Long shots with odds

[jackfrost]

I was reading Ciaffone's nl/pl book and have become confused about something. On the first page he gives a Limit scenario where a player has a gut shot and his implied odds are somewhere around 1:14. He doesn't state the implied odds but you can calculate it. Now he says lay it down and than makes a comment about taking longshots all night will widdle away your stack. I've always followed the theory that if my implied odds are 1:14 and my odds of hitting are 1:13 i'm going to play. But the more I think about it, I'm starting to think he has a point. Taking a lot of longshots puts a lot of of shorterm variance in my bankroll and I may just be better off passing and waiting for a better situation. I'm really not sure, any thoughts?

[Rozez]

The problem is your bankroll. I think you should build up your bankroll if you can't withstand the short-term variance that longshot draws create.
Your bankroll has to be large enough for you to play your best game. That includes taking longshots when you expect to "win" some specific amount of money every time you toss your chips in the middle.
Rozez

[AaronBrown]

I agree with Rozez. Also, you have to play some longshots to keep people guessing. If I know you only stay in pots with, say, a 20% or better of winning; I know a lot about your hand.

The variance issue is not as big as it seems. Standard deviation goes up only with the square root of payoff (assuming the odds break-even). Flipping a coin for $1 has a standard deviation of $1, betting $1 for a one in nine chance of winning $9 has a standard deviation of $3, not $9. So as long as your longshots aren't too frequent, and legitimate opportunities are not common, they should push up your standard deviation too much.

[senjitsu]

I can't speak for Ciaffone's take on the issue as I havent read his book (His book is definitely on my "to read" list though), but generally it is always sound startegy to call into a pot offering the correct odds. If doing so makes the varience too severe, then you have to find a smaller game or a bigger roll...

Thaty said, many players are a bit optimistic about their implied odds, either by incorrectly assuming that they will be paid off if they hit, or by incorrectly assuming that their draw will be good if it hits.

But given that the pot is really laying 14:1 and you're a only a 13-1 dog, you have a +ev situation, and passing it up is a mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
I was reading Ciaffone's nl/pl book and have become confused about something. On the first page he gives a Limit scenario where a player has a gut shot and his implied odds are somewhere around 1:14. He doesn't state the implied odds but you can calculate it. Now he says lay it down and than makes a comment about taking longshots all night will widdle away your stack. I've always followed the theory that if my implied odds are 1:14 and my odds of hitting are 1:13 i'm going to play. But the more I think about it, I'm starting to think he has a point. Taking a lot of longshots puts a lot of of shorterm variance in my bankroll and I may just be better off passing and waiting for a better situation. I'm really not sure, any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

[jackfrost]

Rozez, I don't think the problem is my bankroll but I do see your point.

Aaron I agree that thin draws will keep your opponent off balance, but if your opponent really knows the odds and he knows you know the odds, he will understand your play. But with a thin draw they usually won't put you on it until u hit them with a reraise.

Sen, I agree that people may often be to optimistic about there implied odds. But most often on the these longshots like gutshots or or a small pair and a backdoor flush, your implied odds are in good shape because your opponent won't smell out your hand until it is to late. I do agree that miscalculating your implied odds is a huge mistake, I see people making this mistake more often in NL than in limit, especially with stronger draws. I often see people paying pot size bets on the turn with a flush draw thinking i'm going to slide my stack over to them when the flush hits.

I'm not trying to argue, just merely trying to see where Ciaffone is coming from. I can tell that Ciaffone is a very intelligent man and when he makes a statement like that I think there must be some truth to it. When he wrote that portion of the book I know he looked at the odds and i'm sure several other poker brains read it before it was published. Of course, every poker book i've read seems to say something that is arguably incorrect. I think Baldwin said it best when he starts off by stating everything I say has an exception.

When I play online and i'm playing several tables I really don't even think twice and just go by the odds. When I go to a casino and only play 30 hands an hour and go up in limits considerably I don't think passing on slim draws is that bad of a mistake, eventho it really isn't any different than the mistake I would be making online. But this type of thinking does go back to Rozez original comment that my bankroll is to small, well it's not really that but i'm looking to turn a profit in a shorter span of time. I know being in a hurry is a sin in poker, but passing on some slightly better than even bets does make some since when you know you will have a bet with better odds shortly.

Another thing i've noticed is that one bad draw often leads to another.

I went back and looked at that paragraph again, since I hadn't read it for a while. It is the 3rd paragraph in chapter one. He says it is probably a mistake, but his philosophy of passing on longshots with +EV deffinetly caught my attention. The math is the pot is currently 110$ and it cost you 10$ to see the turn. With that right there i've got the pot odds to call w/out even considering the implied odds, my implied odds could actually be as good as 1:17, or even better if my opponent holds a set or a top two pair, the type of player your up against and what he is likely holding would have to come into play to judge this better.

I first started reaidng this book a couple months ago and after reading that part about the gutshot, I immediately got upset and quit reading. Decided to read the book recently and realized this guy is pretty bright and I can learn a lot from him.

[Kirkrrr]

Just read Ciaffone's/Reuben's book... about four times in a row. Great read.
As far as taking 13:1 shot if the pot is offering you 14:1 odds, I'd do it if I was playing on a virtually unlimited bankroll since I'm going to miss 12 times and lose my money, make it once and win back only about 7% on top of that. Is it +EV?... uh, yes... is it worth it? No.
... Except if you're betting. I'm known as a very aggressive player since I don't need very much to bet - a decent hand, a gutshut draw, or any time I sense weakness. My point is that I wouldn't call a long shot, especially for any significant part of my bankroll, just because it's marginally +EV. I'm fairly certain I'll find a better spot to put my money in in another two hours later in the session. But I would BET that long shot in certain spots since the folding equity swings that entire equation into very positive territory.

Kirk R.

[x vikram]

I have to say that if my bankroll is high enough to survive a 13:1 bet that you would win 1:12 times shot pot 11 times at least, then i would call because i am getting the right oods

[senjitsu]

I assumed from the context of the original post that the 13:1 represented a relatively small bet into a large pot (like, you're paying $20 into a $260 pot). Is it talking about calling a large bet into an enormous pot?

Regardless, if you're talking about wether your bankroll can survive a loss in a particular game, the game is beyond your bankroll, and you shouldn't be there in the first place. If you play NL/PL, you should be able to bust out of the table BI without doing significant harm to your bankroll.


[ QUOTE ]
Just read Ciaffone's/Reuben's book... about four times in a row. Great read.
As far as taking 13:1 shot if the pot is offering you 14:1 odds, I'd do it if I was playing on a virtually unlimited bankroll since I'm going to miss 12 times and lose my money, make it once and win back only about 7% on top of that. Is it +EV?... uh, yes... is it worth it? No.
... Except if you're betting. I'm known as a very aggressive player since I don't need very much to bet - a decent hand, a gutshut draw, or any time I sense weakness. My point is that I wouldn't call a long shot, especially for any significant part of my bankroll, just because it's marginally +EV. I'm fairly certain I'll find a better spot to put my money in in another two hours later in the session. But I would BET that long shot in certain spots since the folding equity swings that entire equation into very positive territory.

Kirk R.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jackfrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, if you're talking about wether your bankroll can survive a loss in a particular game, the game is beyond your bankroll, and you shouldn't be there in the first place. If you play NL/PL, you should be able to bust out of the table BI without doing significant harm to your bankroll.


[/ QUOTE ]
The example given was a limit scenario. Do you think that Ciaffone frequently plays in games beyond his bankroll?
Here's what i said earlier:
[ QUOTE ]

I went back and looked at that paragraph again, since I hadn't read it for a while. It is the 3rd paragraph in chapter one. He says it is probably a mistake, but his philosophy of passing on longshots with +EV deffinetly caught my attention. The math is the pot is currently 110$ and it cost you 10$ to see the turn. With that right there i've got the pot odds to call w/out even considering the implied odds, my implied odds could actually be as good as 1:17, or even better if my opponent holds a set or a top two pair, the type of player your up against and what he is likely holding would have to come into play to judge this better.


[/ QUOTE ]
He also said and i quote "Drawing to an inside straight is probably a mistake, but not horribly so. Drawing to longshots all evening wil eventually take its toll on your finances"
I really doubt Ciaffone's bankroll is the problem since in the book he has several rules for playing poker, and he touches on this.
So no more bankroll problem replies.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

As far as taking 13:1 shot if the pot is offering you 14:1 odds, I'd do it if I was playing on a virtually unlimited bankroll since I'm going to miss 12 times and lose my money, make it once and win back only about 7% on top of that. Is it +EV?... uh, yes... is it worth it? No.

[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds like a rationalization. Don't look for excuses to fold in a large pot.

By the Kelly Criterion, you should be willing to wager up to 1/43 of your bankroll on such a bet. This is a safer bet than playing a hand of poker from the start. If you are willing to do that, but not call here, your preferences are inconsistent.