|
|
#32
09-21-2005, 07:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Implied odds?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] On the turn, the pot is 7.5:1, when the guy bets, it's 8.5:1... you would have correct implied odds most of the time if the other guy just called, but when he bets, it's not 10.5:2 (5.25:1). [/ QUOTE ] Thanks for your help. I'm pretty sure I've addressed these issues, though. [/ QUOTE ] Hmm... well, re-reading my post (while reading the rest of the thread, first reply was a grunch), it's not really clear if I knew at the time that 10bb were required on the river: it wasn't really discussed. FWIW, I don't know if you would have gotten 5 on the river (obviously, yes, in this hand you would have, but I"m not sure about in a general case). 
|
|
#33
09-21-2005, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Implied odds?
One reason I like DIPO (King Yao's method, see Books/Publications forum) is that implied odds are always factored in and quantified. Others may argue that it's just too much calculation to do at the table, but if you're fast with multiplication, I think it can definitely be done. I'll demonstrate DIPO using your example, and assuming like you did, that UTG will never re-raise.
Good Number: Expected Pot Size * # outs = 14 BB * 4 outs = 56 Bad Number: # of non-outs * Bet size = (46 - 4) * 2 BB = 84 Bad number > Good number so we don't have pot odds to continue. I got to the expected pot size of 14 BB by assuming that UTG calls the turn raise, and that I can collect 1 BB from each of them when I hit on the river (pretty conservative estimate). If I assume the river gets capped like you, I add 6 more BB to the expected pot size and get a good number of: 20 BB * 4 outs = 80 which is still less than the bad number of 84, so this is a fold. No amount of implied odds will make this call profitable.
|
|
#34
09-21-2005, 10:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Implied odds?
[ QUOTE ]
The rest of your points are great, but I'd like to point out that these ratios are equivalent. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure I read I thread where Sklansky called some author incompetent because he wrote that those were the same. Sure, the ratios between the numbers are the same but the odds your recieving are differrent, just as I stated. EDIT: ok, maybe I stated myself a little bit unclear [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#35
09-21-2005, 10:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Implied odds?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] On the turn, the pot is 7.5:1, when the guy bets, it's 8.5:1... you would have correct implied odds most of the time if the other guy just called, but when he bets, it's not 10.5:2 (5.25:1). [/ QUOTE ] Thanks for your help. I'm pretty sure I've addressed these issues, though. [/ QUOTE ] Hmm... well, re-reading my post (while reading the rest of the thread, first reply was a grunch), it's not really clear if I knew at the time that 10bb were required on the river: it wasn't really discussed. FWIW, I don't know if you would have gotten 5 on the river (obviously, yes, in this hand you would have, but I"m not sure about in a general case). [/ QUOTE ] I'm positive I would fold even if I only had to make 5 more BB's...
|
|
#36
09-21-2005, 11:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Implied odds?
DavidC Your replies have confused me, Your quoting what you shouldnt(Because thats your latest reply)? You've clicked "REPLY" on your own username and not addressed anyone.
I'm lost mate. SlantNGo This is a interesting method, from Weighing the odds book i assume? I probably could pull this off during game, However i'm not sure whats easier... I suppose if its raised and i need implied this may be a shortcut. As i plan to buy that book for Xmas i shall wait untill then(And by then increase poker knowledge) so i'm ready to learn that method(And it'll be easier to understand from the book i assume?) I look forward to getting this book.
|
|
#37
09-21-2005, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Implied odds?
It is indeed from Weighing the Odds. One thing that this book will do for you is to understand the question "Why?". Yao attempts to answer qualitatively, then shows an EV calculation to illustrate the point. Following that is a note on how changing a certain variable, i.e. opponent type affects the assumptions made in the EV calculation and how you should adjust if that's the case.
[ QUOTE ] This is a interesting method, from Weighing the odds book i assume? I probably could pull this off during game, However i'm not sure whats easier... I suppose if its raised and i need implied this may be a shortcut. As i plan to buy that book for Xmas i shall wait untill then(And by then increase poker knowledge) so i'm ready to learn that method(And it'll be easier to understand from the book i assume?) I look forward to getting this book. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#38
09-21-2005, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Implied odds?
If you're asking why people post in the cutoff and not MP3, its because in the CO you get 8 hands for 1BB - 0.125 bb perhand. In the blinds, its 10 hands for 1.5 bb - 0.15 bb/hand, with worse position. Posting in MP3, you get 4 hands for 1 BB, obviously worse than the blinds, so you should just wait. If you didn't mean this, I'm an idiot (and semi drunk so don't blame me...)
|
|
#39
09-21-2005, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Implied odds?
[ QUOTE ]
It is indeed from Weighing the Odds. One thing that this book will do for you is to understand the question "Why?". Yao attempts to answer qualitatively, then shows an EV calculation to illustrate the point. Following that is a note on how changing a certain variable, i.e. opponent type affects the assumptions made in the EV calculation and how you should adjust if that's the case. [ QUOTE ] This is a interesting method, from Weighing the odds book i assume? I probably could pull this off during game, However i'm not sure whats easier... I suppose if its raised and i need implied this may be a shortcut. As i plan to buy that book for Xmas i shall wait untill then(And by then increase poker knowledge) so i'm ready to learn that method(And it'll be easier to understand from the book i assume?) I look forward to getting this book. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Souinds like my type of book! i hate accepting "X" and not knowing why X is caused/Made/Done. Thanks for your help all, Sorry to OP(Original poster) if it got hijacked, I ACTUALLY THINK YOU LEARNT MORE FROM ME COCKING UP. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Good luck in future hands.
|
|
#40
09-22-2005, 02:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Implied odds?
Not to bump this, but I just logged on after a 16-hr day at work and found a bunch of new posts. Had to respond to a couple of them. Saving this thread, it'll take most of my cross-country flight later this morning to sort it all out.
Concerning the secondary debate of this thread: [ QUOTE ] in the CO you get 8 hands for 1BB - 0.125 bb perhand. In the blinds, its 10 hands for 1.5 bb - 0.15 bb/hand, [/ QUOTE ] This sums it up for me, but take it further. I played 195 hands at this table, posted 25 big and 23 small blinds, plus my bring in. Thats 37.5 big blinds or 18.75 big bets for 195 hands = .096BB/hand. Without the bring in its .091BB/hand for a -EV of .005BB/hand. Oh well. Steal the blinds occasionaly and call it even. DavidC - don't remember where I saw all this hashed out, may have dragged the thread you mention out of the archives at some point. And BTW, [ QUOTE ] re: results in white: nice table! [/ QUOTE ] Yes, yes it was!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
