pot odds and implied odds - simple question or two

I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't recommend chasing draws very often. Why don't we bet them so we add a dimension to our cbetting and 2-barrel lines?

I'm with robb on not fully understanding the question. I've probably read it ten times and have been leery about adding my input but I guess I'll give it a shot. I should say that I've been having an issue with implied odds because we're implying that we'll get effective stacks in when we hit, which for me is rarely the case. It's like I need another formula to figure out how often I actually stack off win I hit, like implied implied odds.

As for the mistakes (obv tell me if I'm wrong),

If the pot is $2 and villain bets $1, aren't we calling $1 to win $3? So our pot odds are 3:1.

With the 2&4 (4&2?) wouldn't we calculate the flop using the 4 part? So then we would get 8*4=32, which would be a fold. The problem I have with the 4 part of the rule is it doesn't seem to take into consideration a bet on the turn. So maybe a 2&2 rule makes more sense, idk. Either way we aren't getting pot odds to call here.

Gotta stop here cos my guitar student (that I forgot about) just showed up. I love that I can't remember what day it is but I think I can take on implied odds formulas. Haha, jokes on me!

I'll come back to this later, hopefully someone will have pointed out my errors and set me on the right path.

Oh, and I like what robb said about betting instead of calling. I guess ranges need to come into the thought process also tho. My brain hurts.

Ok, back at it. Using spoons example, we know that the odds against us hitting are 4.9:1. In our situation our pot odds are 3:1. If every time we miss we lose $1, and we miss 4.9 times for every time we win, so we lose $4.90 for every $3.00 we win. We need an extra $1.90 when we hit to break even. Anybody?

supa and philly good to see. Now who's right? they can't both be
i think
drinking not thinking
unwinding not grinding
web designing and trance ftw

Originally Posted by supahaole

Ok, back at it. Using spoons example, we know that the odds against us hitting are 4.9:1. In our situation our pot odds are 3:1. If every time we miss we lose $1, and we miss 4.9 times for every time we win, so we lose $4.90 for every $3.00 we win. We need an extra $1.90 when we hit to break even. Anybody?

The above is correct.

Your pot odds are 3:1 (not 4:1).
However, 3:1 pot odds = 25% pot odds.

You have 8 outs and there are 47 cards left.
Your odds of hitting your draw are (47-8)/8 = 4.85:1. (~4.9:1). This is the same as ~17% chance .

Since your chance of hitting is less than your pot odds percentage it is not a good call.

Your implied odds would require another $1.90 to make up the missing cash, or put another way, if you think that on the Turn Villain will call or bet $2 then your pot odds on the Flop become:
(3 + 2):1 = 5:1 = 16.6%. Since this is about the same as your ~17% chance to make your straight it is now worth while calling.
If Villain goes all-in on the flop with his miserable $1 to make the pot $3 then it is not worth calling because you won't be able to get the additional $1.90 you need out of him.

Originally Posted by supahaole

I should say that I've been having an issue with implied odds because we're implying that we'll get effective stacks in when we hit, which for me is rarely the case. It's like I need another formula to figure out how often I actually stack off win I hit, like implied implied odds.

So I guess I'm a bit confused here, I was basing the above statement on this by Renton, and I think I've read it other places in these forums. Is the difference solely that in Rentons example we're preflop? It looks like i need to re-evalute how I'm looking at implied odds.

Dealing with reraises and the effect on implied odds- Say you open the pot for $7 with Q2s from the button. You have 200 dollars in your stack. A player who you know to be very tight reraises to 14 from the BB. He has 200 dollars in his stack, and you put him squarely on AA or KK. After his bet, he has 184 dollars left, and you have to call 7 dollars for a chance to win it. You are getting potential implied odds of 26:1, and along with your positional advantage you have a clear call with your suited trash. REMEMBER: the $7 you invested is out of the picture. Don’t act like you are having to call $14, because you aren’t. The $7 bet had its own separate EV, and now we’ve moved on to the next EV decision. Your opponents awful play of minreraising with AA is allowing you to profit. If he’d have raised to $22 instead of $14 you’d have a clear fold.

If you have a pocket pair and get reraised, you can call a lot more than in the Q2s example. If you had 77 in the previous example and he raised to 21 from your 7 bet, you’d be calling 14 to potentially win $179, for potential implied odds of 12:1. Remember we said 15:1 was the rule right? However this 15 number can be trimmed down significantly if you are almost sure he has a monster hand like AA. This is loosely taken from NLHE: Theory and Practice by Sklansky and Miller:

Originally Posted by supahaole

So I guess I'm a bit confused here, I was basing the above statement on this by Renton, and I think I've read it other places in these forums. Is the difference solely that in Rentons example we're preflop? It looks like i need to re-evalute how I'm looking at implied odds.

Implied odds don't necessarily assume that your opponent will go all-in. They refer to what you can expect to get out of him. Overestimating implied odds is one of the most common errors made when using implied odds. You really have to be sure that your Villain will go all-in if you are going to make a decision that relies on getting his stack for it to be worthwhile.