Mason's review of Yao's DIPO pot odds calculation

[koolmoe]

I have always calculated my pot odds using Yao's DIPO, even before I read it in Weighing the Odds. It's fundamental (i.e., requires no memorization) and usually only requires one multiplication and one addition/subtraction, which are easy and quick for most people to do. I suppose memorizing odds tables is an alternative, but if a player is actually doing calculations at the table, I can't imagine an easier way.

Am I the only one who thinks that DIPO is neither unnecessary nor difficult?

[swong4444]

One nice thing about actually thinking in terms of pot odds is that it extends to other poker decisions besides just calling a bet based on the # of outs you have. For example, if you are HU on the river, your opponent bets, and you know you can only beat a bluff, then the decision to call the bet could be based on whether the pot odds are greater than the odds of the opp bluffing. Using DIPO, the thinking would be along the lines of: "is #bets in pot * #times bluffing out of x > #times not bluffing out of x * #bets to call???"

I just read about DIPO today so I'm not sure if Yao addresses the above later in the book /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Also, being "pot odds" aware can be good for understanding if your opponents do/don't have odds to call with certain hands. It might be a bit tedious to repeatedly go through the math of (#outs * #bets in pot) for each player. In the pot odds case, if a pot was laying 7:1, then opponents flush draws and OESD are good to come along, but gut shots are low pair probably aren't (and I did that quick!).

[Gabe]

In limit holdem the only odds you usually need to know exactly are for a 4 outer and on rare occasions, a 2 outer.

most of the times you have 8 or 9 outs, you'll be getting the odds in limit.

the times you have outs that are not 9, 8, 4, or 2, they are usually estimates, with uncertain implied and/or reverse implied odds, so rarely do you have to know them to a decimal point, unless you're superhuman at estimating the other stuff.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who thinks that DIPO is neither unnecessary nor difficult?

[/ QUOTE ]

King Yao shows that the DIPO method is mathematically correct, so you can't make a mistake using it. If you want to use it or not is just a matter of taste.

In case you want to incorporate an estimated bluffing percentage in your analysis, you might be better off using the old percentage-method though.

[nh5150]

im new to this thread. what was masons review of yao,s dipo method?. ive just read the book and i also think its an easy method. was wondering what everyone else thought.

[JaredL]

nh,

In case you're unaware, this forum is for discussion of the 2+2 internet magazine. You can find a link to this where it says Magazine near the top of the green bar. The article is titled "More Reviews," here's a link (http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/malmuth0206.html).

Jared