Even DIPO seems like more math than necessary...King?

[bobdibble]

So, DIPO is an interesting method, and I see can learning it this way may be beneficial because it can be generalized to games other than holdem where the number of unknown cards may be different.

However, I have a method that I think is easier.

I memorized the outs to odds chart up to 9.

I call if:
implied_pot_size_in_bets > odds_against * bets_to_call

Like DIPO, the 0EV decisions are slightly off because I round the odds, e.g. I use 7:1 for a 6 outer in my calculations.

Doesn't a single multiplication seem the easiest of the methods?

[Webnasty]

I was thinking the exact same thing...

[Derek in NYC]

I've made exactly this point before as well. Im a memorizer, and it works well despite (1) slight rounding inaccuracies I make in the memorization such as 4 outs = 11:1 rather than 10.5:1, and (2) minor differences in odds from flop-to-turn, and turn-to-river. Memorizing up to 9 or 10 outs works good enough for limit holdem; for no-limit situations, where you might be thinking about being all-in on the flop, there are better methods.

Still, Bob, I'm with you. The one advantage that DIPO has over memorizing is that the formula as Yao lays it out necessarily includes the implied odds on the next street in the EPS variable. Players who dont use implied odds consciously as a consideration could be helped by DIPO. My general use of implied odds, however, is as more of a "plus" factor to justify some otherwise thinner calls (such as getting 8:1 on a gutshot rather than 11:1 in a multiway pot, where I close the action on the flip betting).

The problem with relying too much on implied odds, and the problem with baking in implied pot value, is that in some situations, the "value" of the implied odds is more ambiguous, such as if you dont close the action and the pot could be raised behind you, your out could create a redraw for somebody else thus reducing by reverse implied principles the "true" value of your out, etc.

I think it is dangerous to be overly formulaic with implied odds assumptions. Too many LAGs use the implied odds as a nonexistent justification for loose post-flop play.

By the way, I was just commenting to DriveTT that I owe you a beer someday for your most excellent Statking import program. I literally use it every time I play, and it has vastly improved my recordskeeping.

[King Yao]

Is memorizing odds more difficult or easier than DIPO? I'm not sure if its easier or more difficult - I think it depends on the person and how they like to think. But I'm positive there is a large number of people like you - that prefer the memorization. Frankly for me, DIPO is easier than the memorization - but not everyone is like me.

From post by others and emails I've received (including Derek), I've learned that different people prefer different methods - all of which have merit. Its more important to have a method that works for you specifically, so if you have it down pat, that's great.

I wrote the book with the attitude of teaching "why" and how to adjust for different situations. I thought DIPO fit in perfectly with this attitude. It is also what I use at the tables for myself. I don't like memorizing anything but I wanted to emphasis understanding, so I thought DIPO did that job well. But I also understand your point of view, and that's why I will include an appendix with other methods in future editions.

Thanks,
King

[bobdibble]

Gottcha. I'd actually be interested in hearing about some other methods as well. I would probably recommend dipo to a newbie at this point because it seems like it would work for games like omaha without modification, where as, I would have to memorize a new odds chart to account for the 2 extra cards. And DIPO would be huge in 7-card stud, I imagine.

Maybe I'll try to incorporate it when I learn some other games.

In any case, any method that avoids division is probably going to be favorable to the traditional method found in most books.

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I was just commenting to DriveTT that I owe you a beer someday for your most excellent Statking import program. I literally use it every time I play, and it has vastly improved my recordskeeping.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.. thanks.

I'll probably go to the next 2+2 gathering, so I'll take you up on it then. Hopefully bison won't knock it over.

I was actually down there for the one last weekened, but I missed the 2+2 event at the MGM. I played in the WSOP limit tourney and by the time I busted, the 2+2ers tables had already started breaking down at the MGM. So, no tourney money *and* I missed the donk fest.. sigh.

[Stuey]

All this is above my skill/intelligence level, but I need to ask.

Any errors made predicting the bets_to_call can only result in you facing a situation in which you put money in the pot without the proper odds.

Any errors made predicting the EPS(Expected Pot Size) with the DIPO method will result in you getting better pot odds than you have predicted.

Correct?
Am I explaining it wrong?

How do you know the # of bet_to_call if you are in a muti-way pot and have poor position? If you always assume the worst possible amount of bets_to_call you will fold to often, even worse!

With the DIPO method when you underestimate the EPS your "Good Number" is always smaller so when you are faced with and unexpected increase in the pot size your "Good Number" will increase.

DIPO tells you if the situation is +EV and if it is +EV more money in the pot just helps.

Other methods tell you if the situation is profitable at a point in time during a hand.

Perhaps the equalizer is when using the DIPO method and the pot gets larger than we thought it would we can expect that we have over estimated our outs. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know the # of bet_to_call if you are in a muti-way pot and have poor position? If you always assume the worst possible amount of bets_to_call you will fold to often, even worse!

[/ QUOTE ]

All methods for calculating your effective pot odds are subject to this. Traditional, dipo, the method I use, or any other.

You have to make a best guess based on your read of the board and your opponents action. For example, if you limped and someone raised after you pre-flop, and then on the flop, someone bets on your right, you have to figure that the PFR may raise.

This is why position and relative position to the agressor is so important. You can make these decisions with a lot more accuracy.

[larrondo]

When will the next edition come out, King?

[skp]

I am going to get your book soon but can you (or anyone else who has read the book) give us an explanation of DIPO in a nutshell?

Thanks