basic odds calc question w/ example

i read in Theory of Poker that, when figuring pot odds, if you bet as a semi-bluff or block, you need to calculate the raise back in addition to your original bet. maybe an example will clarify...

Absolute Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (5 handed) Absolute-Poker Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

SB ($13)
BB ($47.78)
UTG ($18.07)
Hero ($49.98)
Button ($18.40)

Preflop: Hero is MP with Khttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif, Ahttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif.
1 fold, Hero raises to $1, 1 fold, SB calls $0.90, 1 fold.

Flop: ($2.25) 6http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es/diamond.gif, Thttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif, Jhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $1.5, SB calls $1.50.

Turn: ($5.25) 3http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $4, SB raises to $8, Hero calls $4.

River: ($21.25) 5http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es/diamond.gif (2 players)
SB bets 2.50 , Hero calls $2.50.

Final Pot: $23.75

question is not about how the hand was played, but how to calculate the odds on the minraise. i throw out the $4 bet, and get minraised another $4. do i figure it as $4 to call into now $17, or 4:1 since my original $4 is gone? or, am i understanding Sklansky correctly when he says i need to figure it as $8 (my $4 + the raise of $4) into $17...making this a clear fold?

it's $4 to win $17.25

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chopper

do i figure it as $4 to call into now $17, or 4:1 since my original $4 is gone? or, am i understanding Sklansky correctly when he says i need to figure it as $8 (my $4 + the raise of $4) into $17(even if this were true)...making this a clear CALL with my AWESOME draw so I can stack this donkey on the river?

---

FYP

4 to call / (5.25 in pot before turn action + your first 4 + his 8 + your second 4)
4/(5.25+4+8+4) = 4/21.25 ~= 18.8%.

Or (17.25/4 =) 4.3 to 1.

Without knowing the exact passage, he's probably trying to say that you need to count the second 4 as part of the pot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalvSame

4 to call / (5.25 in pot before turn action + your first 4 + his 8 + your second 4)
4/(5.25+4+8+4) = 4/21.25 ~= 18.8%.

Or (17.25/4 =) 4.3 to 1.

Without knowing the exact passage, he's probably trying to say that you need to count the second 4 as part of the pot.

---

i hope so, i had to stop and go, "whaaaaa?" when i read it. i will have to look again. i dont want to dispute Sklansky, and may have read it wrong, but when you pitch $4 into the pot...its gone...its now part of the pot. thats why we love minraisers...they dont take away odds when they do it. they just tell us our implieds are even stronger currently.

and, in limit, we bet our big draws when we think villain will raise...to build a pot because villain can NOT take away our odds with a simple raise, right?

oh, and in ToP, its towards the beginning because i'm only 60ish pages in.

I also don't know the passage, but it may be referring to calculations when deciding whether to semibluff or not.

i found the passage. its on pages 41-43 "position." sklansky is talking about position in regards to calling two bets cold (or a bet and raise for us NLers). he says we need to be concerned about raises behind us when contemplating calling the first bet. this is because our odds will change. (my experience is that if its a minraise, or in a limit game, the odds only get better if i called the first one).

for instance, UTG bets $4. we want to call, based on odds or TP, but we need to be concerned with the player on the button. he may raise to $8. that could turn our call into a fold? i understand he (Sklansky) hasnt put any money in and is calculating $8 into whatever to make his decision, but we dont do it that way, do we? if we assume that button will raise, then, why dont we call and let him raise further building a pot (assuming its going to be a minraise)?

we make the call, and if button puts in another $4, we recalculate, yes? and when the pot gets bigger, but our price to call remains the same, we are getting even better odds, right?

this is all somewhat hypothetical, as i/you may want to raise to squeeze button out, or fold, or whatever. but taken "as is," this isnt how i calculate my pot odds, and wanted to know if i am suddenly doing it wrong...even if i know button is likely to raise, i still call sometimes and hope he is dumb enough to sweeten a pot w/o taking away my odds to draw.

Oh, in that case the situation is indeed different. If we know with 100% certainty that the button will raise (and thus we will call because we're getting the odds at that point), then we do have to use the full 8$ in our calculations as our decision point is actually at the first call. So while the second call wasn't incorrect, the first one was because we knew we'd have to pay 8$ total to see the next card.

It's the same principle as when we make a raise to the size that if he shoves we'll get the odds to call. While we will get the correct odds at the point of the final call, this isn't a good reason to make that size of a raise (though there may be other reasons that land us in the same situation).

The point to take from this is to beware of people left to act. If you're squeezed with two players and a marginal hand/draw, you might be better off folding it even though your TPNK might be the best hand some of the time. It all goes back to the importance of position.

i understand what he is saying now, i think.

he also mentioned another point...if we get bet at, and think we are getting raised behind, our prospects arent so good anyway because there are two strong hands out against us. if we hold the best hand, but it has little room for improvement (slight overpair, TPTK), we need to strongly consider dumping before we compound our mistake regardless of the odds at the time.

that one is the same as when we are last to act and we get a bet and a raise in front of us pf, but we hold a mid pp. we prolly arent getting odds for a set, but, in addition, the strength being advertised in front of us should tell us we are likely well behind, too.

thanks for helping me clarify. i knew sklansky was smarter than me...dammit.

Another point when we're in the middle is that after we call and the guy behind us raises, the first guy can come over the top again. And then if we call the guy behind us can raise again, and soon we find ourselves all-in in a spot where we were planning to call 4$. :cut:

i definitely agree, and have seen that shit before happen right before my eyes. it leaves me saying, "wtf? howd that just happen? now i'm all in w/ TPTK and foobed myself big time."

at least in a limit game, when i see that shit happening, i can get out after it caps. but in NL, sometimes you watch your stack completely melt away.