[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I go on to my main question I want to get an unbiased answer to the first part...

Game is 8 handed 100-200 with a $20 ante and $30 bring-in.

7h folds, you have (9d8d)Ah and complete into Tc 7c 6d 5h 4s 4c.

The Tc on your right raises you.

How do you feel about a call?

[/ QUOTE ]



Ok a couple of points:

1. I intended the open-completion to be completely non-controversial, and truly I think it is.

You have a live A up card and overcards to all but one of your opponents.

More importantly you are getting 1.9:1 on a raise.

IMO the open-completion is virtually guaranteed to be profitable here. This is an auto-raise in any remotely high ante game.

But I didn't mean the post to be about that at all.

2. In my title I was using the term 'implied odds' a little more widely than it is usually used, though I think still correctly.

What I meant by implied odds is not that your hand actually benefits from the subsequent rounds of betting (the way a 4-flush does), but that your hand suffers less than pure showdown equity would indicate.

In stud hi any time you have a dog hand against a hand that you have a strong read on (for example in this case, where it looks like you're up against split TT), your effective odds are better than your showdown odds.

This is mainly because you can give up on 4th or 5th if you have not improved enough to justify continuing, but also because you get some bluff equity when, say, you pair you doorcard and your opponent makes moderately FTOP incorrect folds when he should be chasing two pair.

Also anytime your hand is more concealed than your opponents you get some implied odds because he will pay you more when you improve than you will pay him than he improves.

So even though you are still a dog, a hand that is say a 60/40 dog might, due to implied odds (or some other term if you prefer) be able to play on in a spot where it is only getting say 55/45 to call down.

3. As to the specific hand I mentioned, I 100% agree that it seems like a fold when the T reraises you.

However I was not the person with this hand. The person with this hand is considered to be an expert stud player, and he called.

So what I'm wondering is if I have been underrating the value of implied odds when you have a no pair / no draw hand with a little potential.

My standard thought process in these situations is to look at my showdown equity versus my opponent's most likely holding (30% equity versus split TT in this case), and compare that to the equity I would need to justify calling down (40.2% in this case).

If my equity beats my pot odds I definitely play on. If my equity is a few % too low I still play due to the implied odds considerations I mentioned above.

If my showdown equity is off by something like a 4% or greater I just fold.

(BTW this is the same basic process all those 3rd street recommendations for smaller pair verus bigger pair in 7CSFAP are based on.)

So as I normally play the (98)A is an insta-fold after the T raises me.

However like I said the presumed stud expert called.

Thus the question of my godawfully long post is -

Are implied odds (specifically the chance of improving on 4th or 5th with an unmade hand) a lot more valuable than I have previously realized?

(BTW before anyone gets sidetracked on this, the guy with the T up is a solid player, not a maniac or anything.)