Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory
 

In the book Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker by Stewart Reuben and Bob Ciaffone, Reuben states that the "general rule of thumb among professionals" for calling a bet based on implied odds is that "you want the potential to win about twenty times the current bet you are facing."

I'm interested in hearing thoughts on this, since I don't believe it to be true.

For example, if you were facing a $3 bet into an $7 pot on the flop and you had an OESD, you'd want to call getting nearly 3.5-1 on your money and having nearly an 18% chance or a 1 in 5 shot of making your hand on the next card. Strict pot odds imply that you should not call, whereas adding the incentive of implied odds would dictate that you should. Reuben would seem to imply that unless your opponents stack (or the money you could win) was at least $60, you'd be better off folding?

Re: Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory
 

This is related to the 5/10 rule and is applied to preflop play I believe. Haven't read the book in ages though so I could be talking rubbish.

Re: Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory
 

Nah i think you're talking sense fletch, almost certain this is in regards to 5/10 rule.

Re: Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory
 

Could you elaborate on the 5/10 rule please? The first time I read the book I basically just skimmed it and I'm rereading it properly now.

As for it being applicable only to preflop play, when you read the addendum by Stewart Reuben in context it becomes clear that it applies to drawing hands in general.

The part I'm talking about appears on page 18 btw, if anyone's wondering.

Re: Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory
 

I don't have access to the book right now so can't look up specifics. The 5/10 rule (which I'm pretty sure is discussed better than my summary in the FAQ) states that when considering calling a preflop raise with a drawing hand you should lean towards calling if the bet is 5% of the effective stack, lean towards folding if it is 10% of the effective stack and use your judgement in between.

Re: Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory
 

it was interesting that matt flynn came on today and said that he thinks the 5/10 rule sucks and he uses a rule of 3-8. wonder if this will be in the SSNL book.

Re: Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory
 

I did not manage to find the 5-10 rule with a quick scan of the book, but if it only applies to preflop play then I think it is unrelated to Reuben's theory. Perhaps you could offer your thoughts when you have access to the book again.

Re: Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory
 

Well if Reuben really suggests folding a 3.5 to 1-shot on the flop based by this 20 to 1 rule than obviously it's just terribly incorrect advice wich should be ignored.

Re: Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
it was interesting that matt flynn came on today and said that he thinks the 5/10 rule sucks and he uses a rule of 3-8. wonder if this will be in the SSNL book.

[/ QUOTE ]

An important factor that often goes ignored is how likely you are to win that stack if you do hit. There's been a lot of discussion of this before.

Re: Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory
 

I just checked the book (have all my poker books on the shelf behind me - fat lot of use they are!).
No question in my mind that he is talking specifically about pre-flop and not after the flop.

Re-read the text and you will see that he has not mentioned anything about a flop.