|
cjs55
|
02-05-2008, 03:48 AM
Post subject: A concept I use. Is it useful/correct?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 171
|
|
I like to bet more on the flop than the turn in relation to the pot. The reason behind this is that draws have higher implied odds on the flop than the turn. In normal raised pots I always at bet the pot if it's a drawy board.
In situations where the pot is very small (like if there are 2 limpers and I am in the BB) and I figure people are drawing against me, I will bet 1.5x or 2x pot on the flop. I figure that people will be more loose with their calls in these spots and I want to deny them any sort of odds to do so. I think that while implied odds are based on pot size, they aren't exclusively, and especially when I have a vulnerable but very solid hand that I would have trouble folding in later streets I think a small pot sized bet on the flop just doesn't cut it.
On the turn I will often bet 65-75% of the pot because I figure I need to bet less to deny implied odds. I also like this size on the turn because it allows for more maneuvering in a pot that is getting pretty big in relation to stack sizes. If I am ahead, it's often pretty easy to get more money in, if I'm behind it's much cheaper than betting pot again, and I don't want to be pot committed if I'm likely behind.
This has to be sometimes the same as when I am betting my draws or air obviously, I don't want to be transparent. Maybe not always though.
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Anakiir
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Croatia
Posts: 7
|
|
If someone has you beat on the flop, you just lose 1.5 or 2x pot :\
EDIT: Seems to me only hands that are better than yours will call that. *shrugs*
|
|
|
|
spoonitnow
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IRC Chat Room
Posts: 5,406
|
|
It's rare that you'll need to overbet the pot like this.
You have to balance denying odds with not tipping your hand and getting worse hands to call you.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I only have 2 simple rules when I am coaching a new student.
Rule # 1: don't ask questions
Rule # 2: don't ask questions
I have no interest in discussing strategy with a protege'. Your job is to remain quiet and listen. I have a very systematic approach that I will share with the right candidate and I promise that I will turn you into a force of nature and show you elements of the game of poker that you never knew existed.
|
|
|
eugmac
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 739
|
|
Quote:
|
I think that while implied odds are based on pot size, they aren't exclusively, and especially when I have a vulnerable but very solid hand that I would have trouble folding in later streets I think a small pot sized bet on the flop just doesn't cut it.
|
First of all, implied odds is based on the bet relative to STACK sizes whereas direct pot odds are based only on the bet relative to the current pot size.
Overbetting the pot blows away any second-best hands that might call you, INCLUDING draws. We make money every time people take a draw with bad odds. Blowing them out of the pot causes them to play correctly, and therefore they profit and we lose. We want to maximize their mistakes and minimize ours.
I'm assuming since we're checking in the big blind, we're talking about hitting top pair with like K6 on a KT5 two-tone board. Betting twice the pot here will probably blow away any hands you're currently ahead of, and only get called by better hands like Kx, better kicker. Betting big like this naturally also has the effect of bloating the pot size, making you play a big pot out of position with a marginal hand. This is a situation that is always best to avoid.
Your opponents only have implied odds against you if you always pay them off when the draw comes.
|
|
|
|
cjs55
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 171
|
|
If implied odds were just based on stack sizes, you'd need to bet quite a bit more than 1.5x a small pot to deny them.
No, they are based on pot size and stack size, because the pot size correlates with bet sizing, which are where most implied odds come from. Sometimes, sure, you'll run up against a second best hand and take their stack. Most of the time, that's not the case and you get one or two 75-100% pot sized bets in against your opponent. Otherwise, you could call a 4x pot bet on the flop with a draw because their stack is so big comparatively that your implied odds are overwhelming.
If I have a solid hand that I will have trouble folding (like say, 2 pair, TPTK on a sorta-dry board against some idiots, etc.), I think people are getting correct odds to call a 1x pot size bet on a small-pot flop exactly because implied odds are a function of stack size and pot size, and my stack is huge compared to the pot.
I admit this thinking probably somewhat comes about from having to deal with people that will call any bet, with anything on the flop at microstakes.
|
|
|
|
IowaSkinsFan
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,148
|
|
If anything math tells you this should be the opposite.
|
|
|
|
eugmac
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 739
|
|
Quote:
|
having to deal with people that will call any bet, with anything on the flop at microstakes.
|
You make this sound like a BAD thing! You should seldom be stacking off in a limped pot like your first example anyway with TPTK. That's the best way to fight reverse implied odds - learn to fold more, and read hands better.
|
|
|
|
Pythonic
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In S-mart Swallowing Your Soul!
Posts: 586
|
|
You are losing lots of value here with this overbetting because too many 2nd or 3rd best hands are folding the flop to your bet. You WANT action. The only time I will bet pot is if it's 4 handed otherwise I'm betting 2/3 - 3/4 of the pot. Math does the rest unless you are stacking off too many times when they hit their draw.
|
|
|
|
Jack Sawyer
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Old School
Posts: 2,535
|
|
Think about it
do you want to win stacks or the pot on flop?
|
My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...
Quote:
|
VHS is like a book and a book is like a stack of kindles.
|
Hey, I'm in a movie!
http://youtu.be/lGdnIrRKDTI
|
|
jyms
|
|
Tilting Mod
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
|
|
Wow, there is a lot of backwards thinking in this thread. Also
I would love to hear more about implied odds and pot size.
|
|
|
|
cjs55
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 171
|
|
Quote:
|
If anything math tells you this should be the opposite.
|
That you should bet less on the flop and more on the turn or that you should bet less in small pots?
I'm obviously clueless.
Another thing is that I feel like if I bet 3/4 pot on the flop in a limped pot situation I often get multiple callers and my good but vulnerable hands definitely don't want that. If I bet 3/4 pot in a raised pot situation, then it generally clears the field.
|
|
|
|
eugmac
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 739
|
|
I guess the old saying is "don't go broke in a limped pot."
|
|
|
|
Ash256
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,760
|
|
You make money by having your opponents CALL without the odds to do so, all that "OMFG MAKE THE DRAWS FOLD" stuff banded around by poker commentators is shit.
|
|
|
|
pantherhound
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Love me for a season
Posts: 492
|
|
Which is why it is entirely dependant on the opponent and a given situation. if you're up against a loosey goosey chaser then by all means overbet, if you're against a nit who actually thinks 'OMG a full pot bet I don't have odds" then bet however much they'll call..
implied odds are waaay more important anyway
|
|
|
|
Rondavu
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,053
|
|
Read Harrington
|
|
It's not what's inside that counts. Have you seen what's inside?
Internal organs. And they're getting uglier by the minute.
|
|
cjs55
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 171
|
|
Quote:
|
You make money by having your opponents CALL without the odds to do so
|
My entire point is that if implied odds are at all correlated with stack sizes, which I think they are, people are getting odds to call a pot sized bet against you if the pot is very small in relation to stack size. This is especially the case when they are playing a good concealed draw, or a nut draw vs. your secondary hand/draw.
|
|
|
|
jyms
|
|
Tilting Mod
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjs55
My entire point is that if implied odds are at all correlated with stack sizes, which I think they are, people are getting odds to call a pot sized bet against you if the pot is very small in relation to stack size.
|
It still is dependant on the stack size and the bet size, not the pot size. If the pot is $1 or $100 dollars doesn't matter, what matters is how much money is left behind and how much to call the bet.
|
|
|
|
cjs55
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 171
|
|
But the bet size is dependent on the pot size.
If there is a small pot in comparison to stack sizes, the bet size in relation to stacks will be much smaller than if there is a big pot. So, you need to bet more in relation to a small pot to deny implied odds.
|
|
|
|
eugmac
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 739
|
|
In line with your strategy, you would have to also have to bet huge preflop, like more than 10% of your stack, every time you have AA, because you have to "make sure people don't have odds" against you to call with a smaller pocket pair.
Do you see how terribly exploitable this would be?
|
|
|
|
cjs55
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 171
|
|
So in other words, you need to allow people correct odds in order to balance your play and get value out of lesser hands.
Fair enough.
I'm gonna switch gears and talk about implied odds a little bit and lets see if you guys agree.
Lets say you can read your opponent well and can put him on a narrow range.
1) He has a strong hand. -> Use stack size to implied odds
2) He has a mediocre hand. -> Use pot size to calculate implied odds
3) He has a weak hand. -> You have no or very little implied odds.
Reasoning behind this is simple.
The idea is that pot size determines bet size which determines implied odds on later streets against middle strength hands. If he has a strong hand, he will be more likely stack off against you if you hit your draw. If he is in the middle, he will call a couple 3/4 pot bets but not stack off. If he is weak, he will call little to nothing.
In reality though, you don't usually have that narrow of a range. Often for instance, a villain is either very strong or fairly weak. However, in this case, your implied odds still are based on stack size, not pot size, because there is no middle ground of your opponent calling down two 3/4 pot bets. You need to take stack sizes, and then adjust for the likelyhood of him being weak to get implied odds. Of course, if he's weak, you can also take into account bluffing him off the hand if your draw doesn't hit, but I'm not sure if that should be included in implied odds.
If villain is either strong or mediocre, then you need to use a combination of stack size and pot size to determine your implied odds. Sometimes he will stack off, sometimes he will call a couple pot sized bets.
|
|
|
|
jyms
|
|
Tilting Mod
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
|
|
You are mistaking what implied means. The odds you have are bad but it is implied that you will win his stack if you hit your hand.
|
|
|
|
Pythonic
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In S-mart Swallowing Your Soul!
Posts: 586
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjs55
So in other words, you need to allow people correct odds in order to balance your play and get value out of lesser hands.
|
No, don't give them correct odds but don't overbet it either. Bet 2/3 to 3/4 pot.
|
|
|
|
cjs55
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 171
|
|
Quote:
|
You are mistaking what implied means. The odds you have are bad but it is implied that you will win his stack if you hit your hand.
|
Um... From wikipedia (and every poker book I've ever read):
"Implied pot odds, or simply implied odds, are calculated the same way as pot odds, but take into consideration estimated future betting. Implied odds are calculated in situations where the player expects to fold in the following round if the draw is missed, thereby losing no additional bets, but expects to gain additional bets when the draw is made. Since the player expects to always gain additional bets in later rounds when the draw is made, and never lose any additional bets when the draw is missed, the extra bets that the player expects to gain, excluding his own, can fairly be added to the current size of the pot. This adjusted pot value is known as the implied pot."
|
|
|
|
jyms
|
|
Tilting Mod
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
|
|
from the theory of poker
Quote:
|
your implied odds are the ratio of your total expected win when your card hits compared to your cost of calling a bet.
|
The implied pot odds you speak of is not the present pot, but the pot you will win.
|
|
|
|
cjs55
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 171
|
|
Right. But the pot you will win has to do with the pot at hand now.
If it is implied that your opponent will call two pot sized bets if you hit, then the future pot is based on the size of the initial pot
If it is implied that your opponent will call raises and stack off then it is based more on stack sizes and less on the initial pot.
|
|
|
|
martindcx1e
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,614
|
|
I think we can all agree that implied odds does not only mean whether or not you will stack someone. It's just future money you can expect to win if you hit your draw. If you think you are likely to stack your opponent if your draw hits than your implied odds are great. If you think you can only expect to win a 1/2 pot bet if you hit then your implied odds aren't as great. If you expect to win a 1/2 pot bet if you hit then yes, I guess you could say that your implied odds are related to the current pot. It's just not usually thought of in that way. The bottom line is that in order to call a bet with incorrect odds on the flop or turn your implied odds (the money you expect to win when you hit) must make up for it.
|
|
Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.
|
|
Ash256
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,760
|
|
cjs, no-one said that you should give correct odds.
The nature of medium-deep stack NLHE means that you can't just bet whatever denies implied odds, implied odds will always be there.. You've just gotta deal with it when that 3rd diamond comes.
|
|
|
|
eugmac
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 739
|
|
Also implied means just that, implied. As long as you don't pay him off every time he hits his hand, you make his flop/turn calls -EV and you profit.
As somebody said already, pricing out draws means betting the maximum that they will be willing to call without giving them the correct odds to do so.
By all means, if they always call overbet shoves on the flop with 8 outs, and you are sure that that is what they have, then of course it's a maximum +EV play.
|
|
|
|
bjsaust
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ballarat, Australia
Posts: 5,842
|
|
Back to the drawing hands in low pots. You should bet enough that your opponent is making a mistake to call, but not so much you make it easy for him to play correctly (folding). In an unraised pot I probably bet about 80-100% of pot, because people on draws often look at the cost, rather than the odds (especially at lower buyins anyway). Betting 2x pot will generally allow your opponents to play correctly by folding their draws. Remember, we make money off their mistakes, so we need to let them make mistakes.
|
|
Just playing to improve.
|
|
bjsaust
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ballarat, Australia
Posts: 5,842
|
|
Quote:
|
If implied odds were just based on stack sizes, you'd need to bet quite a bit more than 1.5x a small pot to deny them.
|
Only if you plan to pay them off when they hit. If they play for implied odds, but you only offer them pot odds, then they've made a mistake.
|
|
Just playing to improve.
|
|
pantherhound
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Love me for a season
Posts: 492
|
|
yawn. as ever, generising in stupid. sometimes its right to give insane odds. sometimes its right to give correct odds.
if im against a predictable nit and i have 99 and the flop comes 8c 2c 4h, i might bet half the pot or slightly less. why? Because nits will call with a draw, as we want them to. the likely play on later streets from you and your opp dictates this. If it is blindly obvious they hit their draw, as it often will be, it's easy to get away from. of course we are also betting to get value from an 8 or whatever, but we bet less because the nits range is smaller and they arent likely to get tricky and raise us with second best.
otoh, if im multiway against a bunch of stations against whom a draw makes up a fair amount of range, i may bet more because they also will call.
against trickier opponents i may rethink the strategy altogether. theres no rules
on the other side of the felt, betting and raising with draws is often a good play but when someone with $8 behind fires out $5 into a $10 pot on a board of Ac Kc Jd and I hold 4c5c, i may fold. DUCY?
|
|
|
|
bigslikk
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 445
|
|
I think I understand cjs55's argument.
For starters, from what I've seen in this thread, everybody knows what implied odds are. cjs55 says that implied odds involve the current pot size, because the current pot size is a decent predictor of how much will be bet / can be won on later streets. Others focus exclusively on stack sizes when thinking about implied odds, since the effective stacks in play define the maximum that can be won on later streets. The principle is the same, we all basically know what impied odds are.
CJS55 overbets earlier streets because he's trying to limit his "reverse implied odds."
Example: CJS55 is our hero, who holds AA on SB. Villain holds 72o in BB. Effective stacks are 101BB each.
Flop (2BB pot, 100 BB effective stacks) comes 7xx rainbow. Even though a 1BB bet from the Hero will lay -EV pot odds for the villain, Hero wants to bet more to limit implied odds for the villain. If the villain can reliably expect to stack the hero with a turned duece (6%), then he can make the call profitably.
Thinking through this example, the hero decides to limit the villain's implied odds by overbetting. However, one huge assumption underlying his logic is flawed:
1. That he will stack off reliably.
While the Hero (AA) fears that a turn 2 for villain (72) will lead to his stacking (since two pair on a 72xx board can be invisible), the dangers of that result are overestimated. Turned 2 is rare, and if the 72 chaser chases every time against a pot-sized bet, (before stacking you 6 in 100 times), even then it is only marginally profitable (with 100BB stacks).
AND
Hero fears he will actually pay off 100BB's in a 6 BB pot once the predictable donk starts going nuts. Wrong.
What he should be afraid of is forcing the 72o to fold his pair of sevens (pretty much always the correct decision). That's were the real loss of value is.
|
|
|
|
cjs55
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 171
|
|
Well put bigslikk.
I think this concept is more important in situations like when you have a 2nd best flush and your opponent could be drawing to a FH/top flush. In this situation we are playing for stacks so a tiny bet in relation to stacks is not enough to erase their implied odds.
That said I think often enough opponents call enough smaller bets with worse hands to make this an 'oh well' kind of deal.
If your opponents implied odds are on the pot level, not the stack level, then bloating the pot to remove them obviously isn't necessary.
|
|
|
|
eugmac
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 739
|
|
Quote:
|
Hero fears he will actually pay off 100BB's in a 6 BB pot once the predictable donk starts going nuts. Wrong.
|
Exactly, you seldom find spots where you're stacking off in a limped pot and where consequently bet sizes are much smaller than in a raised pot.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
