers new ground.

If nothing else, it certainly covers some topics in much greater depth than any previous book, the short handed and river sections, for example.

[Derek in NYC]

[ QUOTE ]
HEFAP disagrees with you. p82 "Against players who give a lot of action, you can try for an inside straight on the flop when you have odds of only about 8-to-1."

[/ QUOTE ]

The advice indicates that drawing to the gutshot is justified "against players who give a lot of action." It is not an auto-draw. My larger point was that 8:1 odds on a 10.5:1 draw is not a simple analysis. The situation needs to be right.

Not only do your opponents need to be counted on to give you action/excessive action, but the board must also be analyzed. How coordinated are the suits? On a monotone flop, the gutshot is a fold. On a two-tone flop, you need to discount your gutshot to 3 outs, and consider redraws on 5th street.

Are you drawing to an idiot straight, or the nut straight? There is a significant difference between holding JT on a flop of AK3 rainbow, and holding 9T on a flop of QK4 two-tone.

Does the call close the action, or is there a preflop bettor behind you? If the pot is raised, your odds go down again.

Implied odds is a hugely abused concept that covers up overly loose tendencies.

[tinhat]

I thought this book had been around longer and so was confident in many favorable opinions I've read at 2+2 about it and bought it.

May be unfair but 100 or so pages in there's no question I'm disappointed; and DIPO seems like an imprecise (reliance on implieds), unneccesarily complicated and inadequate way of getting around memorizing a handful of hand odds. Without some equity capabilities DIPO seems entirely useless. Give King Yao credit for being inventive; but the "new" way IMO isn't better or simpler or easier - so I don't see any merit beyond its uniqueness.

BUT, I love reading poker info even if it's stuff I already know so for that reason, a different perspective and the little tidbits I hope I stumble across, I'm hopeful the rest of the book will make me glad I bought it. Hate to sound cruel but the next 200 pages almost certainly have to be better than the first 100...

[SlantNGo]

You're 100% right. I wasn't using the situation as an indication of right or wrong play, just as a comparison of traditional implied odds thinking vs. DIPO, which doesn't separate implied odds from the odds that you will hit your hand (which is the way it should be IMO). In my comparison, for simplification purposes, I'm assuming the draw is to the nuts, and that we will not be redrawn. Yao recommends that when counting the expected pot size, not to count bets on the river for the reason of the redraw.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason himself has stated that the book covers new ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem at all. I don't claim to have a professional opinion on it. If Mason can find something that I overlooked, I will be more than happy to hear about it. Let's wait and see what he meant with his statement.