Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-28-2006, 04:25 PM
PantsOnFire PantsOnFire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,409
Default Re: Confused about Implied Odds

[ QUOTE ]
One last question. Sklansky says it works best when disguised well. Gut shots and straight draws seem like the only hands disguised well. I mean flush draws seem pretty obvious to me. So other than straight draws, what kinds of hands are good disguising ones?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think backdoor flushes are somewhat disguised. As well, if you feel your opponent has hit a flush and you have two pair, you might have implied odds to go for your full house.

As well, sometimes the difference between implied odds and pot odds is small. For example, if you are laid 3:1 odds on the turn to hit your 4:1 flush, you don't need a very big bet to be called on the river to meet the implied odds. If you opponent has a solid hand, he will likely pay you off even if the flush is obvious.

On the other hand, if you have a really long shot like a gutshot on the turn, then you need to have a really disguised hand and opponent who has something really good since you'll probably need to get a lot out him to justify the odds.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-29-2006, 02:46 AM
phiphika1453 phiphika1453 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: inyahead
Posts: 878
Default Re: Confused about Implied Odds

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that he had the wrong expressed odds, but if Stu knew Doyle would commit ALL of his stack when a 6 came how can you say it is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

My memory failed on me in the way that I didn't remember the chipstacks correctly. Stu had about 450000 chips at that time while Doyle only had 230000. I thought it was the other way around...

So Stu invested 17k to win the match, which is ok given his amount of chips and the fact that chips lose value the more you have (or not?) of them.

Doyle on the other hand knew that he would win 11 out of 12 times, which gives him a nice chance to draw closer.

Now we can discuss who benefits more from this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trust me I would much rather be in Doyle's seat with the ability to change the possible outcome. Remember Stu's implied odds were correct ONLY if Doyle would commit the rest, which he did.

I think this is a situation where both players could be making the correct plays given they can predict the future betting rounds.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.