ahh hell

[Buzz]

Mosta -

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Strictly from the standpoint of getting favorable odds on your investment, what you voluntarily put in the pot beyond what is required depends on how much you opponents will also contribute. It has nothing (except maybe obliquely - see Fraubump's post) to do with how much is already in the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Let me emphasize that there are other reasons for raising than because you are getting favorable odds on your money.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
The pot is not a return on what you put in beyond what is required to be in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't ever thought of it in that way, but that makes sense to me.

[ QUOTE ]
What you put in extra generates a separate, additional return when it is called by other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

Buzz

[Fraubump]

Buzz, I think a simpler way to phrase you're point is by prescription:

Make bets when you are a money favorite. If your odds of winning the hand are greater than the ratio of your money to that of your opponents' that is currently going into the pot, BET.

(And of course consideration has to be given to other reasons for betting, such as bluffing. This can be factored into the odds of winning, but only in a kinda fuzzy way.)

CALL bets when your odds of winning the pot are greater than the ratio of the money you will have to put in the pot from this point forward to the total amount of money that will be in the pot by the end.

(And calling odds need to factor in possibility of an opponent's bluff, but again, hard to be exact)

[Buzz]

Fraubump - Yes, that might be a better way to put it. Looks like you understand the principle.

This sub-thread came about because in response to Eric, I innocently wrote: [ QUOTE ]
Betting is fine. The odds of ending up with the nuts on the river are slightly against you, but with three callers you're getting a 3 to 1 pay-off on an almost even money bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those 3 to 1 odds are correct - but they are not "pot odds." Rather they are "new money odds" - and, indeed, they are the proper odds to use in the context of what I innocently wrote.

Then it was in trying to emphasize that <font color="red">the odds to use when raising are not "pot odds"</font> that I wrote the line that you took issue with. But, yes, of course you might want to consider the size of the pot in planning your strategy and implementing your tactics.

I hope we're clear on it. Sounds to me like you understand the principle as well as I do. It's not deep. On the contrary, the principle seems simple and intuitive to me - and I hope to you and anyone else reading this thread also.

Thanks for your response.

Buzz

[mackthefork]

You played this one crack on, by the sounds of it you were the only player to see the river with a positive expectation, I would do the same with your hand 100% of the time. Make a note on those players and go play them again next time, I will play them too if you tell me who they are.

Enjoy your game.

ML

[ericsind]

this all leads to another question. Let's say in PLO you have KJ87 rainbow (nevermind whether you should play this hand or not), and the flop comes A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. you're in early position, bet the pot and get 3 callers. The turn brings 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. How hard would you bet this, given that you have no redraws, and are probably an underdog to win the pot?

I'd assume I'm up against maybe a set of trips, a flush draw, maybe the same straight, maybe 2 pair with an inside draw at the high straight, or possible combinations of the above. Whether or not these assumptions are correct, I think there's a good chance I'm an underdog to win. I realize I'm getting good pot odds, but I wonder if slowing down a little on the turn is the correct play here?

Also, let's say on the flop I bet pot in early position, get raised pot, and there's a cold call behind that. Do you even continue here?

Eric

[Buzz]

Eric - I don’t think you are an under-dog. 20 cards are bad for you while 24 cards leave you with the nuts. (5 of these 24 cards are less than ideal, because they make it easier for an opponent to split with you, but the other 19 cards are perfect for you).

You clearly have favorable odds to bet.

Pot it. About half the time (20/44) the river will be a scare card and then you will have another decision to make, but the other half of the time (24/44), assuming all three of your opponents call, you’ll get paid about three to one on your new investment (unless one of them also has the straight, in which case you'll only get paid one to one on your investment).

We could figure this more exactly, including taking ties into account, but I don’t see any point. You very clearly should bet the pot here.

Buzz

[Big Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
...I think there's a good chance I'm an underdog to win. I realize I'm getting good pot odds...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost the entire of the game of PLO. If your money odds are favourable, it doesnt MATTER if you are favourite to win or not. As an extreme example, it may be right to set two opponents with made hands allin on the turn WITHOUT EVEN A PAIR!

[ QUOTE ]
Also, let's say on the flop I bet pot in early position, get raised pot, and there's a cold call behind that. Do you even continue here?

[/ QUOTE ]

If my money is deep no...if the raise sets me in I may call, depending on the money situation. So often this is a pass, unless I am against complete crackpots.

gl


dd