ahh hell

[Big Dave D]

"Big Dave - Nobody, recognizing the situation, would check/call with a straight here? Are you sure?"

I didnt say nobody, just that it was v unlikely, especially on the net where the action is v loose and check raising is the norm. Look at it from the opponents point of view ... why should the preflop raiser have the nuts? If you've got the nuts why would you not be making at least one move versus a preflop raiser? Trying to get the low flush draws out at least?

"the money that is already in the pot counts when you call a bet, but not when you initiate one"

I don't see why this should be the case. Surely your pot odds are simply what money you win if you win the hand? How do you win less if you call a pot sized bet than you initiate one?

[Buzz]

Big Dave - You have not convinced me that slow playing a flopped jack-high straight is very unusual. But maybe it is in the circle of your regular opponents. At any rate I would not exclude it as a possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
"the money that is already in the pot counts when you call a bet, but not when you initiate one"

I don't see why this should be the case. Surely your pot odds are simply what money you win if you win the hand? How do you win less if you call a pot sized bet than you initiate one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Dave - I'm not going to argue with you about it. Believe what you like.

Good luck to you.

Buzz

[Big Dave D]

Buzz,

I don't want to argue, I genuinely want to understand. Why can the caller include the existing pot as part of his odds but the bettor can't? Is it a perspective problem?

cheers

Dave

[crockpot]

hopefully you considered that you have not only the nut straight but also top two pair on the flop. this is a huge difference; if you had a hand like J932 instead, a ten or eight would kill you on the turn. now a ten or eight is a great card (although less so after the ace hits).

also, in omaha you are not looking to be a huge favorite to have the nuts on the river; you just want good odds on your bets. if you are getting three callers, and almost half the deck will leave you with a winner on the river, you are getting great money odds on your bet. just remember that a lot of drawouts happen in omaha, so if you get frustrated easily it may be best to find a new game.

[Buzz]

I’ll try to explain, Dave. Let’s temporarily forget about implied pot odds to make the discussion simpler.

Suppose
• there is $10 in the pot after the first betting round,
• four of you have seen the flop,
• you are on the button,
• the player in first position bets $10,
• and the bet is called by your other two opponents.
In that case, there is $40 in the pot and it will cost you $10 to see the bet. We’re agreed that your pot odds for calling are 4 to 1. Right? Nothing new yet.

Now suppose that you raise $10, wanting to keep everybody in the pot and realizing they will all stay for $10 more. (Never mind that you would probably have other motives for either raising more or simply calling here).

Even though you might make your raise in the same motion you would make the call, can you recognize that your raise is a separate transaction?

I’m not trying to trick you. Your call and raise are, in fact, two separate transactions, even though you push the money in all at the same time.

You’re getting 4 to 1 odds for your call. We’re agreed on that, right?

Okay.... What are the odds you are getting for your raise? You tell me.

What odds you are getting for the extra $10 you put in the pot if you get three opponents to put in a total of $30 for their calls?

I hope you can see very clearly that you are getting 3 to 1 odds for your raise, because, honest to God, that’s exactly what you are getting. It's not deep. It's not tricky. Very straightforward.

And if you see that, you must also see that the money that is already in the pot has nothing to do with the odds you are getting for your raise.

You’re getting 4 to 1 for your call, and then, assuming you have three opponents who will call your raise, you’re getting 3 to 1 for your raise. The 3 to 1 odds you’re getting for your raise are sometimes called “fresh money odds.”

In fact, whenever you initiate a bet or raise (rather than call) you should figure your odds on the basis of “fresh money odds.”

Suppose you are in a dream game where all your opponents are moneybags calling stations who never fold to a bluff on the third or fourth betting rounds. Should the money that is already in the pot have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not you will make a bet after the turn?

The answer is no. The money that is in the pot has nothing to do with your making a fresh bet here. (However, I hope you can see that the amount of money in the pot does have to do with your calling a bet here).

Pot odds do not apply to initiating a bet. Period.

That’s a principle, Dave, like a natural law.

All you should care about, in terms of initiating fresh money into the pot, is whether the amount of money the moneybags calling stations will put into the pot (as fresh money), divided by your own investment, is more than the hand odds against you.

I hope I've made the concept crystal clear, Dave. In my humble opinion, it’s an important principle that not many seem to understand.

Buzz

[Big Dave D]

Buzz

Thanks for going to such lengths to put together a clear example. I do now understand it, however it does lead to some counter-intuitive examples. Let me expand on one:

You are first to speak headsup on the turn. You have exactly a pot sized bet left, as does your foe. If you bet, you know 100% your opponent will call. If you check, you know 100% your foe will also bet and you will call. So in the latter case you will be getting 2 to 1 for your money. But in the former you are not???

cheers

Dave

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for going to such lengths to put together a clear example. I do now understand it...

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Dave - You’re welcome.

[ QUOTE ]
however it does lead to some counter-intuitive examples. Let me expand on one:

You are first to speak headsup on the turn. You have exactly a pot sized bet left, as does your foe. If you bet, you know 100% your opponent will call. If you check, you know 100% your foe will also bet and you will call. So in the latter case you will be getting 2 to 1 for your money. But in the former you are not???

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Dave - All odds are basically ratios. A ratio is a mathematical concept.

We’re talking about two distinctly different odds concepts, (and therefore two distinctly different ratios): (1) pot odds and (2) new money odds.

Your pot odds here are whatever is in the pot before the betting round plus the amount your opponent contributes this betting round, divided by the amount you put into the pot this betting round. That’s the mathematical concept called pot odds.

Your new money odds are whatever your opponent contributes this betting round, divided by the amount you put into the pot this betting round. That’s the mathematical concept called new money odds (or fresh money odds).

The pot odds in the example you have given are simply not the same as the new money odds in the example. In your example, whether you get your money in first or last, your pot odds are 2 to 1 and your new money odds are 1 to 1.

Maybe the problem is with your usage of the phrase “for your money.” The context in which you’re using “for your money” means “pot odds.”

In my humble opinion, “for your money” can mean either “pot odds” or “new money odds,” depending on whether you're calling a bet or initiating a bet.

Buzz

[Fraubump]

[ QUOTE ]

Pot odds do not apply to initiating a bet. Period.

That’s a principle, Dave, like a natural law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'd like to quibble slightly. The amount of money already in the pot matters for a fresh bet because of the chance that the bet might induce an opponent to fold. The larger the pot the less often this needs to work. This seems especially relevant to PL and NL. If you are 100% sure that your opposition is seeing the showdown, then I completely agree with your reasoning.

[mosta]

Maybe this is helpful (or maybe not--I'm a relative beginner). When you initiate a bet or make a raise you are putting in MORE money than you need to to win the money on the table (in an accounting sense, not considering any strategic sense in which the bigger bet may help you win). You only count pot odds in terms of the minimum you have to pay to play in the pot. What you put in above and beyond that would be for its own separate, additional return, based on how many people SUBSEQUENTLY call you.

Suppose you have a four-flush on the turn and you are highly confident that you win if you make the flush and lose if you don't. First to act bets, all fold to you, you are last to act. First you consider whether to call. You decide that by comparing the odds of making the flush to the odds your call gets versus the pot (which includes the first guy's turn bet). Now consider raising. That is putting in more money than you need to, to draw to your flush. And your only return on that additional, extra investment is the single possible caller (1:1--ignoring bluff value of winning the pot--assume you are confident he is not going to fold on the turn). Now suppose it was heads up on the turn and checked to you. Deciding whether to bet out in this case is the same as deciding whether to raise in the previous case. It only generates a new return of 1:1 on a draw that is not 50-50.

The essential point is that raises and bets (as opposed to calls) are EXTRA, above and beyond what is required to play for the pot. The return of the pot is only applied to what it costs to be in the pot. The pot is not a return on what you put in beyond what is required to be in the pot. What you put in extra generates a separate, additional return when it is called by other players.

[Buzz]

Fraubump -

Pot odds: the ratio of the amount of money in the pot to your investment

New money odds (also called fresh money odds): the ratio of the amount of money your opponents will invest to your investment

[ QUOTE ]
The amount of money already in the pot matters for a fresh bet because of the chance that the bet might induce an opponent to fold. The larger the pot the less often this needs to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying.

That certainly seems true to me.

But the amount of money already in the pot is not the same as the ratio called "pot odds."

I'm trying to use the term "pot odds" to mean exactly what it means. I think you might be thinking of the term in a less rigorous sense.

What I am saying is that pot odds per se have nothing to do with whether or not you should initiate a bet. Moreover, if your basis for initiating a bet is computing your "pot odds" and comparing them with the odds against making your hand when you are on a draw, then in my humble opinion what you are doing is purely stupid... Please pardon that phraseology. I don't mean you're stupid, Fraubump. I've spent an hour here trying to think of a way to say that more softly but still with as much strength. My muddled brain can't thnk of a better way to say what I mean and it's time for me to move on. But I want to make it clear that it's not my intention to offend here.

It certainly makes sense to me to consider the amount of money in the pot before initiating a bet, but computing your "pot odds" and having that ratio be your guide for initiating a bet could induce you to make a bet when you thought you had favorable odds to initiate a bet, but, in fact, did not.

Buzz