Why bet the pot?

[MathEconomist]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero put in 60+150+450=$660 to win a pot of $1350= 2.05-1

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the big error. In doing these after the fact calculations, you can't count the money you put in as part of the pot because you don't win it when you win, you simply don't lose it. Your actual overall odds were around 1-1 on what was a 2-1 shot on the flop (and presumably worse preflop).

As far as having someone call and the (potential) draw hitting, a method I like to use when I don't have good reads is simply not to put in enough money that the other person had correct implied odds to draw. This way you've insured that when you're up against the draw you're a long run winner. You will lose some money to bluffs, but even then they are likely long run losers since the scarecards don't hit THAT much more often when no one is holding the draw.

[J.A.K.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hero put in 60+150+450=$660 to win a pot of $1350= 2.05-1

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the big error. In doing these after the fact calculations, you can't count the money you put in as part of the pot because you don't win it when you win, you simply don't lose it. Your actual overall odds were around 1-1 on what was a 2-1 shot on the flop (and presumably worse preflop).

As far as having someone call and the (potential) draw hitting, a method I like to use when I don't have good reads is simply not to put in enough money that the other person had correct implied odds to draw. This way you've insured that when you're up against the draw you're a long run winner. You will lose some money to bluffs, but even then they are likely long run losers since the scarecards don't hit THAT much more often when no one is holding the draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

In HOH he counts the money put in the pot as part of it when calculating PO. (HOH v.1 pg. 122) I am not seeing the difference, although I do see the actual odds on your return are 1-1. Also could you elaborate on the strategy of not giving implied odds when possibly facing a draw? SSSSLOOWW learner.

[MathEconomist]

Money already in the pot is part of what you can win by calling a bet, so it is correct to consider money already in when calculating pot odds. But your current call is not part of what you can win, so that should not be added to the pot. When doing an after the fact calculation and asking what was I getting, you need to only consider the money the other guy puts into the pot after the decision point.

As far as not giving implied odds, I should emphasize this is against players I don't have a good read on (though it's good to always keep this in mind). So say I make a pot sized bet on the flop against what I assume is a flush draw, and that 3rd suited card hits on the turn. In order to be correct in calling that bet, the other guy needs to get in total about 4.5-1 on his money. He already got 2-1 from the pot, so between the turn and river I don't really want to put in another 2.5 times the original pot. So if he makes a pot sized bet on the turn (3 times the original pot) I would generally just fold. If he makes a smaller bet, but I think I'll have to call again on the river I can fold. But if he checks the turn and bets half the pot on the river I can call.

This gets varied a lot depending on the situation and what reads I have. But in general, you shouldn't be willing to pay off enough on later streets that your opponents were correct to call your bets based on the implied odds. Note that this is actually a specific application of the general principle that how you play early streets should be influenced by how much you're willing to pay off on later streets unimproved.