"Official" Live at the Bike thread (11/15) (300 min/500 max NL)

[DWarrior]

Aren't Sklansky Reversed Implied Odds the odds of AA vs. 87s, where AA will lose a lot to 87s, while 87s won't lose much to AA? AA has Reverse Implied Odds (it wants to be all-in PF), 87s has Implied Odds (it wants to see cheap cards to hit monsters)

What's this flush vs straight thing, news to me.

[gonebroke]

[ QUOTE ]
When are Bart and Shirley finally going to get it over with and consummate?

And when they do, will it be available in the archives?

[/ QUOTE ]

Check the archives...2 weeks ago from today.

[cwsiggy]

Implied odds (and reverse implied odds) are based on the possibility of winning (or losing) more money later in the hand. They consider the situation after the next cards have been dealt and explain situations where things are better (or worse) than pot odds make them seem. Put another way, implied odds is the ratio between the amount you expect to win when you make your hand (more than what is in the pot) versus the amount it will cost to continue playing. In contrast, 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.

[whalekock]

Gus bets with nothing but folds the wheel? I guess he thought the other guy had proper reverse implied odds.

[Kevmath]

Didn't Shawn Sheikhan make a brief appearance on a L@TB show in a 400/800 limit game? If he had won the ME, he could've set back poker 10 years with his bitter beer face look.

[Durwyn]

Geez, these hands look like what I've been getting the last couple of weeks!! Tight table.

[DWarrior]

Let's see what The Bible has to say:

Implied odds explain situations when your odds are better than they seem. There are other times when you must realize that your odds are not as good as they seem. These situations occur when you have a mediocre hand with little chance of improving, which you think is the best hand at the moment, yet your opponent keeps betting. You think he may be bluffing, and you can beat only a bluff – that is, a hand that is weaker than what your opponent is representing. However, since your opponent is controlling the betting, he will probably back off on later rounds if he doesn’t have you beat. Thus, you are in the position of winning the minimum if you have the best hand but losing the maximum if you have the worst hand. The true pot odds in such situations are much worse than they seem, and so we call them reverse implied odds.

[Sklansky, Theory of Poker:Reverse Implied Odds]

[Durwyn]

Was that a bad play by Sin-Jin? Or was he just trying to get under Gus's skin?

[ QUOTE ]
Was that a bad play by Sin-Jin? Or was he just trying to get under Gus's skin?

[/ QUOTE ]

While Gus may not like the play, it saved him over $200. Don't know why he keeps bitching.

[surfinillini]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was that a bad play by Sin-Jin? Or was he just trying to get under Gus's skin?

[/ QUOTE ]

While Gus may not like the play, it saved him over $200. Don't know why he keeps bitching.

[/ QUOTE ]

still [censored] etiquette