Confused about Implied Odds

[gmcarroll33]

I just re-skimmed over Theory of Poker and the section about implied odds, and I'm some what confused. Sklansky gave the example about Stu Ungar vs Doyle in 1980. Where the pot was 30,000 and Doyle Flopped Aces and Sevens, but Stu had a gut shot at a 3 to make him a straight. Doyle bet 17,000 into the pot and Stu called.

Here is where I get confused. Sklansky says Stu's implied odds were like 10 3/4-1 or something but his odds against making the straight were 14-1. Doyle had like 230,000 chips left. So how do I begin to do the math on this and determine implied odds?

Also Sklansky says in summary that implied odds work when your hand is well disguised and it usually needs to be unbeatable when you make your hand. So what is the amount Stu could not have called profitably based on his implied odds? Also how do you go about looking beyond pot odds when considering implied odds? I personally begin to think about the odds against me making my hand vs the odds my opponents bet is giving me. But it seems like implied odds are making you not focus so much on this but on what you can win. So how do you balance the two kinds of odds your thinking about in a hand?

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?

Thanks for any resonses.

[LetItBe]

Implied odds are almost entriely based on your opponent and your read of him (as well as his stack...not much implied odds when he only has 2 BBs behind him). Implied odds are extremely situation dependent.

I guess the "calculation" you make is whether the money you will win if you hit will be greater than the lack of odds you are getting to draw to the hand.

[swiggidy]

Generally, implied odds would be (the rest of the villains stack + the current pot) / current bet

The point about disguise is that you have to earn the chips in villains stack. I may have 1000BB behind giving you "implied odds" but if I won't put any more $$ in the pot then the implied odds are not there.

I think you're making it too complicated. Simple cases:
1) implied odds pre-flop. You have a pp and are facing a raise. If your opponents stack is less than 8x his raise then you do not have the implied odds to chase your set. If he has 10x his bet you need to think you'll stack him almost everytime you hit for it to be +eV to chase.

2) Calling with a straight (or even a flush draw). Say villain bets 1/2 pot. You're being offered 3:1 odds but need 4.5:1. Say it's a $10 bet, if you can win another $15 from your villain when you hit then you'll breakeven. So, if villain only has $10, no implied odds, if he's nitty tight and won't put another cent in the pot, no implied odds.

[9LIVES]

[ QUOTE ]
I just re-skimmed over Theory of Poker and the section about implied odds, and I'm some what confused. Sklansky gave the example about Stu Ungar vs Doyle in 1980. Where the pot was 30,000 and Doyle Flopped Aces and Sevens, but Stu had a gut shot at a 3 to make him a straight. Doyle bet 17,000 into the pot and Stu called.

Here is where I get confused. Sklansky says Stu's implied odds were like 10 3/4-1 or something but his odds against making the straight were 14-1. Doyle had like 230,000 chips left. So how do I begin to do the math on this and determine implied odds?

Also Sklansky says in summary that implied odds work when your hand is well disguised and it usually needs to be unbeatable when you make your hand. So what is the amount Stu could not have called profitably based on his implied odds? Also how do you go about looking beyond pot odds when considering implied odds? I personally begin to think about the odds against me making my hand vs the odds my opponents bet is giving me. But it seems like implied odds are making you not focus so much on this but on what you can win. So how do you balance the two kinds of odds your thinking about in a hand?

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?

Thanks for any responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually only consider implied odds in two cases:

Gutshot Straight Flush draw when opponent is likely to have the nut flush.

After turning a Set which is also a flush card, and my opponent likely has the flush. I have express and implied odds in most cases to go all the way (as long as we're deep-stacked).

In other words, I want to know 100% that there is no way the guy is getting away from his hand, and that I'll stack him. Most people won't lay down the Ace-high flush, either because they don't see the straight flush or the boat possibilities...or they just think you have the King high flush.

Overall though, to apply implied odds to your total game requires great skill, both mathematically and psychologically. I try to keep it simple.

[phiphika1453]

The odds to make the straight were 10.75 - 1.

(47/4)= 11.75 expressed as odds is 10.75-1.

The pot was laying Stu 2.76-1 (47k/17k).

So clearly Stu was not getting the pot odds to call, BUT maybe he thouht he would stack Doyle if he it the straight. So now the math for implied odds must be done.

Implied Odds
(Current Pot + Opponents Stack)/ Current Bet Size

(47000+230000)/17000= 16.3 which becomes 15.3-1.

So with his implied odds of 15.3-1 and the odds to hit his straight are 10.75-1 he was correct to call. Remember this is only true if he was 100% certain that Doyle will commit the rest of his stack.

I dont know what happened in the hand, but if Stu missed the turn the math would have to be re-evaluated when faced by another bet from Doyle.

Learning what implied odds are and using them are two different things. A mistake I made after first learning about implied odds was just assuming that 'donkey' would just forfeit his chips to me as a 'reward' for hitting my outs. Lol, how stupid was that.

Nobody is correct 100% of the time but learning a players tendencies and as you mentioned how well your draw was disguised will help you in determining how much more you think a player will commit to the pot.

PS. I am never amazed at how much it pays to pay attention.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
I just re-skimmed over Theory of Poker and the section about implied odds, and I'm some what confused. Sklansky gave the example about Stu Ungar vs Doyle in 1980. Where the pot was 30,000 and Doyle Flopped Aces and Sevens, but Stu had a gut shot at a 3 to make him a straight. Doyle bet 17,000 into the pot and Stu called.

Here is where I get confused. Sklansky says Stu's implied odds were like 10 3/4-1 or something but his odds against making the straight were 14-1. Doyle had like 230,000 chips left. So how do I begin to do the math on this and determine implied odds?

Also Sklansky says in summary that implied odds work when your hand is well disguised and it usually needs to be unbeatable when you make your hand. So what is the amount Stu could not have called profitably based on his implied odds? Also how do you go about looking beyond pot odds when considering implied odds? I personally begin to think about the odds against me making my hand vs the odds my opponents bet is giving me. But it seems like implied odds are making you not focus so much on this but on what you can win. So how do you balance the two kinds of odds your thinking about in a hand?

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?

Thanks for any resonses.

[/ QUOTE ]

This example of the hand between Doyle and Stu is quite funny, because I think David's conclusion is essentially flat out wrong. Doyle was absolutely correct to give Stu the odds to draw to a longshot, because longshots like this one come in at a 1:11 rate. This means in the meantime Doyle wins eleven bracelets while Stu is drawing to win one. The fact that Doyle lost this one doesn't matter in terms of correct tournament strategy.

In my opinion it wasn't a good example to explain implied odds. Using a hand from a cash game would have served the goal much better.

[phiphika1453]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just re-skimmed over Theory of Poker and the section about implied odds, and I'm some what confused. Sklansky gave the example about Stu Ungar vs Doyle in 1980. Where the pot was 30,000 and Doyle Flopped Aces and Sevens, but Stu had a gut shot at a 3 to make him a straight. Doyle bet 17,000 into the pot and Stu called.

Here is where I get confused. Sklansky says Stu's implied odds were like 10 3/4-1 or something but his odds against making the straight were 14-1. Doyle had like 230,000 chips left. So how do I begin to do the math on this and determine implied odds?

Also Sklansky says in summary that implied odds work when your hand is well disguised and it usually needs to be unbeatable when you make your hand. So what is the amount Stu could not have called profitably based on his implied odds? Also how do you go about looking beyond pot odds when considering implied odds? I personally begin to think about the odds against me making my hand vs the odds my opponents bet is giving me. But it seems like implied odds are making you not focus so much on this but on what you can win. So how do you balance the two kinds of odds your thinking about in a hand?

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?

Thanks for any resonses.

[/ QUOTE ]

This example of the hand between Doyle and Stu is quite funny, because I think David's conclusion is essentially flat out wrong. Doyle was absolutely correct to give Stu the odds to draw to a longshot, because longshots like this one come in at a 1:11 rate. This means in the meantime Doyle wins eleven bracelets while Stu is drawing to win one. The fact that Doyle lost this one doesn't matter in terms of correct tournament strategy.

In my opinion it wasn't a good example to explain implied odds. Using a hand from a cash game would have served the goal much better.

[/ 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?

Now in reality would I call this bet, I dont think so; mainly b/c I would have a hard time convincing myself I could get Doyle to put in enough chips to increase the implied odds enough to overcome the discrepancy of the immediate pot odds.

By the way how big was Stu's stack when he had to call this bet?

PS One technical adjustment to the implied odds formula.
Change
(Current Pot + Opponents Stack)/ Current Bet Size
to
(Current Pot + Amount Opponent will commit on future bets)/ current Bet Size

I made the change to help others not make the mistake I made at first. Sometime you just wont be able to get them to commit their whole stack on future streets, but start taking notes on how what percentage of the pot they will call on the end in a weaker than usual spot and you can have an educated estimate of what the implied odds would turn out to be.

[Shandrax]

[ 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.

[gmcarroll33]

So it sounds like implied odds work best if you've built up the image of wild and unpredictable player. You can stack a lot of people because they don't believe you when you do make your hand. Thanks for the help. I understand the concept better now.

[LetItBe]

[ QUOTE ]
So it sounds like implied odds work best if you've built up the image of wild and unpredictable player.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does?