One of the earliest things we learn is to assess our odds for continuing to stay in a hand and if the odds are not favourable then we exit. Then we learn about implied odds and so to me, there is a dichotomy at play.

Let's say you have KQ diamonds and the action, after the pot had been raised pre flop, is 3 way and the flop comes down Ad 5h 5d. Villain one bets the pot and villain 2 reraises. Both seem to have hit whilst you have missed completely.

At this stage, general theory would tell us to make a sharp exit but the very fact that there is action leads us to the assumption that this activity will continue thus giving you massive implied odds should you hit your hand (in this case, a flush).

So on the one hand, we should leave pretty damn fast but on the other, it's likely that one - or both - is willing to go broke and continue betting.

Now I won't hang around with my KQ diamonds but the example is correct, is it not? And that there exists the paradox of betting offering insufficient pot odds actually increases implied odds. And that as the implied odds increase, our chances of emerging the victor drop dramatically.