Validity of "Break Even" Theory

[Gambler101]

On ESPN.com's Poker Club, I read an article by Mr. Phil Gordon. I was outraged and perplexed at his statement, "The concept of pot odds is useless" ("Forget..."). I would like to know if his article that outlines his Break Even Percentage Theory holds any truth. As a reader of Mr. David Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker," I am not ready to dismiss the concept of pot odds.

-Gambler101

[ldavidjm]

A link would be nice....

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
A link would be nice....

[/ QUOTE ]
"Forget pot odds"

You are misquoting him. He was mainly talking about taking implied odds also into the equation.

[timprov]

Phil's invented a way to turn odds notation into fractions! He's a friggin' genius!

That's all his article is. It should be titled "Pot odds for people who can't turn 4:1 into a percent in their heads." But that's kinda long, even for ESPN.com.

[OrangeKing]

I have to admit, I liked this part of the article:

[ QUOTE ]

Beginner

The pot has $20 in it and Phil Hellmuth goes all-in for $30.

1. What are your pot odds?
2. What is your break-even percentage?

Bonus: How many expletives will Philly utter if you suck out and bust him?


[/ QUOTE ]

[UATrewqaz]

I really hope all my future opponents fully believe that pot odds are a useless concept [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Funny, his theory sounds alot like pot odds to me

[Shandrax]

Gordon's concept is nothing but changing odds to percentages. David Sklansky recommended the same in "GETTING THE BEST OF IT".

[POKhER]

LMFAO That made me laugh!