[DJ Sensei]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, what is this reverse implied odds? I never really got that...

[/ QUOTE ]

with implied odds, the idea is that you can play a big pot when you're ahead and a small pot when you're behind. hopefully, the big pot when ahead will be more than enough to make up for the more frequent small pots when behind.

with reverse implied odds, the opposite happens. you will tend towards playing a small pot when ahead, and a big one when behind. for instance, hands like KT or A9 are generally instafolds in the blinds, because usually when you're ahead, your opponent won't want to put much in the pot. however, flopping top pair with these hands can lead to playing a big pot when behind, because you're stuck in the mystery zone and end up calling down or something, and you let your opponent control the pot to his liking.


dan b, sweet post although i'm not sure i agree with opening to 7x when stacks are deep. It seems like you're looking to simulate standard conditions of 100x deep, which is generally optimal for the style of many good players (particularly those who have moved up through the ranks of online games that are almost always that deep). However, unless your opponents are playing along as you'd like (calling/raising/folding the same way they would to a standard raise), this probably won't happen. You'll end up playing relatively bigger pots with relatively worse hands, because your opponents will tighten up their calling/raising ranges to include stronger hands.

Now obviously if this is part of your gameplan, you should probably be able to adjust better to the situation than your opponents will, because they'll be surprised by the change of pace and may take a while to adjust. But I don't know if thats necessarily a great thing. I think their short-term adjustment will tend towards weak-tight, with longer-term adjustment tending towards "ohhhh, he's playing bigger pots with smaller hands, i can take advantage of this". At least with the good players. The bad ones obviously will be own-able regardless.

I'll have to think about this some more, because you're certainly onto something conceptually there, but I'm rather inclined against abnormally large opens at this point.