Ignoring Pot Odds

[Thunder]

Is there ever a time to ignore pot odds?

The main reason for my post is I often see an opponent make a bet that is not mathematically sound to call because you are not getting the odds. The twist is that I am talking about small or minimum bets where it looks like (and often is) an extremely weak attempt to steal the pot.

Eg: blinds are 10/20, UTG calls, all fold to the SB who calls and you check the BB. 60 in the pot. You flop an inside straight, UTG checks and SB min bets 20, making it 5 to 1 to call with only an 11 to 1 chance of getting your card.

Now this could be any example - an OES (6 to 1), pairing one of your hole cards (7.5 to 1), whatever. It could be on the flop or turn. Quite simply any example where the odds don't add up. This is a quick example only, please don't try and tear it apart or go deeper by bringing in implied odds.

In addition, be it a weak steal or not, if the bet is very small compared to your stack, say one of the opening games of a tourney, it is quite minor to call whereas if you hit that straight or flush then it can pay off big time. I appreciate this may be -EV in the long run (see that? It looks like I understand EV!) but there may be circumstances when it's ok to do so - especially at the start of tourneys.

A final thought on overriding pot odds is if you have an aggressive individual who likes making pot sized bets (especially when the pot is relatively small). Constantly obeying pot odds is surely inviting domination in this case?

Currently, I am selectively overriding pot odds - only selectively.

Thx

[swiggidy]

It's called pot odds. If you think villain will put another 100 in the pot when you hit then you DO have the odds to call.

Be careful in a SnG though, you don't want to spew chips early.

Also, make sure you're only counting outs with one card to come because you may be facing another bet before you see the river card.

[grnydrowave2]

Don't you mean implied odds, Swiggidy?

[PapalRage]

i think what swiggidy meant was you also have to take into account implied odds. implied odds is when you put money into the pot in order to win a larger bet from your opponent when you do make your hand. a good example of implied odds is calling a raise with a small PP. you are putting in that money with the intent to win a very large pot when you flop your set. as a beginner the important thing to think about is how much your opponent will actually pay you off when you hit your hand. you dont want to rationalize calling in -EV pot odds situations with implied odds unless you can actually win enough the times your hit to make up for what you lose when you miss. things to take into account when try to figure out your implied odds: stack sizes, opponents playing style, texture and nature of your draw, etc.. hope that helps.

[swiggidy]

Don't you mean implied odds, Swiggidy?

your proposition intrigues me. I'd be interested in receiving your newsletter

[kmind]

With the responses already, I love how OP said not to say anything about implied odds. After skimming the OP, how are we not talking about implied odds?

[PapalRage]

i didnt see that part of the OP...but, why should we ignore an important aspect of EV calculations? if the OP doesnt want to consider implied odds then no you shouldnt call when you dont have the correct odds for the current pot size.

[Chopper]

if we MUST ignore implied odds in our answers, then, i cant see there being any reason to override the pot odds.

you either have the odds to call, or you dont...plain and simple.

i guess you could have seen a hand shown down by villain already to get a "read" that he bluffs, and will fold to a raise, but that gets into "fold equity," which i dont know whether or not we can discuss.

poker is a mathematical game. and, as much as i hate to admit it, math is the basis for ALL your decisions. you start with your pot odds, take into account your reads, FE, IO, etc, narrow his range...and evaluate whether or not the opportunity is there to IGNORE the specific pot odds.

but, i can tell you this. if some dickshit keeps taking minimal shots at me, i am going to bust him with a big raise sometime soon, and attempt to set him str8. but i wont do this with air, i will have something that is either strong at the time or potential to become very strong.

[swiggidy]

i didnt see that part of the OP...but, why should we ignore an important aspect of EV calculations? if the OP doesnt want to consider implied odds then no you shouldnt call when you dont have the correct odds for the current pot size.

Is that actually you? Columbus's main club team made nationals. My buddy's on the team, but he hurt his knee so I'm not sure if he can go.

Now this could be any example - an OES (6 to 1), pairing one of your hole cards (7.5 to 1), whatever. It could be on the flop or turn. Quite simply any example where the odds don't add up. This is a quick example only, please don't try and tear it apart or go deeper by bringing in implied odds.

please re-explain your question. The only reason to call without pot odds is because of implied odds. Maybe floating, etc but that's not what you're getting at.

[biondino]

I think the OP must realise by now that the very concept he was describing was implied odds, so I think we can talk about it. Always good to have a refresher.

The other thing to consider is that small bets of this kind often indicate draws or weak holdings so the hero often has the option of raising (especially with a semi-bluffing hand) to drive the villain out of the hand that way, or calling with the intention of betting/raising on the turn.

[Thunder]

Hi,

I asked to leave implied odds out of the scenario just for ease. The question was simply "faced with a mimumum bet and the implied weakness it contains.....or a bet very small compared to stack sizes......would it ever be prudent to ignore the pot odds".

Such as: all checked to the turn, someone throws out a min bet that on the face of it, blows your odds out.

As a result, I didn't want responses like "depends on your position, chip stack" and other overly complicating scenarios including implied odds: "if he's short stacked and you think he'll call your bet then..." etc.

But seeing as pot odds have been brought into the equation then surely the concept of pot odds is substantially weakened because by virtue of your opponent making a bet, he is bound to make another should you hit your card. Therefore, if you have a 9% chance and he makes a pot and a half sized bet, you can rationalise that by thinking the odds are implied: "he's bet big so has a hand and if I hit one of my 4 outs then I'll take him down".

But I wouldn't call such a bet. I'd stick to the pot odds.

As for fold equity, from what I read, it seems to overlap into EV territory and your share of the chips in the pot at anyone time. If you are a 65% favourite then your Ev and fold equity is 65%.......or something like that.

[swiggidy]

No, you can't call ignoring pot odds. Pot odds tell you to fold.

Implied weakness means you should raise and push him off his hand, not try and catch a card that makes you a killer hand which isn't getting paid off because he's weak.

Purely sticking with pot odds is foolish.

[Thunder]

Hmmm

No, you can't call ignoring pot odds. Pot odds tell you to fold.

Purely sticking with pot odds is foolish..

These seem to contradict each other and so I am confused as to what you are advising.


[quote]Implied weakness means you should raise and push him off his hand[/quote
Which is advocating ignoring the pot odds, yes?



]
As a side question, if you had the odds to call - but it meant going all in, tourney or cash, would you?

[pankfish]

Raising gives you fold equity, no? What does calling give you when ignoring pot odds and giving no thought to implied odds?

Also if you are out of position if you raise his bet I think it makes him less likely to bet a marginal hand on the turn giving you a free look at the river a good portion of the time. Just speculating though, I'm just starting to get serious about poker.

[swiggidy]

As a side question, if you had the odds to call - but it meant going all in, tourney or cash, would you?

You have to. I didn't read the two long posts above but I'm assuming someone didn't cover this.

Flipping a coin is the easy one. You pay me $2 for heads, I pay you $1 for tails. Half the time you win, half the time you loose. It works out to -0.5eV for you, +0.5eV for me because for each flip I win 50c on average and you loose 50c, even though neither of us ever actually wins or looses 50c at one time.

Ok, now a die. I pay you $6 if you roll a six, you pay me $1 if you roll anything else. You loose 5 out of 6 times, do you take my wager?

In my previous post. Can you ignore pot odds? No. Period. However, sometimes there are situations that override pot odds because they increase your eV. Consider guy who min-bets. I have a favorite player right now who stabs at pots like that and folds 90% of the time. I don't have shit for cards, thus no pot odds, but raising makes him fold so much that it's money in the bank for me.

So, when pot odds are important (i.e. you have to draw to a winning hand) you have to respect them. Only making decisions based on pot odds will only get you so far, at the very least you need to consider implied odds.

[Chopper]

Thunder, all Swiggidy was saying was, you have to figure implied odds into any calculation involving pot odds. i can see how you may think he was contradicting himself, but i didnt see it that way.

he is not advocating ignoring pot odds completely. he is saying the implied odds of a situation may turn a fold into a call/raise.

and, if you have the (pot) odds to call, and it costs you your stack....YES you should call. over the long term, you will gain muchos chippos.

if i am drawing to the nut flush, and 5 others go all-in, and i am getting a "pure" 6:1, then, hell yes i call. if i go busto, so be it.

[Thunder]

Can you ignore pot odds? No. Period. However, sometimes there are situations that override pot odds because they increase your eV. Consider guy who min-bets. I have a favorite player right now who stabs at pots like that and folds 90% of the time. I don't have shit for cards, thus no pot odds, but raising makes him fold so much that it's money in the bank for me.

That's what I thought - and what I do. However, if he's making a stab, a steal and you are on a draw, would you still call as chances are that if you miss, you may still have him beat?

So, when pot odds are important (i.e. you have to draw to a winning hand) you have to respect them.

Yes. As per above though, I was wondering if you would override pot odds whenit's a min raise and/or the bet is tiny compared to the stack - say 40 chips when you all have circa 2000.

Only making decisions based on pot odds will only get you so far, at the very least you need to consider implied odds.

And this is where the can of worms kick in. Being pedantic (or numb, you choose) when does not having pot odds to call become implied odds to call? As mentioned in my other post, anyone can assume Villain will bet again, thus giving implied odds and thus makes null the issue of seeing if you have pot odds.

[swiggidy]

1) no, because this villain folds too much so he won't pay off a made hand anyway.

2) I really don't like this "over ridding" pot odds. If it's a min-raise you can call with most any draw because you're getting 3:1 already, implied odds are usually there to make up the rest. If it's 40 into 2000 then you call because of implied odds. You only need to win, 120 say, which is a small part of his stack, thus it's more likely.

3) I think I mostly covered this. In Cash games implied odds are #1, pot odds really only matter when you're going all-in (or if someone makes retarded small bets). In tournies you can't necessarily chase as much so pot odds start to dominate. Really, it depends.

[Chopper]

3) I think I mostly covered this. In Cash games implied odds are #1, pot odds really only matter when you're going all-in (or if someone makes retarded small bets). In tournies you can't necessarily chase as much so pot odds start to dominate. Really, it depends.

not trying to hijack here. i just figured it was the opposite. arent implied odds the "odds your opponent will pay off when you hit?" so, in cash games, i would think you give more respect to pot odds, due to the fact you are in no hurry to get it all-in...the blinds dont go up.

however, in tournies, you are rarely getting pot odds, even with a minbet in the late rounds...at least online. you are going more for impieds or the fact your villain is "pot committed" and cant fold now anyway. right?

oops, i caught it. can you see my error, thunder? ...it has to do with deeper stacks.

[Jibalob]

to the OP:

If the reason you are "overiding" the pot odds is because you think villain is trying to take down the pot with air (or a very weak hand/draw) - calling acheives nothing other than a -EV play if you are only looking to hit your draw.

The simple answer is dont call with bad odds.. re-steal instead (or fold)

[Thunder]

If the reason you are "overiding" the pot odds is because you think villain is trying to take down the pot with air (or a very weak hand/draw) - calling acheives nothing other than a -EV play if you are only looking to hit your draw.

The simple answer is dont call with bad odds.. re-steal instead (or fold)

Thx Jibalob. I see the sense in what is being said. I would've called a small bet so as not to be throwing away too much money in case I miss and the guy has a higher card or made bottom pair.



Swiggy/Chopper, I admit to getting a tad confused on a topic I thought I understood. My questions on implied odds were to get an answer that already correlates with my own belief - thus confirming I understand it. And that hasn't happened

My confusion is thus:
1) When do pot odds blur into implied odds?
Apologies if you've answered this but I am obviously missing it.

Eg: If I need odds of 5/1 for pot odds to advocate a call yet the odds are currently 3/1 then I won't call.

Now, pause before you answer and read my comments below to Chopper as they illustrate my understanding of implied odds and so all will be clear after that.



Chopper, the way I understand it, implied odds are not restricted to your all ins, but concern any bet at any time; quite often coming into play if Villain is short stacked. Eg: 400 in pot, Villain bets 200 - giving you 4/ 1 and you need 5/1 to call. However, you see he has just 400 left and are confident that he will bet them off on the next round. Thus your implied odds, calling 200 to win 1200, is 6/1 and thus the correct play.



Back to my question that I asked you to pause on - blurring of pot odds into implied odds. I am getting confused because as I mentioned, if I need 5 /1 yet the odds are just 3/1 then I don't call. Pot odds say do not call. And I don't.

And the confusion is such: if Villain is betting into you, he is bound to continue betting; thus implying better odds. In which case pot odds can blur into implied odds and Hero can ignore the pot odds each time as he envisages further betting. As you can see, this can get Hero into trouble very easily.

So back to the example, you need 5/1 but currently have 3/1. Do you call because you feel he'll bet on - thus implying odds >5/1 or do you fold because you've been priced out?

In 99% of these situations, I follow the pot odds but this thread now has me confused.

[biondino]

Thunder, I think this thread has taken a confusing turn. Let me try and conclude/simplify some of what's been said above.

Chopper, the way I understand it, implied odds are not restricted to your all ins, but concern any bet at any time; quite often coming into play if Villain is short stacked. Eg: 400 in pot, Villain bets 200 - giving you 4/ 1 and you need 5/1 to call. However, you see he has just 400 left and are confident that he will bet them off on the next round. Thus your implied odds, calling 200 to win 1200, is 6/1 and thus the correct play.

Yes, this is essentially true, though if you can be pretty much certain the guy is going all in regardless, then you will have to take into account both turn and river odds (since you know you'll be seeing both) rather than just turn odds. Obviously, this pretty much doubles your number of outs, and reduces 6/1 odds to 3/1.

I have to say I find the way you write about poker rather confusing - you are erudite and you can talk about the maths with a good level of understanding, but it's facile to the point of bloody-mindedness to try to discuss pot odds without implied odds being a huge part of the conversation. The only exception is when you are a) in an all-in situation or b) in a tourney situation where the blinds are so big that pretty much any contested hand will lead to an all-in.

In all other situations - early/mid stages of tourneys and, in particular, cash games - implied odds are a vital consideration, not least because most of the biggest pots you'll play will be with sets, boats, straights and flushes (top pair type hands, btw, suffer from reverse implied odds, which basically means that the chance of these hands winning goes down on later streets, rather than going up, hence the need to "protect" such hands by ensuring that drawing hands with good implied odds are not allowed to chase cheaply). So you need to know when you can afford to chase with weak hands with potential and when you can't, and that's all about implied odds, because most decent players will not give you good pot odds to stay in the hand. Semi-bluffing - raising or betting with an unmade or weak drawing hand - also depends heavily on implied odds, which, in combination with fold equity, make these hands +EV when played correctly.

And the confusion is such: if Villain is betting into you, he is bound to continue betting; thus implying better odds. In which case pot odds can blur into implied odds and Hero can ignore the pot odds each time as he envisages further betting. As you can see, this can get Hero into trouble very easily.

Two problems here. First of all, yes, if villain bets into you on the turn after you've made an implied odds-driven call on the flop, you may have to fold; or you may be able to make another implied odds-driven call, depending on stack sizes and your reads on the player, what his range is, and whether he goes too far with marginal hands. But, more importantly, it is ludicrous to assert that a player who bets on the flop and is called will always bet on the turn - there are any number of reasons why they may not bet on the turn, whether it's to slowplay, to control pot size, because they read your flop call as a danger signal, or simply because their flop bet was a bluff or semi-bluff. Sure, some players will always fire a second barrel whether they've hit or not - a vital thing to take notes on - but most, when feeling threatened because they themselves are weak - will more often than not check the turn against an opponent who has cold-called the flop. And this, of course, adds another weapon to your arsenal - if they check the turn then you can take control of the hand and make a bet which they may have no choice but to fold to.

So, ultimately, whether you like it or not you can't ask a question and then ask us to ignore integral and vital parts of any decent answer, because even if we do try to answer the misinformation you'll receive can only have a negative effect on your skillset.

[Chopper]

sorry to confuse you more, bra. i can guarantee you that Swiggidy will give a better answer here.

but, implied odds "help" you take a borderline (or slightly -EV) decision and make it profitable. if you need 5:1 and are currently getting 3:1, you need some info about the villain to make the implied odds worth taking a shot at.
you need to know he will continue to pay, if you hit. you need to know if he will fire again on the turn/river. you also need to look at how DEEP his stack is. all these things come into play.

trying to stay on topic here. but, if he fires another psb on the turn, he ruins the odds you were chasing on the flop to a certain degree (i dont know how to explain that one very well). but, his stack also gets smaller....which erodes your implieds for the river.

if he pushes, you have NO implied odds anymore because there is no EXTRA money to win if you hit your draw.

however, if you know villain is a total call station, you can be a little more risky in the odds you call. if you need 5:1 and get 3:1, i would make that gamble against a call station because i can bet him strong when i hit, and he will likely still pay me off.

if i am against a player i know isnt likely to pay me off...like a rock. i have to adhere VERY close to my pot odds. there really arent any implieds with him. i may not call getting 4.5:1 against this villain.

the factors to look for with heavy implied odds, imo, are:

-overly aggressive players that tend to think you are just standing up to them.
-call stations that dont fold weak hands.
-incredibly DEEP stacked players that will payoff a good bit...because they can afford to.

yes, they blend together, but they are also separate. using them together is really just a "tiebreaker" for your decision.

this can get really hairy to discuss, i understand. but if you know villain will continue throwing money into the pot, you need to know how much. will it be another psb? or will it be the same 400? some villains bet percentages of the pot...like 3/4 pot. others bet dollar amounts...like 400 on flop and 400 on turn. the latter gives you better pot odds. but, you can factor this in on the flop. "if he bets 400 now, my pot odds are X, but if i miss, he will still only bet 400 giving me even BETTER odds on the turn. combining the two that will give me X odds to call now and the turn where my odds of hitting my hand will be X%...thereby making it profitable. i call."

i'm sure that didnt help any. we'll see what Swigg can offer to clarify.

[Jibalob]

Thunder -

I'm not sure where this third topic of implied odds blurring into pot odds is coming from.

The pot is $3 and villain bets $1 into it = 4:1 pot odds for you to call

Your reads on villain lead you to believe he will 2-barrell the turn with a 1/2 pot-sized bet. So, you think he will bet around $2.50 into the $5 pot.

So, add the $2.50 to the pot on the flop (because you know it will be "offered" on the turn if you call the flop) Your implied odds on the flop are 6.5:1

There isnt really any blurring from one to the other.

As I said earlier, if you do not have pot / implied odds to call either raise or fold because

Calling is -EV
Folding is +/-0EV
Raising is +EV if you have enough fold equity
or -EV if you dont

Calling is the only action which is ALWAYS -EV (unless you are planning an elaborate bluff on later streets) so it should be avoided at all costs.

[Thunder]

biondino, thx for your input tho the "confusing" aspect wasn't covered in your excellent post.



Chopper, thx again dude. Not 100% clear but getting there. Of course, you don't know how much he will bet except for when he's short stacked or is prone to overbetting. In this respect, it's still hard to know when pot odds are overtaken by implied odds but again, like EV, it's down to feel and situations.



Jibalob, I can't really explain the blurring anymore clearly than I have done already. In short though it was when do you see implied odds instead of pot odds? Or from another perspective, and the worst case scenario I described, Hero can ignore pot odds as he believes - an all in apart - that Villain will bet further. And this can be costly. So when do you listen to the pot odds and when do you override. With odds of 3/1 when needing 5/1 Hero may rationalise calling ANY bet with "Villain will bet further - so giving me odds". Hero has blurred pot odds into implied odds.



On a side note, ignoring pot odds goes the other way too. How many of you would really go all in on a draw, due to being priced in, when folding means you can live to fight another day. First day of a tourney? On the bubble? Risking busting in 5th for £15k, with shorter stacks at the table, or folding and aiming for 1st and £120k?

[Hawk]

On a side note, ignoring pot odds goes the other way too. How many of you would really go all in on a draw, due to being priced in, when folding means you can live to fight another day. First day of a tourney? On the bubble? Risking busting in 5th for £15k, with shorter stacks at the table, or folding and aiming for 1st and £120k?

If you are in a SnG/Tourney, this is where you get into ICM, which I hardly understand (though I get the general idea).

If in a cash game and you have the odds to call, you call regardless. This is why it's important to play within a proper bankroll, so you can play this properly without the fear of missing.

[Jibalob]

Jibalob, I can't really explain the blurring anymore clearly than I have done already. In short though it was when do you see implied odds instead of pot odds?

When you do not have good pot odds you look at implied odds (if you have good pot odds implied odds dont really matter).

You call based on good implied odds when you believe your estimation of implied odds is fairly accurate.


If what you are saying is that you cannot be certain villain will bet x-amount on the next street (or call x-amount) then just adjust your calculation accordingly.

ie, villain bets $1 into a $5 pot giving you 6:1 to call. You estimate that he will bet (or call) another $4 on the turn giving you 10:1 implied odds on your flop call. If however you believe this estimation is only correct 50% of the time, and the other half of the time he will check/fold then just use a figure of $2 in your implied odds calculation (50% x $4) which would give you 8:1 to call (of course in this situation you could go further by looking at what odds you need if he gives a free river card 50% of the time but just ignore that for now).


There really is no blurring as far as I can see, just be conservative with your estimations if you want to be safe.

[Thunder]

I ask as last night, I finished 5th out of 1000. Had I folded, I would still have had 100k and be vying for 3rd place with 2 others sub 60k. With blinds at 20,000/40,000, that didn't leave much room to operate but I still could've finished above these 2 and higher in the payout.

And had the all in occured when the blinds were just 20/40 a fold would still leave me with lots of bbs.

I don't regret the call but if there had been serious money on offer, and had it been the difference between taking home £25k in 5th (a nice sum) and £100k in 3rd (a life changing sum) or going out on day 1 of the WSOP, I think I'd seriously consider folding.

Then again, I like to think i'd fold KK preflop if raised all in........but it hasn't happened yet.

[Chopper]

How many of you would really go all in on a draw, due to being priced in, when folding means you can live to fight another day. First day of a tourney? On the bubble? Risking busting in 5th for £15k, with shorter stacks at the table, or folding and aiming for 1st and £120k?

as for when to "call off" on a draw, i will tell you when the percentage of hitting MY hand (a big one) are over 50%...i try to shove. i dont just call, i'm initiating the action, too. most notably, combo draws on the flop. something like QsJs and the flop comes 9s Ts Ah. i am going nuts on this flop, and i dont mind finding AK at all. and, it doesnt matter what stage of a tourney i am in.

there are times to fold biggish hands pf in tourneys, but thats what you read HOH for.

if you always "live to fight another day," you often find yourself short on chips....something i dont mind...i like playing short, too. but, if you are always taking the risks, you often find yourself on the rail or...in the lead.

theres a balance, and we both need to learn when to be more aggressive, from what it sounds like.

[Thunder]

Jibalob,

One again, thx for replying. Yeah, you have to know your opponent and be conservative with your implied odds. You and Chopper have helped me realise I was on the right track all along - and that I let the myriad of permutations open to an indivudual when betting, confuse me.

I am a "what if" type of learner. Whereas some can accept as fact a statement, what if types ask and ask and ask to really check. Eg: [i]"what if this happened", "what about...", if....", "is that still true if...."[i] etc. It really helps us - but can also sidetrack us when we wander down certain paths

The scenario I chucked up - and which confused me - is seeing every bet as having implied odds: "2/1, I need 8/1, I'll call as he'll price me in by betting again" and that's when I started to blur the two.

It's still not 100% as I am not *that* good at reading people yet and I play at donkstakes where everything is wildly unpredictable. I've seen people bet 95% of their stack Pre flop, post flop and turn, only to fold to a small bet on the river!

So I am sure I have stuck to pot odds when I should have turned to implied odds but it's all about learning and not being too reckless eg: if I 7.5/1 whilst currently getting 6/1 and he'll more than likely bet - though i don't know what amount.

Once I get better at reading people, and more experience in general, this area should be dramatically honed.



Chopper, on the whole I agree about not living to fight another day. Which is why I played the MTT as I did. My philosophy is "I'd rather go out in 5th trying to finish 1st, than try to hang for 3rd".

[taipan168]

Chopper, on the whole I agree about not living to fight another day. Which is why I played the MTT as I did. My philosophy is "I'd rather go out in 5th trying to finish 1st, than try to hang for 3rd".

For a MTT this is the right philosophy. For a single table tourney, this is often the wrong philosophy. Understanding the payout structure is a very very important determinant as to how you play.

[Thunder]

Understanding the payout structure is a very very important determinant as to how you play.

And that is what I said about living for another day. If this was the UKGPT for example, 5th pays something like £9k. 3rd pays something like £45k. With 2 very short stacks at the table - and with folding leaving me in 3rd - that's something to contemplate!!!

[biondino]

Thunder, you keep defining your examples in terms of exact odds. There are very, very few times you will be able to do this at the poker table because your opponents' cards will never be face up. Obviously, putting them on a range and prioritising likely holdings will give you an approximate idea of where you stand, but there is a significant margin of error, and without implied odds you're going to have to err on the side of extreme caution if you slavishly devote yourself to following pot odds. Implied odds are an aid to accepting you may not have pot odds, but may be able to more than make up for it, in a game where perfect information is never available.

[Thunder]

Biondino,

I think you misunderstand me. Or maybe I misunderstand you. Can you be more specific as to where you think I am going wrong/slavishly following pot odds?

Are you referring to me saying, I have 3/1 but need 5/1? If so, I am well aware that my opponents hands are rarely on show. It' s just a simplified example to illustrate a point. Much like why I asked for implied odds not to be involved in my opening post. This has nothing to do with not wanting to deal with them but everything to do with keeping it simple.

Or to put it another way, imagine we are talking about a game on TV where we can see both sets of hole cards. Here the odds are defined and the answer to my questions can be spoken via the commentator: "he's facing a bet that is giving him 3/1 but he only has a 5/1 shot of making his hand. he can't call this" or "but he knows if he calls, his oppoennt will go all in so that implies odds of 10/1 and woudl be very wise to call"

Anything really, just to make clear the area of discussion.

In real life, I try to estimate what will make a winning hand, compared to what my opponent is likely to hold, if I don't feel I have it already, and that is where I get my odds from. So I am doing what you say, putting my opponents on a range of hands to approximate where I stand.

Also, I am well aware of implied odds. I don't know why you think I don't instigate them and instead just focus on pot odds.

Jibalob made a very clear - and simple - illustration when he wrote:

If what you are saying is that you cannot be certain villain will bet x-amount on the next street (or call x-amount) then just adjust your calculation accordingly.

ie, villain bets $1 into a $5 pot giving you 6:1 to call. You estimate that he will bet (or call) another $4 on the turn giving you 10:1 implied odds on your flop call. If however you believe this estimation is only correct 50% of the time, and the other half of the time he will check/fold then just use a figure of $2 in your implied odds calculation (50% x $4) which would give you 8:1 to call (of course in this situation you could go further by looking at what odds you need if he gives a free river card 50% of the time but just ignore that for now).

I jsut got wrapped up in not knowing if Villain would bet and therefore having situations where Hero just calls any bet at any time - and ends up in permanent races - due to assumed implied odds. And thus it could be hard to know when to call and when not to. To take it to it's logical conclusion, hero may call a 10xbb preflop raise with 72os (Villain is holding AA) because he feels with such a preflop bet, Villain is certain to bet again to price him in for quad 7s. Clearly this logic is twisted but Hero needs to knwo when to call and when not to.

And this goes back to my learning style of "what if". Any book explanation of implied odds makes perfect sense and many are ok with that. But for me, it raises so many permutations and examples that I need to clear up - all the "what if...." scenarios, some of which have been discussed such as:

"What if you don't know he'll bet again?"
"what if you're on the bubble?"
"what if, what if, what if....."

[Robb]

And this goes back to my learning style of "what if". Any book explanation of implied odds makes perfect sense and many are ok with that. But for me, it raises so many permutations and examples that I need to clear up - all the "what if...." scenarios, some of which have been discussed such as:

"What if you don't know he'll bet again?"
"what if you're on the bubble?"
"what if, what if, what if....."

I'm pretty good w/ pot odds and implied odds, despite being rather new to poker. I'm a math guy, so it makes sense to me. First, you seem to be conflating ring games and tourneys, which are completely different calculations. I will address ring games.

Here's a series of "what ifs" you need to consider.
1. What if the the pot is small with several limpers? Then pot odds are big but surely implied odds are small. If everyone's limping in, they don't have much, and won't likely to bet much if you make your hand.
2. What if a couple people bet 4XBB preflop? Then they probably have hands they'll bet again, so the implied odds are bigger, but your pot odds will suffer.
3. Which hands can pay off against multiple opponents? To stand up in a multiway pot, you'd like str8/flush draws. But implied odds are often poor with a flush draw because it's so obvious when it hits. Straights have fewer outs, and worse pot odds, but the implied odds are bigger due to deception. So you can actually push the implied odds harder with a str8 draw than with a flush draw.
4. What if you're in late position? Then all of these decisions are a billion times easier. If a table is passive, they will often check to you on the button and let you bet your own odds, then call you down. Don't chase draws oop without EXCELLENT pure pot odds. The action behind you can destroy you.
5. What if you have the correct pot odds on the flop and you miss your draw on the turn? Fold. I see a lot of donks calling with somewhat reasonable implied odds, then chasing a couple streets after catching air.