Reverse Implied Odds

A c-bet opportunity I had recently. I think reverse implied odds are a big deal on this particular flop with this particular hand. What do yous think? C-bet or not?

Poker Stars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.02 BB (5 handed) - Poker Stars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com

Button ($2.12)
SB ($2.34)
BB ($2)
Hero (UTG) ($2.51)
MP ($1.60)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 10http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...es/diamond.gif, Jhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...es/diamond.gif
Hero raises $0.06, 1 fold, Button calls $0.06, 2 folds

Flop: ($0.15) 5http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...lies/heart.gif, 2http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...es/diamond.gif, 5http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...es/diamond.gif (2 players)
Hero ??


HUD layout: vpip/pfr/steal/fold to steal/3bet/cbet/fold to cbet

Villain's stats: 36/34/53/67/26.7/50/100 - over 46 hands

CO's stats: 35/12/38/67/0/100/- - over 27 hands

Easy c-bet.

This is an incredibly easy c-bet. You're a little too worried about the reverse implied odds in this particular situation since it's such a minor factor compared to everything else going on.

Generally speaking, reverse implied odds is when you could catch a card you like on a future street and put more money into the pot that you lose. That's going to happen to a degree with any semi-bluff ever, even if it's just overcards.

I don't hate a check call with this specific hand, he'll be fairly likely to barrel off on cards that improve you but shut down on K/A turns after which you can bluff the river and get a lot of credit.

Also reverse implied odds as a concept is should generally be seen as a negative sum that counteracts implied odds. Every hand that isn't the invulnerable nuts (or a draw to the invulnerable nuts) has some amount of both. Middle set is a massive hand, but it has some limited reverse implied odds because it runs into top set and always loses a big pot. But the likelihood that someone puts in a ton of money with bottom set or a worse made hand is far in excess of the negative implied odds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Also reverse implied odds as a concept is should generally be seen as a negative sum that counteracts implied odds. Every hand that isn't the invulnerable nuts (or a draw to the invulnerable nuts) has some amount of both. Middle set is a massive hand, but it has some limited reverse implied odds because it runs into top set and always loses a big pot. But the likelihood that someone puts in a ton of money with bottom set or a worse made hand is far in excess of the negative implied odds.

---

I actually think reverse implied odds is a concept made up for people FAR over valuing their implied odds in the first place. The reason it seems a confusing concept is because you basically shouldn't assume good hand (non relative) -> shovel money in, especially on when our information changes.

The truth is your implied odds should account for you losing too. Hitting your flush doesn't mean you always win.

You're UTG so think about your entire range when deciding to cbet here. You have tons of overpairs in this spot and probably lots of nut FD's as well. So your entire range is in good shape vs villain, even if villain has a hand like Axdd that dominates our JTdd in this specific spot.