table math trouble

[Rookcifer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not how I understood the 4,2 system. Your outs 13 x 4 = 52% to improve your hand by the river.

If i were to calculate 13 x 2.2 = 28.6% this would represent the next card be it turn or river. If i decide to play a hand with 13 outs wouldn’t I calculate the hand to the river and play accordingly?

Or are we saying the same thing?


i like the calculator idea

[/ QUOTE ]


the only way you can use the 4 rule is if you are going all in on the flop. Otherwise you probably are going to be faced with a turn bet that you are not getting odds to call if you missed on the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the OP, this comment makes no sense. Are you saying that good players never count outs and compare % of hitting an out to the EPS? It seems like you're saying to either go all in on the flop or just forget about pot odds.

[cheburashka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not how I understood the 4,2 system. Your outs 13 x 4 = 52% to improve your hand by the river.

If i were to calculate 13 x 2.2 = 28.6% this would represent the next card be it turn or river. If i decide to play a hand with 13 outs wouldn’t I calculate the hand to the river and play accordingly?

Or are we saying the same thing?


i like the calculator idea

[/ QUOTE ]


the only way you can use the 4 rule is if you are going all in on the flop. Otherwise you probably are going to be faced with a turn bet that you are not getting odds to call if you missed on the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the OP, this comment makes no sense. Are you saying that good players never count outs and compare % of hitting an out to the EPS? It seems like you're saying to either go all in on the flop or just forget about pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think everyone, including me, is mixed up. Let's take a couple of concrete examples to try to work through it.

<u>Example 1</u>

There's 150 in the pot. Both Hero and Villain have 1000 behind.

Hero is in position with 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], and he knows for a fact (based on superior hand-reading skills) that villain has A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. The flop is Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. Hero has 12 outs to beat villain (9 diamonds and 3 8s), otherwise he loses (barring runner-runner).

Villain bets 100.

The pot odds are 2.5:1 (Hero has to put in 100 to win 250). There are no implied odds, since we know for a fact that villain is too smart/conservative to pay off if a diamond or 8 hits. According to the 4/2 rule, Hero has a 44% chance of hitting an out by the river, or 1.3:1 against.

So should Hero bet? No. Why?

Because the odds of hitting an out on the turn are 3:1 against (25%, which is another handy rule--multiply outs by 2 and add 1). If Hero misses the turn, the pot will be 350, and Villain will promptly bet 250 or so. So Hero will again be getting poor odds to call (2.4:1 pot odds, vs. 3:1 against hitting an out on the river). Altogether, this is very negative EV.

<u>Example 2</u>

Exact same situation, but there is 1500 in the pot.

Villain shoves 1000. As before, pot odds are 2.5 to 1 (1000 to win 2500), and as before, there are no implied odds, as Villain has nothing left in his stack.

Should Hero call? Yes. Why?

Because now Hero doesn't have to pay again to see the river card, and he can take advantage of the 4/2 rule. So he's a 1.3:1 dog in a pot where he's hetting 2.5:1. Very positive EV.

[Rookcifer]

This is all fine and dandy if you are sure that your opponent will bet and know how much. In a perfect world, your analysis works, but few of us are psychic. That's why I think implied odds are next to worthless in NLHE, except to get a very general idea of future odds -- a VERY general idea. I think the only time it can be successfully utilized is when you know that if your opponent makes a minimum bet that even that small amount will not give you calling odds. In that case, yeah, implied odds are great.

I suppose a safe way to use implied odds would be to assume a pot sized bet when making your calculations. Again i usually play against morons who will often bet 4 times the pot on a draw, so perhaps calculating implied odds is easier against people who know what they are doing?

[cheburashka]

In my first example, I don't think it requires psychic ability to figure out that a villain (assuming he's not bluffing) who gives you poor odds to see the turn card will also give you poor odds to see the river card. That will happen 99% of the time. So the only point I am making is that the 4/2 rule doesn't apply when there are stacks behind.

As to implied odds, I've never implied (so to speak) that they are easy (or even possible) to calculate with any precision. But as a practical matter, if you have a 8- or 9-out draw and you require the proper actual odds to bet, you will rarely get the chance. Also as a practical matter, it may turn out that applying the 4/2 rule to the actual pot odds on the flop yields the same decision as comparing the real odds of hitting the turn (and then following with the river if you miss) to a combination of actual and implied pot odds. But IMHO the logic would be incorrect and will lead to incorrect decisions elsewhere.

As an example, suppose stacks are 2000 and the blinds are 10/20. You limp in UTG with 77. A TAG in MP1 raises to 4XBB and it folds back to you. You put his range at 88+, AK. You are a 2.5:1 dog against this range, but the pot odds are only 2.2:1. Should you call? I would argue yes, because 1/8 of the time you hit your set will more than make up for the times that you don't, due to implied odds. How can I be sure of that? Obviously, I can't. But if I'm wrong, then there are relatively few times one could play 77, and this just can't be right.

[Rookcifer]

Cheburashka, I am not doubting your analysis, and I agree with most of it. I am a very new player and am still in the learning phase, so I will not doubt more experienced players who are obviously much more accomplished than myself. All I am saying is that implied odds are very tricky in NLHE. I often find myself simplifying things a bit by just knowing the odds of hitting x # of outs on the turn. I then compare that to the pot odds. I then do the same for the river if I did not hit on the turn. This seems to work OK for me, but obviously is not as optimal as being very good at predicting future bets. I suppose this is why NLHE is and always will be a people game; knowing your opponents, what they hold, and their betting patterns. I don't think these skills can be taught.

[SellingtheDrama]

Implied odds are generally not expressed precisely in no limit for exactly this reason.

As a more experienced player, I generally view it this way:
Will I get paid more if I make my hand? If no, my implied odds are zero. If yes, I assume the pot is checked to me and how much I would bet. If I'm not sure that I will get paid, I discount the bet (if my normal bet is $100, I'd assume I would win $50 if he'd call half the time).

As for the direct odds - I absolutely hate the concept of using two card odds (turn + river) on a flop when you expect to see another bet on the turn.

And it is totally possible to learn how people play - it all comes down to paying attention at the table (live or online). You really won't ever know for sure, but you can get pretty good at guessing "he's probably on a draw here" and stuff like that. It just takes time.

[Cujo69]

I'd like to have a couple of opinions. I feel I'm all but leagally dumb at math. So this is a very bad part of my game. I've seen people figure pot odds different ways. I've seen pot percentage vs. % of making hand, tilted donkey shows how to figure the pot size that's needed to justify a call, and I've seen it expressed as odds. I know you need to avoid switching back and forth and comparing odds vs. a percentage. I also know I need to do which is most comfortable for me. I just started using the odds calculator on pokertips.org while online, but this more for live play. So my question is do you guys have a way that you think is easiest or preferred?

[blueguitone]

for pot odds if i understand correctly you do this:

pot $30 call $10 3:1 3+1=4 1/4=25%

is this right?

[Rookcifer]

blue, yes. Since you are 3:1 on your money, you need at least 3:1 or 25% chance of making your hand in order for a call to be correct. If you are not getting enough on your money to call, then take into account implied odds on future streets which may justify it anyway. IMO, implied odds are much easier to calculate in Limit as compared to no limit where you really need a good read on opponents betting habits (and reads on their hand) in order to obtain any accuracy. Implied odds are really more of an art than science but should be calculated nonetheless. I struggle with them myself due to my inexperience.