pot odds and implied odds - simple question or two

[daven]

main questions in bold below, and spot the mistakes from this fish (me)

my biggest downfall is still chasing flushes and straights. If I can fix that problem I will make a lot more money.

1) fold pre
2) stop dreaming about implied odds, make calls based on pot odds. If you need a hand on that - irc

start reading a lot more about pot odds, the 2-4 rule and preflop play and you will know when you can call and chase and when you can't. watch some of the vids here on FTR and see how others play. Go to IRC and get a free sweat from someone who knows way more than you. Stop posting and start reading a ton around here.

Okay let me see if I get this (2-4 rule)

Heads up, pot is 2 bucks, other guy bets 1 and I am on an open ended straight draw (after flop).

If I called then my pot odds would be 1/4 (25%) and the percentage of hitting my straight on the turn would be 8x2 (16%) so I should fold?

fyp = fixed your post

your example is perfect. Now, how much extra money would you have to get out of him if you hit for the call to start showing a profit (this is the implied odds thing that people have a tendency to overestimate). Give it a go, if you get it wrong someone will correct it.

Also, note how this changes if his bet of $1 had put him all in. In white below (highlight it to read), but figure it out for yourself first.

it would mean your pot odds would be 1/4 (still) but you would have two chances of hitting your straight (turn and river) so your odds of hitting would be about 8x2x2 = 32%. As 32 > 25, it's then a call

first question I have no idea honestly. I would guess that I had to make that 9% up since it was 25% to 16%? Might sound dumb

2nd question...I'd easily call since that would be the last bet to make...making my % higher.

note:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ws-173190.html

[daven]

a suggestion
you use the rule of 2 & 4 to calculate the % chance of hitting a draw based on the number of outs. you want to be comfortable converting these percentages to ratios. One way to do this is to simply write a list and keep it next to you while playing - refer to it as necessary.

[philly and the phanatics]

1/(4+x)= .16
1= .16(4+x)
1=.64+.16X
.16X= .36
X=2.25

so we would need him to bet 2.25 on the turn for it to be +ev based on implied odds

[Robb]

I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't recommend chasing draws very often. Why don't we bet them so we add a dimension to our cbetting and 2-barrel lines?

[supa]

I'm with robb on not fully understanding the question. I've probably read it ten times and have been leery about adding my input but I guess I'll give it a shot. I should say that I've been having an issue with implied odds because we're implying that we'll get effective stacks in when we hit, which for me is rarely the case. It's like I need another formula to figure out how often I actually stack off win I hit, like implied implied odds.

As for the mistakes (obv tell me if I'm wrong),

If the pot is $2 and villain bets $1, aren't we calling $1 to win $3? So our pot odds are 3:1.

With the 2&4 (4&2?) wouldn't we calculate the flop using the 4 part? So then we would get 8*4=32, which would be a fold. The problem I have with the 4 part of the rule is it doesn't seem to take into consideration a bet on the turn. So maybe a 2&2 rule makes more sense, idk. Either way we aren't getting pot odds to call here.

Gotta stop here cos my guitar student (that I forgot about) just showed up. I love that I can't remember what day it is but I think I can take on implied odds formulas. Haha, jokes on me!

I'll come back to this later, hopefully someone will have pointed out my errors and set me on the right path.

Oh, and I like what robb said about betting instead of calling. I guess ranges need to come into the thought process also tho. My brain hurts.

[supa]

Ok, back at it. Using spoons example, we know that the odds against us hitting are 4.9:1. In our situation our pot odds are 3:1. If every time we miss we lose $1, and we miss 4.9 times for every time we win, so we lose $4.90 for every $3.00 we win. We need an extra $1.90 when we hit to break even. Anybody?

[daven]

supa and philly good to see. Now who's right? they can't both be
i think
drinking not thinking
unwinding not grinding
web designing and trance ftw

[supa]

Damnit daven, you gonna go get all zen on me now? Fine, I'll have me a drink too.

[Tasha]

Ok, back at it. Using spoons example, we know that the odds against us hitting are 4.9:1. In our situation our pot odds are 3:1. If every time we miss we lose $1, and we miss 4.9 times for every time we win, so we lose $4.90 for every $3.00 we win. We need an extra $1.90 when we hit to break even. Anybody?

The above is correct.

Your pot odds are 3:1 (not 4:1).
However, 3:1 pot odds = 25% pot odds.

You have 8 outs and there are 47 cards left.
Your odds of hitting your draw are (47-8)/8 = 4.85:1. (~4.9:1). This is the same as ~17% chance .

Since your chance of hitting is less than your pot odds percentage it is not a good call.

Your implied odds would require another $1.90 to make up the missing cash, or put another way, if you think that on the Turn Villain will call or bet $2 then your pot odds on the Flop become:
(3 + 2):1 = 5:1 = 16.6%. Since this is about the same as your ~17% chance to make your straight it is now worth while calling.
If Villain goes all-in on the flop with his miserable $1 to make the pot $3 then it is not worth calling because you won't be able to get the additional $1.90 you need out of him.

[philly and the phanatics]

yea i guess i was wrong but idk why really

3:1 odds means we need to win 1/4 of the time to break even, meaning we need 25% equity , which we only have about 17%.

so u would need to find when 1 (amount we call)/ (4 (bet +pot) + x (extra amount of implied odds needed)) equals that 17% (obv inmy example above i used 16%)

so 1/ (4+x) = .17
1= .68 +.17x
.32= .17x
1.88=x

so as you can see using 1 percentage point difference (i used 16% in first example. and 17% in the second) actually makes a difference of about 40c or w/e, so you can see why the 2 + 4 rule has its advantages (speed and convenience at the table) and its disadvantages (accuracy) and by using 17 % instead of 16% i came to virtually the same answer as super

[supa]

I should say that I've been having an issue with implied odds because we're implying that we'll get effective stacks in when we hit, which for me is rarely the case. It's like I need another formula to figure out how often I actually stack off win I hit, like implied implied odds.

So I guess I'm a bit confused here, I was basing the above statement on this by Renton, and I think I've read it other places in these forums. Is the difference solely that in Rentons example we're preflop? It looks like i need to re-evalute how I'm looking at implied odds.

Dealing with reraises and the effect on implied odds- Say you open the pot for $7 with Q2s from the button. You have 200 dollars in your stack. A player who you know to be very tight reraises to 14 from the BB. He has 200 dollars in his stack, and you put him squarely on AA or KK. After his bet, he has 184 dollars left, and you have to call 7 dollars for a chance to win it. You are getting potential implied odds of 26:1, and along with your positional advantage you have a clear call with your suited trash. REMEMBER: the $7 you invested is out of the picture. Don’t act like you are having to call $14, because you aren’t. The $7 bet had its own separate EV, and now we’ve moved on to the next EV decision. Your opponents awful play of minreraising with AA is allowing you to profit. If he’d have raised to $22 instead of $14 you’d have a clear fold.

If you have a pocket pair and get reraised, you can call a lot more than in the Q2s example. If you had 77 in the previous example and he raised to 21 from your 7 bet, you’d be calling 14 to potentially win $179, for potential implied odds of 12:1. Remember we said 15:1 was the rule right? However this 15 number can be trimmed down significantly if you are almost sure he has a monster hand like AA. This is loosely taken from NLHE: Theory and Practice by Sklansky and Miller:

[Tasha]

So I guess I'm a bit confused here, I was basing the above statement on this by Renton, and I think I've read it other places in these forums. Is the difference solely that in Rentons example we're preflop? It looks like i need to re-evalute how I'm looking at implied odds.

Implied odds don't necessarily assume that your opponent will go all-in. They refer to what you can expect to get out of him. Overestimating implied odds is one of the most common errors made when using implied odds. You really have to be sure that your Villain will go all-in if you are going to make a decision that relies on getting his stack for it to be worthwhile.

[NightGizmo]

a suggestion
you use the rule of 2 & 4 to calculate the % chance of hitting a draw based on the number of outs. you want to be comfortable converting these percentages to ratios. One way to do this is to simply write a list and keep it next to you while playing - refer to it as necessary.

If you can convert the percentages to ratios very quickly in your head, you can answer daven's question very quickly at the table.

In this specific example: you know the pot odds are 1:3 (easy to calculate, since you know the bet is 1 and the pot is 3). You can also estimate the chance of hitting your draw on the turn as 16% ~ 1:5.

Once you have those ratios, you just subtract them to find how much more you need to make from implied odds. In this case, it's (5-3) = 2 (2 times the bet you are calling, which in this case is 2x1=2).

So, basically you need to win at least $2 (approximately) from your opponent if you hit your draw in order for a call to be profitable.

It's easier than it sounds, especially since you usually see the same draws (straight draw = about 1:5, flush draw = about 1:4.5, etc.), so you eventually just instantly know the ratio rather than calculate them from a percentage.