Question about implied pot odds

[seanof30306]

I got into a discussion recently with a guy regarding implied pot odds. Here's the situation.

1-2 No limit online cash game.

Hero raises to 8.00 from the button with :ac :qc

The big blind is the only caller, so there is 17.00 in the pot. Opponent has about 200 in front of him, Hero has him covered.

The flop comes :kh :8c :3c

Opponent bets 15.00. Hero calls with the nut flush draw, saying he's compelled to do so by implied pot odds.

I tell him he cannot call 2:1 bets on 4:1 draws and make a profit. I said even if he gave himself 3 outs for the Ace (something I wouldn't do), he was still calling a 2:1 bet on a 3:1 draw. Unprofitable.

My position was, in that situation, he should raise or fold, based upon his read on the player, but calling in that situatuation was mathmatically incorrect. I said the only reason to call in that situation would be so you could try to take the hand away from your opponent later. Since the flush draw was the only draw at that point, the possibilities of Hero's convincing him he'd been drawn out on were minimal, unless the Club actually fell.

His response was there was only a 15.00 shortfall, which could be made up on the turn if an Ace or a Club fell.

I feel this is the biggest mistake made by players attempting to use implied pot odds. Yes, if you give yourself outs for the Ace, you're 3:1 to make your hand on the turn, and calling 15.00 there leaves you with a 15.00 shortfall. The thing people forget is that you're only going to make that hand on the turn 1 time in 4. What about the shortfall on the hands where you don't make your draw?

The whole concept behind applying probability to the game is to make money in specific situations. In this case, the situation is a flush draw on the flop with one overcard. By calling a pot sized bet on the flop, however, my friend created another situation; flush draws on the flop with one overcard where you're calling 15.00 bets into 32.00 pots. So, yes, there is a 15.00 shortfall to the 3:1 odds we need, but, Hero only makes the hand 1 time in 4, so the 15.00 shortfall from the hands he misses carry over. When Hero makes the hand on the turn, he needs the other player to call 60.00 to make up the accumulated shortfall (15.00 shortfall in this hand, plus a 15.00 shortfall for each of the three times we['ll statistically miss in this situation).

I then pointed out that this would be expecting the opponent to call a 60.00 bet into a 47.00 pot, after a third club had fallen, and Hero had just called on the flop. What about the times where the opponent smells a rat and folds? The 60.00 shortfall carries over to the next cycle.

I told him calling there in the hope of making a hand is unprofitable, because his version of implied pot odds assume the opponent is a moron who will pay off an overbet when an obvious draw has hit. Also, in a significant number of instances, the opponent will be calling because they have a set. In that situation, 1 time in 5, the opponent will make a full house or quads and beat him, making his breakeven even greater.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting the concept of implied pot odds, but, I believe passively calling on draws against the odds just because the player has chips in front of them is a misuse of the concept. Those chips in front of the opponent are only relevant, implied pot odds-wise, if you're able to get them into your stack after you make your draw, and make up the accumulated shortfall.

My buddy thinks I'm nuts, and says he'll continue to use implied pot odds just as he is.

Thoughts?

[mchilger]

If i understood your hand, with $32 in the pot, he has about a $30 shortfall.

Lose $15
lose $15
lose $15
lose $15
hit draw and win pot $32 (assuming taking one card)

So he needs to make up $30 on the later streets.

There are many reasons why one might consider a call:
1/ An opponent betting out generally indicates weakness. He might check the turn giving yourself a free card (if you choose).
2/ You could steal the pot from him on the turn or river depending on how the hand plays out
3/ You have tremendous implied pot odds if your opponent is also on a flush draw, although it won't hit very often.
4/ The ace is worth something. Even the Q could be worth something against some opponents, as many would checkraise the K.

Calling behind an opponent always put pressure on him. Whether or not I called or raised here would depend on how I thought I could take the pot from my opponent. My hand is too good here to fold so I have to either try and take it on the flop or take it on the turn. Against most opponents, I think raising the flop is the right play, but I can see where i would sometimes call.

Matthew

[seanof30306]

[mchilger]

I was assuming only 9 outs by what you said in your post so the odds are 4 to 1. Therefore, he loses $60 for every time he hits his flush and win the $32 in the pot. Therefore, he need to make up another $28 on the hand he wins to make calling correct. One problem with implied pot odds is that in many cases you don't collect. You hit your hand and your opponent folds. In that case, calling simply on implied pot odds becomes incorrect. If you add the ace and maybe discount those three outs down to 1 out, you now have 10 outs so your shortfall would be a little less.

I guess my main point, other than arguing simply on implied odds of your draw, is that you potentially have some implied pot odds even if you don't hit your draw. Maybe you miss and steal the pot on the turn. There is even the possibility that you have the best hand if it is checked down to the river. Maybe on a previous hand against this opponent you called a flop bet with a monster, which he will now have to worry about. If your friend is calling simply hoping to hit his draw, I agree that it is probably a slight mistake although this depends on his opponent and his own personal table image. If he calls for some additional reasons, I think it could be a profitable play.

Matthew

[seanof30306]

[taz115]

Your are on track now.

On your winning hand you can look at it two ways.

You have 'theoretically' invested $50 over 5 hands. But the pot you win is $50 because it now includes your bet.

Or, you can say you lost $10 4 times and won $40 once and forget about the $10 you put into the winning pot.

This is totally ignoring factors like implied odds though. That is just the odds the pot is laying you right now.

Also I see that you multiply the bet by the odds the pot is laying. I just skip the step and compare my odds with the pot odds. Pot odds = 4:1 If I am going to improve 3:1 it's profitable and I'll call or raise, if I am going to improve 5:1 I'll usually fold or raise - but sometimes call depending on implied odds or some of the other factors mentioned already by Matthew.

[mchilger]

yes, the $10 in the winning hand doesn't cost you anything.

I wrote Texas Hold'em Odds and Probabilities to thoroughly explain how to apply odds in both limit and nl hold'em so you might give it a read if you haven't done so already.

Matthew

[taz115]

I can definately say that Matthews book thoroughly explains odds and probabilities if that is an area your looking to understand better.

[Fumseck]

[seanof30306]

OK, here's where I'm going with this. I wanted to make sure I was understanding simple pot odds correctly before going further. We've established that I do.

The next thing I want to make sure i have right is understanding how to arrive at the accumulateed shortfall inherent in employing implied pot odds.

Example: 2 players, hero has nut flush draw

9 outs, 4:1

25 in pot, opponent bets 15; so pot is laying hero 40 for a 15 call

Clearly hero is not getting simple odds to call. Here's how I'm going about figuring out the implied odds, the shortfall, and the accumulated shortfall (breakeven point).

Dividing the 40 the pot is laying hero by the 4:1 odds against indicates that 10 of the 15 call would be justified, leaving 5 unjustified (40 / 4 = 10) (15 bet - 10 justified = 5 unjustified). I'm dubbing this unjustified amount the shortfall.

Multiplying that shortfall by the odds against yields the accumulated shortfall; 5 shortfall x 4:1 odds = 20. So, on the 1 in 5 instance where hero makes his flush on the turn, his breakeven point is 20; if he can get opponent to call 20, hero has made up his accumulated shortfall. Any other money hero can extract from his opponent is pure profit.

Next example: Hero is heads up and flops an open-ended straight draw; Simple odds: 5:1

35 in pot, opponent bets 30. Hero is being offered 65 for a 30 call. Dividing the 65 by the 5:1 odds against means a 13 call would be justified, leaving 22 as the unjustified shortfall. (35 - 13 = 22)

22 shortfall x 5:1 odds against = 110 accumulated shortfall, so hero will need opponent to call 110 if the straight is made on the turn to reach breakeven. Anything beyond that is profit.

It looks like the easiest way to arrive at the breakeven number is to multiply the shortfall by the odds against. This doesn't account for instances where hero calls with a shortfall and opponent folds after the hand is made, but, it does at least make it easy to know how big a shortfall you're looking at when you consider calling against the odds based upon implied pot odds.

[mchilger]

You're correct, but the way you look at it is different than what I think is "normal" for most players. That doesn't mean you need to change if it works for you.

This is how I would look at the odds:

example 1 $40 for a $15 call. high-level ballpark thinking. 40/15 is almost 3 to 1 pot odds and the odds against hitting my hand are 4 to 1. My pot odds aren't there but they are close.

Another more mathematical way and what I actually do, I have to pay $15 on a 4 to 1 draw. Therefore, I need to win $60 in the pot to break-even. [I lose $15 4 times for every pot I win]. There is $40 in the pot, if I hit my draw, do I think I can extract another $20 from my opponent on average? If so, I will call.

Realize that I am asking "$20 on average". Sometimes your opponent will simply fold on the turn without investing anything, sometimes he might bet and fold to a raise, and sometimes you might win his whole stack. That average should be more than $20 to make the draw profitable.

Matthew

[seanof30306]

I know I'm looking at it a little differently than most. I'm actually trying to. I want to simplify the concepts and application of pot odds, both to make it easier for novice players to grasp, and to make it easier for people who do understand the concepts to apply them. The less time you spend in a hand figuring your odds, the more time you can devote to observing your opponents, situational play, etc.

Recently, my casino had a WPT Boot Camp. I was in several of the sessions, as they needed dealers. Cathy Liebert did a session where she was to explain pot odds. She went on and on, in great detail, and was completely over the heads of virtually every one in the room.

I teach a beginners' poker class every week in the casino as well. Now, my class is about as basic as it gets; it's designed for people who have never played before. Frequently, though, there'll be days when all of the players in the class understand the basics, and we can cover more advanced topics. By far, the number one topic they want to learn is pot odds.

I've already simplified basic pot odds. I teach them to use odds, versus percentages, because it's easier to understand, and, it's easier to apply. I also teach them that their true pot odds are irrelevent; all they need to know is whether they're getting the right price to break even or better.

For example, hero is on a flush draw. There's a 10.00 bet to him. All hero has to do is multiply the 10.00 bet to him by the 4:1 odds against to arrive at his breakeven of 40.00. If the pot has 40.00 or more in it, the call is justified. If it has less than 40.00 in it, the call is not justified. The precise odds the pot is laying him are irrelevant.

It looks like I can simplifiy implied odds, too. Say, in the above example, there's 10.00 in the pot when opponent bets 10.00 into Hero's flush draw. Clearly, the call is not justified. Hero can divide the pot and the bet to him (10 + 10 = 20) by the 4:1 odds to see that 5.00 of his call would be justified; leaving 5.00 of it unjustified; the shortfall. Multiplying that unjustified 5.00 shortfall by the 4:1 odds against leaves an accumulated shortfall of 20.00. If Hero calls and makes his flush on the turn, he will need to extract another 20.00 from his opponent to reach breakeven.

In my mind, that's the simplest way of applying pot odds and implied pot odds. Once you've memorized the odds of hitting your hand (something that's easy to do), the rest just falls into place.