Expressed vs. Implied Odds PF

[Jeff76]

It seems to me there is a paradox with regards to pot odds when playing short (but I could be wrong):

1. The stacks behind are short so that you don't have implied odds for hands with lesser showdown value (scs and low pps).
2. Because the stacks are short, expressed odds become more important than they are when deep because pf bets represent a larger portion of the pot.

I've long labored under the belief that I do not want to call light when I get short because
1. Calls represent an increasingly larger portion of my stack
2. NL is a game where implied odds are more important than expressed odds, and when you are short you have very little in the way of implied odds for speculative hands

The result has been that I've been only inclined to play hands with showdown value UNLESS I am able to be the aggressor in the hand. Of course, THIS usually puts me OOP in the hand unless I'm making blind steals, and then people have a tendency to play trappy against me since they are aware of what I'm doing.

But I started to consider that perhaps I am thinking about this incorrectly, and maybe I should take expressed odds PF more seriously. The reality is that when the stacks get short, pots tend to be won by one and two pair kinds of hands. In fact, having a pair isn't even what takes down these pots; often sheer aggression is plenty enough. A couple of c-bets or bluffs over a "small pot" can make way more than hitting a single "big hand" and getting paid off for 20 BBs. Most flops miss most hands, and even crummy starting hands can make one pair as easily as "bigger hands", and that doesn't even address weak draws that add equity to your bluffs.

It seems to me, then, if you are getting really good expressed odds you should be inclined to play because if you are getting a good deal (in the blinds) or have an advantage over your opponents (position) the hand might win enough to justify a call. This notion would argue for a lot more blind defense than I do- in fact, when I "defend my blind" it is generally with a re-raise rather than a call. But might it be good to flat call when getting a good price because expressed odds are so much more important?

With regards to that last question, it does seem like a lot of good players think so. Dan Harrington argues for calling with good expressed odds in HoH, Gus Hansen cites expressed PF odds as the reason for some of his seemingly wacky plays, and I know LAGs on this board like Gobbo make loose calls both from the blinds and the button (though I don't know if this is because of expressed odds or sheer fearlessness).

After seeing Gobbo play on the Aussie millions this weekend I was inspired to waste a couple of buy ins on a decadent little experiment: I started playing a lot more pots due to expressed odds. I called in the blinds and on the button with trashy hands when the price was good (depending on the table dynamic). Whatever else it was, I had a lot of fun [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The fluctions in my stack were incredible, but I actually did end up accumulating quite a few chips. Still, one weekend's results (other than the fun part) don't really provide much of an answer since this is a high variance game.

But I guess the real question is, do expressed odds offered from the pot PF make loose calls profitable from late position and the pot when stacks are shorter?

[Foucault]

I don't have time for a thorough response, but it sounds like you're conflating two things: your hot-and-cold odds, which give you your equity assuming the hand goes to showdown, and the possibility of sometimes winning post-flop without a showdown. What matters is how often you'll hit the flop hard enough to continue, what your equity will be on the various flops you hit, and how much equity you can gain through bluffing/semi-bluffing on certain flops. Those factors determine your post-flop equity, which in turn determines what kind of odds you need to get involved pre-flop.

Just an example of what I'm talking about, AK is like 50% hot-and-cold against 22 but if you are getting 1.4:1 on a pre-flop call and your post-flop plan is to to fold anytime you don't flop at least TPTK, then you would not be getting the odds you needed to call pre-flop.

[Merek007]

Good question... I think this is where it is not clear(if I understand your thought)

You may have the odds to call with junk, but much of the odds are eroded by the difficulty in playing the cards. Many flushes or flush draws are low and you never know if you are good or drawing to death. You often have the bottom of the straights. Are you good? If you are pushing, the expressed odds are accurate, but if you might fold, the expressed odds may be misleading.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
but it sounds like you're conflating two things: your hot-and-cold odds, which give you your equity assuming the hand goes to showdown, and the possibility of sometimes winning post-flop without a showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]Not exactly conflating, but wouldn't it be true that the more implied odds diminish, the closer hands get in value to their hod-and-cold odds?

[ QUOTE ]
What matters is how often you'll hit the flop hard enough to continue, what your equity will be on the various flops you hit, and how much equity you can gain through bluffing/semi-bluffing on certain flops. Those factors determine your post-flop equity, which in turn determines what kind of odds you need to get involved pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]True enough, but as stacks get shorter, doesn't the implied equity you get from superior post flop play lessen since there are less chips available to extract?

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
You may have the odds to call with junk, but much of the odds are eroded by the difficulty in playing the cards. Many flushes or flush draws are low and you never know if you are good or drawing to death.

[/ QUOTE ]The stronger draws are incredibly easy to play once you get short. The problem is that you won't flop a strong draw enough times to make calling PF profitable- the implied odds aren't there. This is why people talk about needing 20x the bet stacks to play SCs and 10x to play small PPs.

The thing is, though, that now flopping a pair with your sc might be enough to take down the pot. And in fact, if you are playing in position against weak opponents who don't 2nd barrel you can float them a lot with air and take down enough pots to be profitable.

Of course, playing middle and bottom pairs can get tricky, especially OOP, so you have to have some post flop skills. By making these calls, especially from the blinds, you'd be knowingly entering a pot with an inferior hand that on hand value alone probably has the smallest equity in the pot. The rest you'll have to make up by out playing your opponents. Calling from the button is a little different, since now you'll have added equity from position- of course the price is always a little steeper from the button than in the blinds, especially if you have agressive blinds who squeeze.

Obviously this is all dependent on table dynamics and playing abilities, and I'm not saying it's even correct to call based on expressed odds. I guess I'm kind of trying to evaluate just how important expressed odds are in a pot and how that relates to stack sizes. Early on expressed odds are almost meaningless, but surely they gain some importance as implied odds diminish.