|
|
#1
11-22-2004, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
My problem with blindly following pot odds
Here's my problem with pot odds, whenever you flop a nut flush draw, and the board is not paired, and your opponent moves all in, pot odds dictate a call EVERY SINGLE time. I don't pay $215 to have a 35% of staying alive early in a tournament.
Hypothetically speaking, say a sitation comes up every time you enter a SNG where early on you have a nut flush draw and someone moves you in. If you follow pot odds, you would call every time, so bam, you're only going to continue 35% of the time. Since 30% of the players in a SNG make the money and accounting for rake, you would be under a tremendous amount of pressure to finish Top 3 in all 35% otherwise you aren't going to be profitable. And even if you win, 2100 chips is no guarantee you'll finish Top 3 when that's only 21% of the chips in play. I sometimes question people when they suck out a flush after I move them all in, and they reply they had proper odds. True, but pot odds mean no matter what you can call an all-in bet any time on the flop (unless you think even a flush doesn't win it). Does anyone see what I'm saying? Pot odds are on your side, but I don't like calling all ins with a flush draw. I mean what if there were 40 chips in the pot, and someone moves in with 960 chips. Pot odds say to call, but why would you want to??? I want to be on the look out for those who blindly follow pot odds and be 65% to continue my tourney, not 35%. Thoughts? comments? 
|
|
#2
11-22-2004, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My problem with blindly following pot odds
[ QUOTE ]
Here's my problem with pot odds, whenever you flop a nut flush draw, and the board is not paired, and your opponent moves all in, pot odds dictate a call EVERY SINGLE time. I don't pay $215 to have a 35% of staying alive early in a tournament. Hypothetically speaking, say a sitation comes up every time you enter a SNG where early on you have a nut flush draw and someone moves you in. If you follow pot odds, you would call every time, so bam, you're only going to continue 35% of the time. Since 30% of the players in a SNG make the money and accounting for rake, you would be under a tremendous amount of pressure to finish Top 3 in all 35% otherwise you aren't going to be profitable. And even if you win, 2100 chips is no guarantee you'll finish Top 3 when that's only 21% of the chips in play. I sometimes question people when they suck out a flush after I move them all in, and they reply they had proper odds. True, but pot odds mean no matter what you can call an all-in bet any time on the flop (unless you think even a flush doesn't win it). Does anyone see what I'm saying? Pot odds are on your side, but I don't like calling all ins with a flush draw. I mean what if there were 40 chips in the pot, and someone moves in with 960 chips. Pot odds say to call, but why would you want to??? I want to be on the look out for those who blindly follow pot odds and be 65% to continue my tourney, not 35%. Thoughts? comments? [/ QUOTE ] Is this all part of an elaborate hoax? eastbay
|
|
#4
11-22-2004, 01:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My problem with blindly following pot odds
I have been drinking a bit this morning but are you serious with this post? If your ace outs are not good (which I assume to be the case or you would continue 45% or so of the time) how do you always have correct odds to call when 40 chips are in the pot?
I think your post was a joke right?
|
|
#5
11-22-2004, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My problem with blindly following pot odds
Pot odds say to call when someone moves in 960 chips into a 40 chip pot if you have a flush draw? Sorry, you're misinformed, that is, if this is serious. Most of those situations pot odds dictate you fold. And you play the $215 SNGs?
|
|
#8
11-22-2004, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My problem with blindly following pot odds
[ QUOTE ]
I have been drinking a bit this morning but are you serious with this post? If your ace outs are not good (which I assume to be the case or you would continue 45% or so of the time) how do you always have correct odds to call when 40 chips are in the pot? I think your post was a joke right? [/ QUOTE ] Even if you're only 35%, and the pot if 40, and you're facing an all in of 960, you're essentially getting 2 to 1 on your money, so out of 100 times, you will win 2000 chips 35 times and lose 1000 chips 65 times, so you're expectation is at least 500 chips positive. Am I missing something? Is that not the definition of correct pot odds???
|
|
#9
11-22-2004, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My problem with blindly following pot odds
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you're only 35%, and the pot if 40, and you're facing an all in of 960, you're essentially getting 2 to 1 on your money, so out of 100 times, you will win 2000 chips 35 times and lose 1000 chips 65 times, so you're expectation is at least 500 chips positive. Am I missing something? Is that not the definition of correct pot odds??? [/ QUOTE ] You're getting a little better than 1:1. You're betting 960 to win 1040. 35% isn't enough there. Yes, your math is wrong.
|
|
#10
11-22-2004, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My problem with blindly following pot odds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have been drinking a bit this morning but are you serious with this post? If your ace outs are not good (which I assume to be the case or you would continue 45% or so of the time) how do you always have correct odds to call when 40 chips are in the pot? I think your post was a joke right? [/ QUOTE ] Even if you're only 35%, and the pot if 40, and you're facing an all in of 960, you're essentially getting 2 to 1 on your money, so out of 100 times, you will win 2000 chips 35 times and lose 1000 chips 65 times, so you're expectation is at least 500 chips positive. Am I missing something? Is that not the definition of correct pot odds??? [/ QUOTE ] Can I come play in your $215's? You Fold AA and don't know pot odds?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
