Are (suited) connectors always an implied odds hand?

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
So does that mean, that implied odds hands can also turn out to be reverse implied odd hands?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. A hand with implied odds can also have reverse implied odds at the same time.

For example, you hold 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and flop is 10[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Your opponent holds A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. If you make a straight, you will win the hand. However, if you make a straight and he makes a flush, you will lose the hand. So you have 6 outs on the turn to make your straight. You can figure out your pot odds and add in some implied odds.

However, if you do make a straight on the turn, villain can still make a flush on the river. This situation has reverse implied odds. In other words, you can make the hand you want (one that won't improve on the river) on the turn and lose to a better hand on the river.

In this situation, villain has no reverse implied odds because if he makes his hand, you are drawing dead.

Another example would be if you were drawing to the nut flush and villain had a set or trips. You should consider the reverse implied odds. So when looking at a flush draw on a paired board, you have to be wary or a made full house or a rivered full house.

Reverse implied odds should make you throttle back a bit in your betting and calling. It makes drawing situations sometimes a good place to let a hand go.

Essentially in plain english, reverse implied odds is making the best hand you can possibly make for your hole cards on the turn and then getting rivered by a better hand.

This comes up a lot in Omaha where a nut straight can quickly turn into a second nut straight or a full house can become second nut full house.

[CurryLover]

I think some of you are extremely confused about reverse implied odds!

Original poster does not seem to have any idea at all what 'reverse implied odds' means, and many of the responders seem clueless too.

For example, it does NOT mean this:
[ QUOTE ]
Reverse implied odds, are the expected total pot size at river in proportion to your contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither does it mean this:
[ QUOTE ]
Essentially in plain english, reverse implied odds is making the best hand you can possibly make for your hole cards on the turn and then getting rivered by a better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Reverse implied odds' is a term used to describe a specific type of situation in which:
a) You may be ahead or may be behind (and are not sure which)
b) You will have to put more chips into the pot if you are behind, but if you are ahead your opponent is unlikely to put more money in himself.

e.g. You have A3o and call a raise in the BB. Flop comes AT6. You check and opponent bets. This can often be a reverse implied odds situation. You can choose right now that you are going to call your opponent down on every street here, and sometimes you will be ahead. Unfortunately, your opponent is very unlikely to put more money in the pot if he does not have a better hand than you, so you stand to win only what is in the pot right now. But if your opponent does have a better hand (e.g. AK/AQ) he will probably charge you a further bet on every street. In other words, by calling on the flop with the plan of check calling every street, you are allowing a situation where (usually) no more money will go in the pot when you are ahead, but you will have to contribute several more bets when you are behind.

Another example: You have AA and your opponent has 22. You open raise UTG for a relatively large amount. Your opponent calls and you are both pretty deep in chips. In this situation your opponent has implied odds and you suffer from reverse implied odds. This is because (usually) the only time any more money will go into the pot is when you have been outdrawn (i.e. your opponent has hit trips). On pretty much any flop without a 2 on it, you will bet and opponent will fold. You will have won only what is in the pot. However, if a deuce flops you stand to lose not just what is in the pot at the moment, but probably a great deal more money - and perhaps your whole stack depending how deep you are and/or how good you are. That's why you can say you have reverse implied odds here - because more money is only going to go into the pot when you are behind on the flop.

So, (and this is paraphrasing TOP) you talk about reverse implied odds when:

1) You are not sure if you're ahead or behind
2) You are unlikely to improve if you are behind
3) You are (probably) committed to calling future bets to the end of the hand
4) Your opponent can back off at any time (i.e. he is probably going to bet when ahead, but check or fold when behind)

As an aside, bear in mind that you get better implied odds from weaker players. In the above example where 22 has implied odds against AA, the 22 would much prefer to be up against a weak player than a strong player. A very good player might be able to get away from his AA when the 22 has flopped trips and only lose a part of his stack. Maybe he picks up a tell on the player with 22; maybe he is good enough to read the betting patterns and decide that his AA must have been outdrawn; maybe he will just have the necessary skill to exercise pot size control post flop and keep his losses to a minimum. The point is that a good player may not automatically stack off to you when you have hit your trips. He will certainly lose some money on, say, a 26J flop to the trip deuces, but might have the skills to save some of his stack. A mediocre player, however, will probably stack off with his AA on a 26J flop. In other words, you have better implied odds against weaker players because the strong players are less likely to pay you off fully the times when you get lucky and outdraw them.

[Bang584]

If people smell a draw and they have a hand, they usually bet alot instead of folding.

I don't see many situations where those hands could become "reverse implied odd hands" unless your opponent only called with the nuts or close to it. In that case, almost every bet you made would be a bluff.

And the line is... well, it depends. Against your looser players, you can make a fortune with AK when you make a pair. Against your tighter players, you might need a hand similar to the one you mentioned because scarier boards may have them running... unless they have you beat.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see many situations where those hands could become "reverse implied odd hands" unless your opponent only called with the nuts or close to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How's this for an example? (It doesn't matter if it's limit or nl)

You raise with KQ UTG and get 1 caller. Flop comes K 9 3 (2 suits).

You bet and get raised.

What are your odds now? What kind of odds are they? Why?

[obss]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some of you are extremely confused about reverse implied odds!

Original poster does not seem to have any idea at all what 'reverse implied odds' means, and many of the responders seem clueless too.

For example, it does NOT mean this:
[ QUOTE ]
Reverse implied odds, are the expected total pot size at river in proportion to your contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither does it mean this:
[ QUOTE ]
Essentially in plain english, reverse implied odds is making the best hand you can possibly make for your hole cards on the turn and then getting rivered by a better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Reverse implied odds' is a term used to describe a specific type of situation in which:
a) You may be ahead or may be behind (and are not sure which)
b) You will have to put more chips into the pot if you are behind, but if you are ahead your opponent is unlikely to put more money in himself.

e.g. You have A3o and call a raise in the BB. Flop comes AT6. You check and opponent bets. This can often be a reverse implied odds situation. You can choose right now that you are going to call your opponent down on every street here, and sometimes you will be ahead. Unfortunately, your opponent is very unlikely to put more money in the pot if he does not have a better hand than you, so you stand to win only what is in the pot right now. But if your opponent does have a better hand (e.g. AK/AQ) he will probably charge you a further bet on every street. In other words, by calling on the flop with the plan of check calling every street, you are allowing a situation where (usually) no more money will go in the pot when you are ahead, but you will have to contribute several more bets when you are behind.

Another example: You have AA and your opponent has 22. You open raise UTG for a relatively large amount. Your opponent calls and you are both pretty deep in chips. In this situation your opponent has implied odds and you suffer from reverse implied odds. This is because (usually) the only time any more money will go into the pot is when you have been outdrawn (i.e. your opponent has hit trips). On pretty much any flop without a 2 on it, you will bet and opponent will fold. You will have won only what is in the pot. However, if a deuce flops you stand to lose not just what is in the pot at the moment, but probably a great deal more money - and perhaps your whole stack depending how deep you are and/or how good you are. That's why you can say you have reverse implied odds here - because more money is only going to go into the pot when you are behind on the flop.

So, (and this is paraphrasing TOP) you talk about reverse implied odds when:

1) You are not sure if you're ahead or behind
2) You are unlikely to improve if you are behind
3) You are (probably) committed to calling future bets to the end of the hand
4) Your opponent can back off at any time (i.e. he is probably going to bet when ahead, but check or fold when behind)

As an aside, bear in mind that you get better implied odds from weaker players. In the above example where 22 has implied odds against AA, the 22 would much prefer to be up against a weak player than a strong player. A very good player might be able to get away from his AA when the 22 has flopped trips and only lose a part of his stack. Maybe he picks up a tell on the player with 22; maybe he is good enough to read the betting patterns and decide that his AA must have been outdrawn; maybe he will just have the necessary skill to exercise pot size control post flop and keep his losses to a minimum. The point is that a good player may not automatically stack off to you when you have hit your trips. He will certainly lose some money on, say, a 26J flop to the trip deuces, but might have the skills to save some of his stack. A mediocre player, however, will probably stack off with his AA on a 26J flop. In other words, you have better implied odds against weaker players because the strong players are less likely to pay you off fully the times when you get lucky and outdraw them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post, really smart and clarifying.

[Bang584]

I may have misunderstood the OP. I thought he was trying to say that suited connectors could become a RIOH when he was playing them to flop a straight or flush. If he's worried about playing 87 on a board of J82, then reverse implied odds could come into account. I just couldn't see how they would with the same hand on a board of 456r(like the OP described).

With KQ in that situation, you would need to consider your reverse implied odds- the amount of money you would expect to lose if you played your hand to the river. If the game is NL, you might be laying your stack to win whatever smaller amount is in the pot right now. You should only consider continuing in the hand if your opponent is semi-bluffing or bluffing often(here and on future streets) enough to make it correct to lay such odds.

[RobNottsUk]

Thank you to the Poster, who took the trouble to type the ToP defintion in.

My first reply, was attempting to explain, what reverse implied odds were, but without going to the awful trouble of typing in all of ToP. Thanks for the specifics and corrections. I agree.

People in general, do not understand that "reverse implied odds" are actually a estimateable number, they really are odds. That was the main thrust of my attempted explanation, which though rushed has actually practical application in play.

For instance, I have top K's Queen kicker, versus the SB who bet out, 2 early pos limpers who have called, in an unraised pot. I fold a 3bb bet tc 60 / 1,500, simply because with 3 ppl in the pot, it'll cost way too much to find out if my K's are good. I might have pot odds of 4:1 to call, but it would be bad business, as the only card I would be happy to see on turn was a Q. If I raise, then the semi-bluff str8 draw could re-raise and take me off the hand, furthermore I could actually be behind to 1st limper who could have AK, or a set.

Now I decided to fold, for maths reasons, and the caculation practically, was the amount I stood to win (the current pot and expected contributions by others), compared to my investment. I judged, chances of not having best hand on turn/river, made the probable best hand unprofitable. If I were winning, I'd win small pot, and risk losing a big one. This is what happened to the 1st pos limper, who made the weak play of calling, rather than raising or folding.

Of course, you should use ToP for your real definition, and thanks to those of you who took trouble to risk copyright violations, in pursuit of correctness.

Fortunately many players misunderstand ToP and misapply the concepts, so some 'simplification' which relates more to practical players, would seem useful.

[Bang584]

If I happened to quote ToP, I didn't intend to... I haven't had a copy in almost 2 years.

[RobNottsUk]

Well if we're going to be pedantic, we should add the 'position' factor, and the "if you're ahead you're easily outdrawn" element to.

Actually, in NL you can have position and still be in a reverse implied odds situation, worse than FL. There, if someone may be bluffing, and you have position, you can simply call, and keep the reverse implied odds down. In NL, if you call the flop or turn, and then face a huge bet on the next street... now what?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, in NL you can have position and still be in a reverse implied odds situation, worse than FL. There, if someone may be bluffing, and you have position, you can simply call, and keep the reverse implied odds down. In NL, if you call the flop or turn, and then face a huge bet on the next street... now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

NL has a funny quirk to it which is why it's harder to play than limit. If you don't bet correctly, you will put yourself into bad spots, the same way as your cards can get you into these spots in limit.

It's more like there are 2 kinds of ROI in NL.

1 for your hand itself and another for the way you play your hand.