Reverse Implied Odds?

What Are they? I've heard them mentioned before but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. I understand pot odds and implied odds so I'm guessing it's some sort of continuation, could someone epand for me?

I hate this term because it's so convoluted and pretty much common sense, but here goes.

Implied odds are when a hand has more value than it would seem because of future bets that will be put into the pot after you make your draw. For this reason, It is often correct to call with draws that you are not getting the correct pot odds for because you can extract more chips from your opponents when you hit, and simply fold when you do not. This is most prevalant in no limit and pot limit games where the bet size is much bigger in relation to the pot than in limit games.

Now as the name suggests, Reverse implied odds are the flip side. Reverse implied odds come into play when a hand has less value than it would seem because should an opponent hit their draw, they will be able to get more money from you, but you won't be able to get money from them if they miss. Long story short, If my hand benifits from Implied odds, my opponent is hurt by reverse implied odds.

Example: NLHE Tourney

Player 1 has AsAc, player 2 has AdKd

there are 50 chips in the pot at the flop.
they both have 1000 chips remaining in their stack.

flop is Jd 7d 2c

Player 1 bets 50 chips.

Now, player 2 is roughly 1 in 3 to catch his flush and win this hand. For arguments sake, say he has a very good read on player 1 and knows he has aces. the pot is only laying him 2:1 on making his 3:1 shot so he does not have the pot odds required to make the call. However, he knows that player 1 will not be able to get away from his aces should a 3rd diamond show up on the turn or river, all of a sudden, it's an easy call.

Player 2 has Implied odds to make this call, while player 1's aces Suffer from Reverse Implied Odds. God that's convoluted, let me know if that helps, or confuses you more.

Buxx

the way i understand it. it can also mean things such as, say I am playing A-8 suited. pretty much most useful as a nut flush draw, but i hit a pair of aces with no suited to my flush. if i cant get away from this hand i consider it something like reverse implied odds. something like that at least maybe. hands that dont form the nuts but a mediocre hand

Better example:

You have on the button in a five way unraised pot.

Flop is

SB checks, BB bets, EP calls, MP raises. You should muck even though you probably have the best hand.

Thanks for the detailed explanations

What draw are you worried about your opponent being on when the board is showing 2s, 5s, 6h when you're holding the pockets 8s? Obviously, there's the flush draw risk for spades and associated reverse implied odds for you if your opponent hits. Its also obvious to me that when it comes down to it, you cannot improve with your pocket 8s relative to a possible flush.

I see a similar situation in the As example given. The player holding the flush draw has implied odds over his/her opponent. The player that is not on the diamond flush draw is suffering from reverse implied odds, just like our friend with the pocket 8s.

Now, in order to compare apples to apples we also have to assume that the pot odds in both examples are the same. We're talking about a 4-to-a-flush draw against pocket pairs in both examples, so I would therefore have to conclude that the reverse implied odds are the same across both examples (assuming the opponents' future betting behaviour in both examples is the same. This is the key assumption needed to make this statement).

Now if you introduce the assumption that the player with the pocket As will be less likely to 'let go' than our friend with the 8s (thus violating the above assumption re: equal future betting behaviour), then if anything, isn't the As example an example with greater implied odds? Not necessarily a better example, just one with GREATER implied odds with the set-up assumptions made.

Fnord? Why is the pocket 8s scenario a better illustration of reverse implied odds than the pocket As?? Am I missing something?

Probably .... !

Thanks.

Originally Posted by RiverMonkey

Fnord? Why is the pocket 8s scenario a better illustration of reverse implied odds than the pocket As?? Am I missing something?

Probably .... !

Thanks.

I think his point is that you have worse reverse implied odds in the 88 scenario since there is a possible strt and flush draw as well as there could be a caller with 2 overs. There's a high possibility of one of them hitting and beating your 8s.

sed

Originally Posted by RiverMonkey

Fnord? Why is the pocket 8s scenario a better illustration of reverse implied odds than the pocket As?? Am I missing something?

Just about any turn card is a "scare card" for you.

Originally Posted by sed

I think his point is that you have worse reverse implied odds in the 88 scenario since there is a possible strt and flush draw as well as there could be a caller with 2 overs. There's a high possibility of one of them hitting and beating your 8s.

sed

If you call, yhere will most likely be three opponents in that scenario giving a possibility of as many as six overs in addition to possible flush and straight draws. Notice that most undercards either pair the board or put four to a straight on the board. Folding is best, but if you decide to continue, you must raise to try to thin the field. Calling is by far the worst option here, but it is what many novices will do.

Originally Posted by koolmoe

If you call, yhere will most likely be three opponents in that scenario giving a possibility of as many as six overs in addition to possible flush and straight draws.

...and you don't know what overs/draws they hold. The lack of information puts you in a pay-off situation.

I of course do see the straight potential for opponent(s) in the pocket 8s example, but I did not include that in my assessment of the extent of the reverse implied odds (RIOs) against pocket 8s.

Why? Because I reasonably or unreasonably discounted that someone would still be in the hand with something like 34o, or simply 4-rag, or 3-rag and counting on hitting the 3 or 4 on the turn or river. In other words, gave more probabilitic weight to the possibility that the opponent was chasing a flush relative to them chasing a straight. Was this an error in judgement?

I guess my bottom line question has now become: Should one include possible hand reading assumptions in ones assessment of (reverse)implied odds and factor that in, or is it bettter to look at *all* potential opponent come-hands when considering RIOs, and treat the hand read assessment as a secondary consideration to justify or not justify staying in?

It seems to me that the nature of any pre-flop action, and any reads pocket-8s dude might have on his opponent(s) may (and only maybe) help assess the extent of the reverse implied odds working against him. Again, maybe I'm convoluting the issue of RIOs with hand reading again?

Originally Posted by RiverMonkey

I of course do see the straight potential for opponent(s) in the pocket 8s example, but I did not include that in my assessment of the extent of the reverse implied odds (RIOs) against pocket 8s.

Why? Because I reasonably or unreasonably discounted that someone would still be in the hand with something like 34o, or simply 4-rag, or 3-rag and counting on hitting the 3 or 4 on the turn or river. In other words, gave more probabilitic weight to the possibility that the opponent was chasing a flush relative to them chasing a straight. Was this an error in judgement?

What about a suited A (or even K) with a kicker less than 7? A small pair like 33 or 44? Those are pretty reasonable scenarios for a 5-way unraised pot. Also, the BB could have anything, and SB could have very close to anything.

*double post*