DIPO

[Hellmouth]

I know there has been some discussion about King Yao's DIPO system for analyzing pot odds. I think that the general consensus was that it was either too hard or unnecessary.

I have just read the section that describes DIPO and I like it a whole lot more than just counting your outs and comparing it to the pot odds. The reason is that DIPO naturally takes into account the implied odds by assessing the expected pot size. I think that this makes it more accurate for the turn than using the outs vs pot odds method.

I think that this method is more straight forward for someone who has not memorized the relationship of # outs to pot odds. However I can see how many who already use pot odds would feel that DIPO is more complicated since they are used to the former.

Congrats on a great book Yao.
Greg

[SlantNGo]

I agree. I use DIPO whenever I have time to... it's just not as quick as memorizing the out chart and comparing that to the pot odds being obtained.

I also agree that implied odds should NOT be separated from pot odds because really, they're no different. You estimate a pot size, and if your estimate is good, that is the actual size of the pot you should use, not the current.

[theghost]

I usually use the pot odds method. I generally cancel out the implied odds against the chance of an opponent's redraw coming in on the river.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
I know there has been some discussion about King Yao's DIPO system for analyzing pot odds. I think that the general consensus was that it was either too hard or unnecessary.

I have just read the section that describes DIPO and I like it a whole lot more than just counting your outs and comparing it to the pot odds. The reason is that DIPO naturally takes into account the implied odds by assessing the expected pot size. I think that this makes it more accurate for the turn than using the outs vs pot odds method.

I think that this method is more straight forward for someone who has not memorized the relationship of # outs to pot odds. However I can see how many who already use pot odds would feel that DIPO is more complicated since they are used to the former.

Congrats on a great book Yao.
Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

DIPO is a good concept, but there's a simpler way and it was outlined by Abdul in his Theory of Sucking out. In fact, Yao credits Abdul in WTO. (And Abdul credits the late Andy Morton for the multiplication trick in the Theory of Sucking Out):

Reduce expected pot size (including future bets won) to an expression of X:1. Take X, add 1, then multiply by your effective outs. If that number is greater than 47 on the flop, or 46 on the turn (i.e. unseen cards), then you can call.

Example, you are getting 8:1 on the flop with a gutshot to the nuts on unpaired, rainbow board against 2 foes. You figure if you hit the turn, you collect 2 big bets on the later rounds. 8+2+2 = 12:1. 12+1 = 13*4 outs = 52 > 47 unseen cards so call.

Or you can shortcut it like I do in implied odds situations. I take the actual pot odds, add 1, multiply by effective outs and compare to 35 on the flop and 40 on the turn as a shortcut to figuring implied odds. It's not exact, but it's fast and accurate enough.

[Hellmouth]

This is a nice trick also. I noticed the ref to Abdul. I was going to try to look it up later tonight so you have saved me a lot of hassle. In principle they are mathematically the same. Just manipulated to look different.

I suspect that King wanted to show abdul's trick without blatently ripping him off. He also credits Abdul elsewhere in the book so I suspect that the method may have been origionally learned there.

Thanks
Greg

[RatFink]

I've emailed King about the trick just to make sure I wasn't making some mathematical leap. He states it works fine, but doesn't allow you to handle situations where you have to face 2 so in his book he wanted to give the full formula so that it was more universally applicable.