odds question ( i think)

[chrisyt]

I know soom 'do's' but not the whys.
like umm some people/books would say if you've 88 call for two bets. why not call all of em?
(am playing limit)(at sub micro stakes)(ok micro)
Is it that the only basis on folding if it's risen 3 times because they must have a good hand?

i'm starting to fold if the pot has been risen, taking it that 'they' must have a better hand.

but is there an odds thing to this?

like if 4 people in pot including you 4 bets
what is the difference between that and 4 people in pot 16 bets.
apart from some people clearly think they have a better hand, does that affect the odds?

i.e. call 'hand x' for one bet, call 'hand y' for 3 bets, why?
as above isn't it still 4-1
cheers
sos not good at being sucinct.
chris

[uDevil]

If you have a medium pair on the button and an early position player raises, the next player reraises, it gets capped, and the player to your right cold-calls, you should probably fold.

It's true that you are getting 4-1 odds to call, but your implied odds are not as good as if you were playing for just one bet. If you get to play for 1 small bet, and you think you'll win 5 big bets after the flop if you flop a set, you are effectively getting 14-1 odds on your 1 small bet. But if it costs you 4 small bets to see the flop and you're only going to win 5 big bets after the flop, then you're only getting 6.5-1 on your pre-flop investment. It's likely you'll have to flop a set or better to win, and the odds against that are 7.5-1, so calling isn't justified getting just 6.5-1 from the pot.

Also, there is a difference as to how you get to the 4 bets. If you're in middle position, one player limps, you limp, a third player limps, the next player raises, the early limper calls, you call, the 3rd limper now 3-bets, the original raiser caps, and the early limper calls, so now it's 2 more bets to you with 15 bets in the pot and the remaining player sure to make it 16, you should call. You are getting 8-1 to call 2 more bets now, plus you can still expect to win those 5 extra big bets after the flop, so you have plenty of odds to call to hit a set.

[chrisyt]

Thanks uDevil
i'm gonna have to print that out and study it! It's something i'm not getting.
You're seeing the pre flop betting as an 'investment' then after seeing how your investment turned out?
so after flop there are 5 big bets to win(implyed odds estimate). so you calculating your odds of getting a set (say) to your pot odds or rather your preflop bets to the 'reward' of 5 big bets all being well?
so the less you getting to see the flop for the better? (given middle pair)
(Ya know i originally got sklanskys advanced texas.., thinking this was gonna be a piece of cake. sort of 6 months odd later i'm still trying to figure it out)
right cheers for that uDevil
its back to work!

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]

You're seeing the pre flop betting as an 'investment' then after seeing how your investment turned out?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're trying to see ahead to make sure our investment will turn out well for us. We use a mix of ideas to do that. Sometimes we talk about hand equities, other times about pot odds, implied odds, reverse implied odds, or effective odds.

It's just whatever works best for the situation. With medium or smaller pairs in the situation you describe, it's easy to look at it in terms of preflop pot odds and implied odds because with this kind of hand you'll know on the flop whether the hand will be worth playing. You'll either flop a monster (a set or better) and you'll be able to collect on your investment, or you'll likely have to fold and cut your losses-- the investment didn't work out this time.


[ QUOTE ]
so after flop there are 5 big bets to win(implyed odds estimate). so you calculating your odds of getting a set (say) to your pot odds or rather your preflop bets to the 'reward' of 5 big bets all being well?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite follow that. We compare pot+implied odds to odds of hitting a set. We want to get better odds (ratio of money we can win to money we have to invest) to be larger than the odds against making what will probably be a winning hand (a flopped set or better).

[ QUOTE ]

so the less you getting to see the flop for the better? (given middle pair)

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. This is true for any hand requiring implied odds to be profitable-- small to medium pairs and suited connectors. If the pair is big enough to win without improving, that's another matter.

[chrisyt]

Are thanks,
there is some light getting through my thick skull,
what ya saying (and skal,,, him) says is look at the over all picture so with pairs, ok mid pairs they eithere flop a set or dont, basically a good chance of winning or none (ish) Sooooo
the cheaper you see the flop for the better.
now if only i could get some maths on that! lol
i get ya 7-1 set odds. (sort of) zhee i'm thick here.
now the question is how cheap is cheap! one bet two. ok thanks, back to reading. . .
cheers uDevil.