|
|
| Author |
Message |
emmapeel
2K Club
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2530
Location: Edinburgh
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: Pot odds?!? |
 |
|
Harringtons books are brilliant as a whole but some of the idea's in them have me screaming at the page. One of them is Harringtons idea that pot-odds are an answer to everything.
example 1
(a) mp1 limps and Hero is on the button. Hero's pot-odds are 2.5-1 and so he calls with a good hand.
(b) This time 3 people limp and Hero is on the button. Hero's pot-odds are now 4.5-1. Does this mean he can now limp with weaker hands?
Reading through Harringtons books I do get the impression that he thinks pot-odds are a big factor here. The Moneymaker hand in book 1 is an example and there are many more.
It's true that in the second hand that Hero's pot-odds are better but he also has more opponents to beat. Other things being equal pot-odds do not make any difference here. Hero has the same equity as the other 3 limpers and the same as in the first hand.
To me the reasons why someone would be encouraged to play weaker hands against the three limpers are: Skill, position, and maybe a hand that works better multi-way. Pot-odds may help each of these but I don't see how pot-odds can be a factor in it's own right.
EP
EP |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gobbs
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 0
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: Re: Pot odds?!? |
|
|
| emmapeel wrote: | Harringtons books are brilliant as a whole but some of the idea's in them have me screaming at the page. One of them is Harringtons idea that pot-odds are an answer to everything.
example 1
(a) mp1 limps and Hero is on the button. Hero's pot-odds are 2.5-1 and so he calls with a good hand.
(b) This time 3 people limp and Hero is on the button. Hero's pot-odds are now 4.5-1. Does this mean he can now limp with weaker hands?
Reading through Harringtons books I do get the impression that he thinks pot-odds are a big factor here. The Moneymaker hand in book 1 is an example and there are many more.
It's true that in the second hand that Hero's pot-odds are better but he also has more opponents to beat. Other things being equal pot-odds do not make any difference here. Hero has the same equity as the other 3 limpers and the same as in the first hand.
To me the reasons why someone would be encouraged to play weaker hands against the three limpers are: Skill, position, and maybe a hand that works better multi-way. Pot-odds may help each of these but I don't see how pot-odds can be a factor in it's own right.
EP
EP |
It all depends. Let's look at it logically.
You're the Big Blind (50) with 78s following a raise of 150 and two calls. With 525 chips in the pot, you're getting better than 5:1 to call. Don't you think that factor (with little regard to much else) is worthy of a call? You are probably slightly better than 4:1 to win the hand and you're getting much better odds than that.
Now, let's take the same scenario, but the raise was to 300 and only one person called. That puts 675 chips in the pot and you're getting about 4.3:1 to call. Is this worthy of a call? Maybe, maybe not. You're probably getting about the same 4:1 odds to win the hand. This time, you need to consider position, skill, chip stacks, implied odds, defending the blind, etc.
Now, let take one more look at the same scenarion, but the raise was to 300 and no callers. That puts 375 in the pot and you're getting 1.5:1 to call. You're probably getting better odds against only one player, but still, probably only 2:1. Is that worthy of a call? Probably not, but maybe, depending on the factors we have mentioned.
So, basically, in some cases, pot odds are simply enough to call, in some cases, you have many considerations, and in others, pot odds are simply enough to warrant a fold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Taardvark
1K Club
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 1054
Location: Fremont, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: Pot odds?!? |
|
|
| emmapeel wrote: | Harringtons books are brilliant as a whole but some of the idea's in them have me screaming at the page. One of them is Harringtons idea that pot-odds are an answer to everything.
example 1
(a) mp1 limps and Hero is on the button. Hero's pot-odds are 2.5-1 and so he calls with a good hand.
(b) This time 3 people limp and Hero is on the button. Hero's pot-odds are now 4.5-1. Does this mean he can now limp with weaker hands?
Reading through Harringtons books I do get the impression that he thinks pot-odds are a big factor here. The Moneymaker hand in book 1 is an example and there are many more.
It's true that in the second hand that Hero's pot-odds are better but he also has more opponents to beat. Other things being equal pot-odds do not make any difference here. Hero has the same equity as the other 3 limpers and the same as in the first hand.
To me the reasons why someone would be encouraged to play weaker hands against the three limpers are: Skill, position, and maybe a hand that works better multi-way. Pot-odds may help each of these but I don't see how pot-odds can be a factor in it's own right.
EP
EP |
I think the thing you are overlooking is the very hands that warrant a call based on pot odds work best multi-way (small pairs, suited connectors and one gappers) and often work best with position. I think he is making that assumption implicitly.
Skill: Sure, but I don't care how good you are if you have 3 or 4 opponents in a hand skill is only going to take you so far. You'd be better off in my opinion thinning the field pre flop and stealing afterwards against one opponent instead of playing against many and trying to outplay all of them when it's likely at least one of them will have a better hand than you. He implies here that you use your skill to keep a mediocre hand in the pot with you when you hit big.
Position: Important but implied. You obviously are not getting pot odds if you are M2 with one limper and holding 45 suited. If you are in late position or the SB you are much more likely to get the pot odds needed. Everyone from Sklansky on states that your calling range in late position is lower than up front so Harrington isn't breaking any new ground with this concept.
Multi-way: Pot odds definitely is the answer here. Multi-way hands require the appropriate pot odds unless you are making some kind of play like the Super System raise with suited connectors style of play.
Additionally, he states throughout both books the importance of other factors such as your table image and reads. He also states that there are often several different modes of play on certain hands depending on your style. He clearly leans toward Tight Agressive in his descriptions of hands and from hand postings I would think that isn't your style of play so you probably need to modify what he is saying to a looser style of play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emmapeel
2K Club
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2530
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Welcome to the forum Gobbs.
In the examples you describe I wouldn't say that pot odds would decide my decision.
First of all the BB needs less money to call than the opponents. This is one advantage over his opponents.
Secondly, the suited connector you have chosen is a hand that works better multiway. It also has good implied odds in that it can win big pots. I don't think the immediate pot-odds are important with this hand, rather the amount of money you expect to win if you hit big. More opponents are good with this hand.
Try using KQo instead in your example. I think I'm folding this in all circumstances. Would you think this is a call with 4 players more than it was a call with 2 players because the pot-odds are better?
I'm also assuming that we are not all-in pre-flop and so the showdown value of the hands isn't too relevant rather how things will play post-flop.
Thanks for the replies
EP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emmapeel
2K Club
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2530
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Taardvark wrote: | | I think the thing you are overlooking is the very hands that warrant a call based on pot odds work best multi-way (small pairs, suited connectors and one gappers) and often work best with position. I think he is making that assumption implicitly. |
I've read all three books 3 times but never thought he was making that assumption. In the moneymaker hand in book1 he gives pot-odds as a factor in calling pre-flop with T9o. No reason as to why he says pot-odds is a factor here. I can't recall seeing anywhere in the books that pot-odds is a factor only with certain hands.
The reason I would more likely call several players with suited connectors or a small pair is the implied odds if I hit big. It's not the immediate pot-odds but the fact that there are more players that might make the eventual pot bigger if I win.
EP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
janeg
Regina Canada
Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 5103
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| emmapeel wrote: |
Try using KQo instead in your example. I think I'm folding this in all circumstances. Would you think this is a call with 4 players more than it was a call with 2 players because the pot-odds are better?
|
I think HoH recommendations imply a few other factors
(a) that you know how to get away from a hand post flop
(b) that you are not risking a large portion of your stack unnecessarily, or
(c) you are short stacked and need to gamble to improve
Snyder's looks for the 'Accidental Nuts' in these situations. If calling is only going to cost you around 10% of your stack and you are getting 3, 4 or 5:1 and the opponents have enough chips to double you up then the call is worthwhile.
So I would call with KQ if there are large stacks out there and the call is not going to cripple me or if my M is 5 or less. Actually, I'd probably push KQ if my stack was that low. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
