Cash Betting Confuses

[Thunder]

We all know about standard betting - 2xbb in EP, 3x in mid, 4x in late etc but what confuses me is cash play as I find it hard to read/define hands as betting seems to go out of the window. I have also noticed it when reading hand histories on this site and in magazine articles.

Here is a case in point, from Cardrunners:

.25/.50 NLHE

Hero is dealt QA spades. UTG limps, CO raises to $2 and that is 4xbb. So far, so standard.

Hero though decides to reraise to £6.5!!!! That's 13% of his stack.
That's the equivalent of raising 80 to 260 of your 2000 chips at the 10/20 stage of a tourney. Unheard of!

Even allowing for the fact that his opponents may be LAG, that seems extreme. If I held anything less than KK or AA (in which case, I am not letting go no matter what, pre flop) then I'd feel hard pressed to do anything other than call. JJ, 99, KA are all looking rather weak faced with such a reraise.

And I just can't get my head around it. I am aggressive myself, but I wouldn't reraise to such a degree with just AQ (and from the way the article is written, he wasn't trying to represent AA). Further more the villain, who is not painted to be a donk, flat calls (yet only has 10 8 off suit).

And this raises 2 points:
1) should I be overtly aggressive with premium hands in cash? As said, I usually follow the standard betting patterns and
2) considering such aggression, how do you calibrate where you are in a hand?

[pankfish]

Standard 3 bets are 3-4x the original raise. I think it's more common to raise more in early position since you usually don't want much action. Most people in lower stakes just raise the same amount in any position. You shouldn't really vary your standard bet amount depending on your cards either.

Have you read Sauce's thread in the 6 max digest?

[Warpe]

um, it's a standard play. Don't compare SnG/MTT play to cash. They're different games.

Go read some cash guides:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...st-t59621.html

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...st-t65040.html

[Warpe]

Unheard of!

"inconceivable!"

[jyms]

All raises at small stakes NLcash should be 4x +1BB per limper and I would say I 3x-3.5x any 3 bet from late position and 4x early position and the blinds. Don't ever raise 2X from UTG or early unless you like playing 4-5 way hands to a flop.

[Thunder]

yeah, I gathered they were diifferetn beasts. Thx for the guides.

I would say I 3x-3.5x any 3 bet from late position and 4x early position

Now it makes sense, thx Jym. However, I am still baffled by 3 betting a raise as I haven't come across it before. Any idea why the betting standards are different to tourney?

Guess I'd bets read those guides!

[euphoricism]

Its because the blinds tend to be huge in relation to the stack sizes.

[biondino]

Thunder, the 3-bet is good and right because a) the 3-bettor feels AQ is ahead of the original raiser's range and b) he has position I assume?

The fact that it is 13% of effective stacks means that the person taking the initiative - the 3-bettor - is basically saying to the original raiser "if you play this hand, you're playing for stacks". That is a really powerful thing to do, and it gives you a huge advantage.

Finally, of course, if the original raiser then 4-bets, AQ is actually not that hard to get away from, hence minimising your losses.

To reiterate - as has already been said above, what is right in a tourney is often not right in cash. They are similar but different games, never forget that.

[Thunder]

"inconceivable!"

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

[swiggidy]

Its because the blinds tend to be huge in relation to the stack sizes.

SnG, 20bb stack. Raise to 3bb, get one call, on flop pot is 7bb, you have 17bb left.

Cash, 100bb stack. Raise to 4 bb, get one call, on flop pot is 9 bb, you have 96 bb left.

You almost never have implied odds in SnGs and you try to maximize FE.

Also, in case you haven't figured it out yet. In cash be betting 3/4 to full pot on the flops where you would be betting 1/2-3/4 pot in a SnG, for a similar reason.

[Thunder]

You almost never have implied odds in SnGs and you try to maximize FE.

Wow, I don't understand that. I would have thought that they exist just as much as long as you have players who are not gonan let go of their hand? In fact, I'd assume SNGs are more prone to implied odds due to the shorter stacks and so more people are liable to call off their stack - either to accumulate chips for a play at winning or to get away from being short.

[swiggidy]

What implied odds are you talking about? If you're calling pre to hit a set and have a read they only raise with high poker pairs or something, then sure, maybe.

In my example, suppose the flop comes 2 to a flush and you have the draw. If he bets 5bb, you need him to put 8 of his remaining 12 bbs when it hits just to break even.

In cash, if he bets 8bb you need to win 16 more to call and chase. That's 20% of his stack, and replaceable. Much more likely I thinks.

[taipan168]

You almost never have implied odds in SnGs and you try to maximize FE.

Wow, I don't understand that. I would have thought that they exist just as much as long as you have players who are not gonan let go of their hand? In fact, I'd assume SNGs are more prone to implied odds due to the shorter stacks and so more people are liable to call off their stack - either to accumulate chips for a play at winning or to get away from being short.

The reason you have less implied odds in SNGs (I don't think it's correct to say you "almost never" have them) is that stacks are shallower, therefore the amount of BBs you can win from opp's stack compared to the (smaller) number of BBs you have to call is much less.

Couple of examples:

200NL cash game - UTG with a $200 stack raises to $8. All fold to you on the button with 22 and also a $200 stack. By calling off 4x BB you can win the rest of opp's 96 BB stack. You can win 24x the amount you need to call if you hit a set and opp stacks off.

SNG - blinds 25/50. UTG with a 1500 stack raises to 150. All fold to you on the button with 22 and also a 1500 stack. By calling off 3x BB you can win the rest of opp's 30x BB stack, so you can only win 10x the amount you need to call.

As to whether players in SNGs are more likely to call off their stacks, it is really only relevant if both of you hit a hand. In the examples above, the ideal situation is that the flop comes something like A72 rainbow and opp has AK. That said, there are still plenty of cash game players who will stack off with AK on this board, although it might take another street to get their stack.

[Thunder]

Guys,

I was talking post flop. I never do implied odds pre flop. Because I can’t

All this “If he bets 5bb, you need him to put 8 of his remaining 12 bbs” is new to me.

The way I’ve been shown implied odds is like this:

Blinds 50/100. Opp raises from SB to 300 pre flop. Flop comes and you have 4 to the flush on the flop. Pot is 700 and you have 1/6 to hit your card on the turn.

Opp bets strong, 400, which is not enough to call to chase the flush but you now know he’s in it for the long haul and will probably call off the rest of his 2200 chips. Therefore, it’s now a case of calling 400 to win 2600 (400 + 2200) which is slightly more than the 1/6 that you need to call. You do, you hit, he stacks off with pocket K and you laugh.

So basically, I was taught implied odds were not having the pot odds at that moment in time but you do when you factor in that the villain will continue to bet. Requiring x amount of bbs back doesn’t come into – just a case of do you get the odds to call. Am I missing something then?



Tai, it is very late and maybe that is why but having reread your post, things aren't clear to me


100NL cash game UTG with a $100 stack raises to $8.
Which is 8xbb then.

All fold to you on the button with 22 and also a $100 stack. By calling off 4x BB you can win the rest of opp's 96 BB stack.
Ok, I think you mean you can win his entire stack if it comes to an all in. But where do you get 4xbb from?

You can win 24x the amount you need to call if you hit a set and opp stacks off.
No idea where 24 comes from, sorry.


SNG - blinds 25/50. UTG with a 1500 stack raises to 150. All fold to you on the button with 22 and also a 1500 stack. By calling off 3x BB you can win the rest of opp's 30x BB stack, so you can only win 10x the amount you need to call.
And? I am now assuming that if 10x (in the above example) is not good but 24 is then you’re talking about the chances of hitting a set – and thus are playing for set value? Isn’t that 7% (1 in 14) thus making it 14xbb available to win in order to make the call?

If so, I am following you but as I detailed above, I am currently only doing implied odds post flop and thus it's just a simple case of getting the odds to continue calling.

But, even if I am understanding what you are saying, as this is now in an SNG environment, all this goes out the window the longer a tourney goes on, as the blinds get bigger in relation to the stacks and pockets become premium. So on the one hand, there is no pre flop set value (and so not worth a call) as villain only has 10xbb left but on the other, they are now prime (and so definitely worth a call or even a reraie). Can you see my confusion?

[taipan168]

Sorry, I fucked up , shouldn't post so quickly! In the cash game example, the game should be 200NL ($1/$2 blinds) and the stacks $200. Hope that makes things clearer.

On your other points, I will try to explain.

Preflop implied odds - the perfect example of implied odds is when you are holding a pocket pair and an opp in front raises. You hit a set on the flop 1 time in every 8.5 times (11.8% chance of hitting), so if opp stacks off every single time when you hit a set, you have correct implied odds to call the raise provided that the chips you can win (the existing pot plus the smaller of your stack or the raiser's stack) are 8.5 times the chips you need to call.

However, opps won't stack off every single time you hit a set, so you need to be able to win more than that. The guideline I use is that you need to be able to win between 10x and 20x the chips you need to call to have correct implied odds. Against a very bad player who will stack off on many flops even with weak hands like bottom pair, 10x may be sufficient, but against a good player who will slow down even with TPTK you need closer to 20x.

Postflop implied odds - The same principle that opp will not stack off every time you hit your hand applies, so you can't just assume you will get opp's stack every time you hit and add his remaining stack to the chips already in the pot for the calculation - you need to be win more than that.

Example: You hold A 3 on the button and the board so far is J T 2 7. You are pretty sure that one of the nine remaining hearts on the river will make you the best hand (ie. opp doesn't have a set) and you do need to improve but you can't be confident that an A on the river will win, so you have nine good outs on the river. The pot size is $10 on the turn and your opp in the hand in MP bets $5, so you're getting 3:1 on the call.

According to Pokerstove you are 20.5% to hit on the river so you need to be getting at least 3.87 to 1 pot odds to make this call profitable BEFORE considering implied odds. However, let's consider the following scenarios:

- Opp's $5 bet is all he has (he is all-in on the turn). In this case there are no more chips you can win so provided you are sure that an A on the river won't win it for you, you have to FOLD.
- Opp has $10 behind after his $5 bet. In this case, you can win the $15 in the pot plus opp's remaining $10 if you hit, so if opp stacks off every time you hit your flush you could win $25. However, opp will not necessarily stack off every time you hit so this is probably a marginal situation and could go either way.
- Opp has $50 behind after his $5 bet. In this case, he has enough money left in his stack that if you hit your flush he might try to take a final stab at the pot that leaves him enough chips to fold. In this case you can usually rely on implied odds to make up the difference between the 3:1 express odds you are getting and the 3.87:1 you need.

Hope that helps. Sorry about the mispost on my first reply.

[biondino]

To reiterate the important point Tai is making here - in your examples, there is an assumption that the villain will stack off every time, allowing you to capture his entire stack, whether it's ring or tourney. This simply isn't the case - even in the sng example you give, a villain with a missed AK is still likely to cbet a flop but sure as eggs is eggs isn't putting another chip in unless he improves, ditto middle pair or even a draw himself. No-one has AA/KK often enough for your argument to be watertight.

The other factor you're not discussing is the marginal value of chips in an SNG, namely that the fewer chips you have, the more valuable each chip in your hand is. It is perfectly possible to face a situation where you are getting pot/implied odds to make a move, but where the likelihood of not winning the hand (say when you're chasing an OESD, with 32% or so chance of hitting) and therefore losing a large proportion of your stack means folding is the right move.

Also in your example, you are calling the villain's flop bet. But you're not factoring in the fact that if you don't hit on the turn, you'll probably face a river bet that won't give you nearly the right (pot) odds to call. And one final issue - if you do hit your flush on the turn or river, even bad players often find a fold for their overpair when you push on a flush board.

So, all taken together, you don't have implied odds in that example because there are too many other factors acting against you.

[Thunder]

Ok,

Things are still confusing for me apologies. And I think I have discovered major leaks in my game so please, bear with me.


Bio,
You say my example didn’t have implied odds but the way I understand it, I did have the odds to see another street. Yes, if you missed and another bet came then the odds wouldn’t be there but in essence, with 1/6 chance to hit on the turn and the pot odds greater than that then you have implied odds. Isn’t that true?

With regards to you making your flush but your opponent folds, is that relevant? I ask because you stuck to the odds and you made your hand – success. The fact that the villain folds thus denying you the chips seems somewhat irrelevant to me. Sure, at the end of the day your odds were incorrect as he didn’t stack off but you weren’t to know that at the time and you won. And as you knew there was a chance you’d miss the flush, you’re open to losing, therefore a win, and a sizeable pot, can only be a good thing can’t it?

On another note, let’s say both of us were deep stacked enough so that even if I missed the turn, I would still be getting implied odds when villain bet again, surely the fact that the opponent is deep stacked reduces the chance that he will stack off – thus negating the implied odds you thought you had?



Tai,
If 8.5x is good enough then I don’t quite understand why you’d need up to 20x against a good, tight player. Surely the 8.5x is enough?

However, opps won't stack off every single time you hit a set, so you need to be able to win more than that.
If he won’t stack off, how can you win even more?

Onto a more confusing point, you’re talking about playing for set value but I must admit, I have never really considered this before, for a number of reasons. The most obvious of which is that I look down at 88, 77, 55, 1010 and play them based on their relative strength, my position, the table, the blinds, stage of the tourney etc. Eg: 55 is an easy fold at the start but not so towards the end. Basically, figuring out set value never comes into it. I mean, I’ll limp in with 33 looking to hit a set but I do so because it’s relatively cheap to join in, I am not actively working out the odds.

Another reason is that when an opponent raises, I have no idea what he has (unless he’s an uber rock and I don’t see many of them at $5 SNGs). So again, if I have 77 – I make my call based on how I perceive my hand in relation to the table, blinds, opponents etc and whether I feel I can take him off a hand even if I miss. Considering most villains at my level raise with a naked ace or king, you’re going to be ahead most of the time and don’t need odds for a set. Add to this that even if has a pair, it could be a lower pair, then once again, there is no need for set odds.

In short, if I feel I am ahead pre flop, and can take the hit should I get a bad flop, I will call. Wondering if my opponent is going to stack off and give me implied odds is not in my thinking. Believing I am ahead is all that matters.

Is this drastically wrong?

All the books/manuals/shows I have read/watched all talk about calling/betting if you think you’re ahead, and that is what I do. Also, there is never any sure an opponent will stack off anyway. If I have 66 and my opponent has KA and we both miss the flop, he will probably fold to a strong bet but does that mean you shouldn’t try to take the pot down because there are no implied odds?

And to add to the craziness, what about being the aggressor and taking pots with inferior hands and bluffs - never implied odds there - so if you can't call with a made hand like a middle pair then surely you can't bet with a nothing hand?

See, I told you I was confused!


Finally, with regards to your flush example, I saw it completely differently as I see a guy betting $5 with $10 remaining as more liable to commit as he is pretty much pot committed whereas the guy with $50 remaining is more likely to hold back to preserve a middling stack. Certainly, that would be true in tourney play and I would assume the same here – with villain reloading or leaving should he lose. Of course, I don’t know cash play so……..



Apologies for this.

[taipan168]

If 8.5x is good enough then I don’t quite understand why you’d need up to 20x against a good, tight player. Surely the 8.5x is enough?

However, opps won't stack off every single time you hit a set, so you need to be able to win more than that.
If he won’t stack off, how can you win even more?

No it is not enough. For you to have correct implied odds, you need to win an average of 8.5x the chips you need to call preflop every single time. Say if opp only stacks off half the time you hit your set then you will need to be able to win 17x the chips you need to call if you hit a set (because the other half of the time you don't win any more chips from him, only what's already in the pot).

Let's take a real example. Stars SNG, blinds 15/30, all stacks roughly 1500, full table.

Two folds in front, you're MP1 with 55. You limp for 30, all fold to Button who makes it 120 to go. The blinds fold and the action is on you. In this case, you need to call 90 to see a pot of 195 so clearly you do not have express odds to play for set value since you're only getting 2:1 on your money and you only hit a set on the flop 1 time in 8.5 (so you're 7.5 to 1 against) . However, opp has 1380 chips behind so in this case the most you can win on this hand if you hit your set is 1575 chips (the 195 in the pot right now plus the rest of opp's 1380 stack).

Therefore, you can win 17.5x the 90 chips you need to call, giving you decent implied odds.

However, say opp made it 250 to go. In this case, you can win the same 1575 chips but you have to call 210 so you can win only 7.2x the chips you have to call. Even if opp stacked off every time you hit a set - which he would not do, you can't win enough chips to justify calling because you are 7.5 to 1 against to hit your set.

Of course, to simplify the analysis this assumes that there is no other way to win the pot other than to hit a set, but you see my point?

Onto a more confusing point, you’re talking about playing for set value but I must admit, I have never really considered this before, for a number of reasons. The most obvious of which is that I look down at 88, 77, 55, 1010 and play them based on their relative strength, my position, the table, the blinds, stage of the tourney etc. Eg: 55 is an easy fold at the start but not so towards the end. Basically, figuring out set value never comes into it. I mean, I’ll limp in with 33 looking to hit a set but I do so because it’s relatively cheap to join in, I am not actively working out the odds.

The value if your small-medium pocket pair hits a set is a BIG part of its value. That's why you look to see a cheap flop with hands like 33. Bigger PPs like TT also have some overpair value, but generally speaking when it's early in the tourney small pocket pairs like 22-55 are only good if they hit a set on the flop.

Another reason is that when an opponent raises, I have no idea what he has (unless he’s an uber rock and I don’t see many of them at $5 SNGs). So again, if I have 77 – I make my call based on how I perceive my hand in relation to the table, blinds, opponents etc and whether I feel I can take him off a hand even if I miss. Considering most villains at my level raise with a naked ace or king, you’re going to be ahead most of the time and don’t need odds for a set. Add to this that even if has a pair, it could be a lower pair, then once again, there is no need for set odds.

The thing about small-medium pocket pairs is that you only really know you're ahead if you hit a set on the flop. Sure, if you're in position and opp checks the flop, you can sometimes take the pot away with a bet, but if opp calls and checks the turn then you could be ahead or behind and have no idea which it is.

The thing that you MUST consider when calling a raise with a small or medium pocket pair is does opp have enough chips to make it worthwhile for me considering I only hit a set 1 time in 8.5? This generally means that if opp is shortstacked, you generally fold (unless they are a total maniac), if they are deeper stacked, you can call.

In short, if I feel I am ahead pre flop, and can take the hit should I get a bad flop, I will call. Wondering if my opponent is going to stack off and give me implied odds is not in my thinking. Believing I am ahead is all that matters.

No it is not all that matters. Let's take an extreme example. You are playing in a deep stacked tourney with 10,000 stacks and blinds 10/20. Even if opp shows you AA face up after raising to 80, you would call the raise with 22 because chances are if you flop a set and he doesn't flop an A, you are likely to win a lot of chips. Bad opponents might even stack off for their entire 10,000 chips postflop! Yet you are calling the preflop raise with a badly dominated hand - implied odds is what makes the difference.

All the books/manuals/shows I have read/watched all talk about calling/betting if you think you’re ahead, and that is what I do. Also, there is never any sure an opponent will stack off anyway. If I have 66 and my opponent has KA and we both miss the flop, he will probably fold to a strong bet but does that mean you shouldn’t try to take the pot down because there are no implied odds?

No, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try to take the pot down, but all I'm saying is that you need to consider how many chips opp has behind because the chance of flopping a set is a lot of the value of pocket pairs like 66.

It is important, however, that if you do call a raise with a small pocket pair (with the correct implied odds) that if your set does not come on the flop that you don't lose a lot of chips just to find out you're beat.

And to add to the craziness, what about being the aggressor and taking pots with inferior hands and bluffs - never implied odds there - so if you can't call with a made hand like a middle pair then surely you can't bet with a nothing hand?

Bluffing is a separate topic - but in general at low buyins you should bluff less and value bet more.

Finally, with regards to your flush example, I saw it completely differently as I see a guy betting $5 with $10 remaining as more liable to commit as he is pretty much pot committed whereas the guy with $50 remaining is more likely to hold back to preserve a middling stack. Certainly, that would be true in tourney play and I would assume the same here – with villain reloading or leaving should he lose. Of course, I don’t know cash play so……..

Well that is true that he might be more likely to commit the rest of his stack, but the point is the guy with $50 behind might be prepared to lose $20 on the river (which still leaves him a lot behind) whilst the guy with $10 can only lose $10.

[eugmac]

I'd like to add an idea from Sklansky as well, that the more you know about the exact nature of your opponent's hand, the smaller implied odds you need to justify a call.

To take an extreme example, if somebody who you know is ONLY going to raise PF with AA open raises UTG for 8BB with 80BB behind, and you're pretty certain that this player will stack off on most boards, you can call with any pocket pair even though you're only getting 10:1 implied odds because you're so sure of his hand and that he won't fold it post-flop when you flop your set.

You'll see this time and time again low stakes when somebody who has never 3-bet before minimum re-raises your 4BB open raise. If you figure he'll only do this with a big pocket pair (the case with a lot of people at 25NL I find) it's an easy call with 99 or whatever.

[biondino]

Wondering if my opponent is going to stack off and give me implied odds is not in my thinking. Believing I am ahead is all that matters.

Is this drastically wrong?

Think about why you play suited connectors (apologies if you don't play suited connectors - you probably should, once you're comfortable with them). When is 56s ever ahead pre-flop? And yet I will gleefully call with it after a raise and a call when I have position because I am wondering whether my opponent will stack off and whether I will be given implied odds to have a shot at him! If he has aces, even better!

I am almost never going to fight back if I hit third pair in a raised pot; but if I hit two pair or a strong draw then suddenly, I control what happens in the hand, and Mr Aces there is going to find it hell of hard to fold.

Playing speculative hands like low PPs and suited connectors is the most fun you can have in cash poker, and it's NEVER about whether you're ahead pre-flop. Re low PPs - you say you play them for their relative strength, but surely you know that 33 is going to be at best 3rd pair on about 85% of flops? Sure, AK may whiff, but if he c-bets at you how the hell are you going to respond? You'll need to be a VERY good post-flop player to outplay people with an underpair, but if you don't even consider the concepts as Tai explains above, you're never going to let yourself be one.

[bjsaust]

Heres the thing I think you're missing Thunder. You're looking at these calls on a hand by hand basis. You should be looking at them as EV (expected value) over time. You dont have to win at least 8.5x the chips you need to call this hand for it to be profitable, you need to win at least 8.5x the chips you need to call over the 100's of hands you play in this situation. So if over 100 hands of Taipans 1st example above where you hit your set (very common situation in sngs) you get no action when you hit your set 50 times, but get 17.5x your call the other 50 times, then making that call the hundreds of times you did was +EV. If however you call in the 2nd example and 50 times you get no action and 50 times you get 8.5x (slight variation but to make a point), then over all those hundreds of hands it was a -EV call. It doesnt matter that on one hand you make the call and get your 8.5x back, it matters that over time you'll lose money in the long haul making that call.

[biondino]

If 8.5x is good enough then I don’t quite understand why you’d need up to 20x against a good, tight player. Surely the 8.5x is enough?

This is, I think, key to your misunderstanding. Let me try and add to what Tai says.

When you call with a low-mid PP, the only way you can be sure of winning (or as sure as you can be in poker) the pot is if you hit a set. And you'll hit a set 1 in every 8.5 times you play a pocket pair.

Just to make the maths simple, let's assume that a) every time you hit a set, you win, and b) every time you don't, you fold without betting. Both of these are untrue, but we'll come back to them in a minute.

So, to break even, 1 time in 8.5 you have to win 8.5 times the amount you lose every other time; or to put it another way, the amount you win in the single setting hand must equal the amount you have cumulatively lost in the hands where you didn't hit. Let's say that half these pots were limped (4 x 1bb) and half were raised (4 x 4bb) and you'll see that in the hand you set, you MUST make an average of 20bb to break even.

Now, reality starts creeping in. To risk 20bb, your opponent must be confident enough in his hand to make more than one post-flop bet or raise. This may well happen with hands like two pair down to TPGK; but the problem is, he's not even going to hit the board 50% of the time, and even with a cbet every time, there are going to be a lot of hands where you win say 10bbs. So you need there to be lots of hands where you win a much bigger proportion of his stack to make up for these times (and, of course, the times he check/folds the flop).

Now, the reason Tai mentioned "a good tight player" is because these players DON'T stack off with marginal hands. These players can fold overpairs and two pair hands, can control pot sizes, can play implied odds correctly when they have draws etc., so they're very unlikely to stack off when weak. So against these players, you're simply not going to be getting enough of a return when you hit to make up for the times when you miss. The only way you will make enough of a retun is when efective stacks are deep enough so the time you DO stack him, you make a much larger amount to make up for all your misses.

As for low PPs being good hands to play post-flop either as bluffs or for value, it's extremely hard to win with them. Sure, you can cbet them and take down a small pot often; but you could do the same with any two cards. The key thing to think is: how often will people whose hands I beat call my bets? And the answer is not very often - strong draws may, overcards might from time to time, but even against these hands you have considerable reverse implied odds, i.e. they are much more likely to improve against you than vice versa. So really, the best you can hope for is a drawing hand that calls two streets and misses, or a maniac who can't let go of whiffed AK, or (best case scenario) someone with an even lower pp who can't fold. And these aren't going to make you a lot of money, and you'll find yourself regularly betting against people who actually hold a higher pp or a higher third pair or whatever and it'll very likely cost you a lot.

Finally, of course, there are going to be times when you set and are beaten by a better hand. In a lot of these situations, you'll stack off, which means more money to recoup.

Hope this helps.

[Pelion]

Thunder. Think about this hand.

Someone raises from late position. We call with 88 in the blinds. The flop comes J62r. We check and he cbets and we consider what to do in 2 situations.

1) He is shortstacked and has a pot sized bet remaining. His cbet puts him allin. At this point we are getting 2:1 on a call. His range includes alot of hands like AK/AQ/KQ that missed the flop and maybe even stuff like 77/55 that weve been a big favorite to all along so we almost certainly have more than the 33% equity needed to call his allin.

2) We are both deep stacked. His cbet is a pot sized bet but now we arent necessarily getting to see a showdown for it. His range still includes the same hands that missed before, but what if we call and he bets again on the turn? What if we call and the turn is a K and he bets? Do we fold because he has AK? Is he prepared to fire again with something like 55 or AQ here in the hope that we fold? How about if the turn is a 5. Does he have AA/55/AK? We still dont know and we now have a difficult decision to make for a lot of chips with a marginal hand out of position.

The point is that our deep stacks have given us more decisions and for bigger money. This makes marginal hands much harder to play. We are not able to play our medium pairs for pair value as often as in a SnG. At the same time our deep stacks mean our big hands (sets) can get paid off for more chips.

[Thunder]

Thx for the responses.

So, to break even, 1 time in 8.5 you have to win 8.5 times the amount you lose every other time; or to put it another way, the amount you win in the single setting hand must equal the amount you have cumulatively lost in the hands where you didn't hit. Let's say that half these pots were limped (4 x 1bb) and half were raised (4 x 4bb) and you'll see that in the hand you set, you MUST make an average of 20bb to break even.
This made everything quite clear and succinctly summarised Tai’s points.

I still have some questions, to check my understanding and also a slight bit of confusion. Despite the length of this post, and the questions, I really am getting it and am 1000 miles ahead of a few days ago.


Clarification
1) The way I was explained implied odds was quite simple and revolved around post flop play: you aren’t getting the odds to call but if you feel the opponent may put more or all of his stack in then you are getting the odds (eg: 1/8 instead of just 1/3).

And I have been using this, with no knowledge of the whole 8.5 – 17xx rule.

Are you saying that I should abandon looking for implied odds unless my opp has a deep enough stack to pay me 10x - 20x? Eg: I know opp has hit top pair, he’s bet 1/3 the pot and my OES has a 17% chance of hitting on the turn (approx 1/6) but he hasn’t got 15 -20bb left – or he has but I am not sure he will risk it all. In this situation, I may well call in the belief that I have implied odds but as stated, those odds may not be the 10 – 20x that has been mentioned. Does that mean I have been wrong to chase the implied odds? More to the point, would you drop the hand?


2) If both of us were deep stacked enough so that even if I missed the turn, I may, in theory, still have had implied odds when he bet again but surely the fact that the opponent is deep stacked reduces the chance that he will stack off – thus negating the implied odds you thought you had?

Is this point I mentioned in an earlier point relevant at all? And therefore I should drop the hand, as I may only win 3, 4 or 5x?


3) At what hands do you stop looking for implied odds? And are they all pocket pairs?


4) You called the bet pre flop and opp has 20xx left (allowing you to chase your implied odds). Villain bets and you call. If you then miss the turn, and villain bets again would you drop the hand because at that point, you can no longer win 8x + the bet that’s just been made? Or would you carry on because of the money already committed to the pot?




Confusion, still
1) If over 100 hands where you hit your set you get no action when you hit your set 50 times, but get 17.5x your call the other 50 times, then making that call the hundreds of times you did was +EV.
I get where you’re coming from as it equates to 8.75x as an average.

If however you call in the 2nd example and 50 times you get no action and 50 times you get 8.5x (slight variation but to make a point), then over all those hundreds of hands it was a -EV call.
This is where I fall down because even though your average is now just 4.25x your call, you are still running at a profit. 50 hands you get no action and win. 50 times you do, and still win. Therefore I cannot see how it can be –EV.


2) even with a cbet every time, there are going to be a lot of hands where you win say 10bbs. So you need there to be lots of hands where you win a much bigger proportion of his stack to make up for these times.
Even though Bio’s explanation which I quoted at the start cleared things up, it also caused some head scratching when I read this bit. See, this is when I start to wonder how winning anything – even 10x a bet can be a losing move. You played for the odds, you missed your hand and yet you still took down the pot.
Perhaps the lines are blurring here into bluffing, I don’t know.

As for Bio’s other point about 56 suited, I very rarely call raises with suited connectors. Maybe that is another leak?


As for Pelion's post, with hand 1, I'd call regardless. Hand 2, up to now, will have been based on a number of factors such as position, action up to that point, image etc but I'd imagine playing 88 when deep stacked. Had I failed to improve my hand on the flop, and opp bets, I would then make my decision based on my read of him and whether or not I believed I was ahead. And I still think this is correct play - please tell me if it isn't.

However, if I thought I was behind, and based on the info you guys have given me in this thread, I would not play for implied odds to improve my hand unless the chance to win 10x and above were present.

Is this the answer you were looking for?

What I think is relevant is that if I believe I am behind, I can't see myself ever playing for implied odds when I only have a pair, leaving me with just 2 outs. I tend to play for implied odds when on a flush or straight draw.


Thx

[spoonitnow]

So, to break even, 1 time in 8.5 you have to win 8.5 times the amount you lose every other time

No, you have to win 7.5x to break even. Assume you lose $1 7.5 times and win $7.50 one time, then $1 x 7.5 = $7.5 x 1, ya dig it?

[biondino]

Spoon, no - the time you win you have still invested your $1 so you need to win $8.50. But regardless, this thread isn't about the accuracy of the numbers, it's about the concepts.

Thunder, by all means use a figure that means that you don't rely in implied odds if the effective stack is less than that figure. But it'll hugely help your progress if you can grasp all the points we're making.

I start to wonder how winning anything – even 10x a bet can be a losing move.

Because, in the example above (which is probably quite close to reality), you lose 20x in the PP hands where you DON'T set. You can't just ignore these! So, in one complete cycle of hands, you hit once, miss 7.5 times, make 10bb when you hit and lose 20bb when you miss. This means you're losing 10bb overall. That's how it's a losing move.

In Tai's example, where you hit your set 100 times, you have to think of it in exactly the same way - for every 100 sets you hit, you miss 750 times, and it's the amount you lose on the missed hands that you must offset against the hands you win. In other words, it's exactly the same example, but made over a more statistically relevant larger sample.

As for when implied odds are relevant - well, they're relevant in every hand you play, either with regard to your hand or your opponents. The reason we bet big on the flop when we have top pair is because if the villain has a drawing hand - any hand that is currently worse than yours, but can improve to beat yours - we want to give him bad odds to call, which in theory will mean that in the long term, he is a net loser in these hands whether he hits or misses on an individual hand basis.

So, implied odds are never not relevant - if you have overcards on a low flop, you have six outs to top pair (and probably a good kicker), so you take this into account when betting/calling bets. But it's with the properly speculative hands that implied odds come into their own, and this tends to be suited hands, connecting hands, and low-mid pocket pairs. What each of them have in common is that although they are not strong hands themselves, they have the potential to make a very strong hand which will beat other strong hands - and you're only likely to make someone else stack off when they too have a strong hand.

Which means, in effect, sets, straights and flushes (and, to a lesser extent, two pair - 56 vs AK on a A56 flop, for example) - a lot of people simply can't fold TPTK, overpairs or 2 pair hands, and if this happens you're going to stack 'em.

[biondino]

I very rarely call raises with suited connectors. Maybe that is another leak?

Suited connectors are trickier to play than pocket pairs, so playing prudently is better - or rather, it's less of a mistake - than it is with pocket pairs, where hitting a set is both very obvious (to you) and very disgusied (to the villain). The big difference is that with PPs, you either hit the flop, and play accordingly, or you don't. With suited connectors, you will far more often make a draw on the flop, but either not have a made hand at all, or have 2nd or 3rd pair. So it's much harder to know the right move to make, and to calculate the relevant pot and implied odds you need to continue (and, indeed, whether to be the aggressor yourself).

So I would certainly say that until you have a profound understanding of implied odds, as well as all the other fundamentals, you play carefully with suited connectors and the like, because you'll be playing way more hands with draws than with made hands, which can get expensive if the cards, and the villains, don't play ball.

[bjsaust]

Confusion, still
1) If over 100 hands where you hit your set you get no action when you hit your set 50 times, but get 17.5x your call the other 50 times, then making that call the hundreds of times you did was +EV.
I get where you’re coming from as it equates to 8.75x as an average.

If however you call in the 2nd example and 50 times you get no action and 50 times you get 8.5x (slight variation but to make a point), then over all those hundreds of hands it was a -EV call.
This is where I fall down because even though your average is now just 4.25x your call, you are still running at a profit. 50 hands you get no action and win. 50 times you do, and still win. Therefore I cannot see how it can be –EV.

You're ignoring the 750 times (out of the 850 hands you played in order to hit your set 100 times) that you called PF and folded. You need to average 8.5x in the 100 times you called and hit your set to make up for the times you dont. In example 1 you do, so its +EV, in Example 2 you're only making 4.25x on average so you dont make enough to cover the times you call and miss, so its -EV.

[bjsaust]

Thx for the responses.


Clarification
1) The way I was explained implied odds was quite simple and revolved around post flop play: you aren’t getting the odds to call but if you feel the opponent may put more or all of his stack in then you are getting the odds (eg: 1/8 instead of just 1/3).

Hopefully you've got the idea now, but just to address this from a slightly different angle. When making these implied odds called, you need to use realistic averages. Just because opponent has X amount in his stack, doesnt mean you'll always get him to bet/call X if you hit whatever it is you're chasing. You need to estimate how many times you'll get it all, or what a reasonable amount is to expect to get on average. So in a very basic example, rather than 1:8 odds above, lets say you think half the times you hit you'll get your opponent AI and half the time you wont, then your implied odds are 1:4, not 1:8.

[Thunder]

It has finally all gone in. Thank you all.