Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory

[matv]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it was interesting that matt flynn came on today and said that he thinks the 5/10 rule sucks and he uses a rule of 3-8. wonder if this will be in the SSNL book.

[/ QUOTE ]

An important factor that often goes ignored is how likely you are to win that stack if you do hit. There's been a lot of discussion of this before.

[/ QUOTE ]

so u agree that the 5-10 rule sucks and that this 3-8 rule is better? if so y?

also if u have any links, can u please link me

[luke4130]

I've never heard of the 3-8 rule but i think the 5-10 is a little off too. Using pocket pairs as an example, i think calling off 10% of your stack against a v. tight player on a 7.5:1 shot is optimistic at best. You have to give more credit for the player to be able to get away from their hand on scary flops or for overcards to come down vs Qs + Ks. I also think against LAGy players that 5% is also too high - if you're playing a 40/25 and you call off 5% of your stack, you're going to need to get his stack pretty often when you hit your set. I'd say Matt Flynn was about spot on with the 3-8 although i've never actually thought about it like that before.

[jjb108]

Rule is generally:
<5% auto call
>10% auto fold
5 < x < 10 is judgement based on ability to get opponents stack. If opponent can lay down overpair to heat, put in less of your stack.

Also, stack size is based on smallest stack in the hand.

Sounds as if Matt would recharacterize the rule to 3/8...did he actually say 5/10 sucked? Link? I find it hard to believe that moving the guideline from 5/10 to 3/8 means the original sucks.

Here's a link to a previous discussion 5/10 rule discussion

[matv]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=2#Post6725653

[jjb108]

Thanks...I think sucks is a bit harsh personally but whatever.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it was interesting that matt flynn came on today and said that he thinks the 5/10 rule sucks and he uses a rule of 3-8. wonder if this will be in the SSNL book.

[/ QUOTE ]

An important factor that often goes ignored is how likely you are to win that stack if you do hit.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's also important how often you can win without making a set. Lots of SSNL opponents play weakly enough that they will let you show down your unimproved pair or transparently enough that they can make it obvious that they are willing to lay down their hand if you bet. I'm okay with calling 10% or sometimes more pf against a lot of people in these games because not only do they pay off your set too often, but they let you win without one.

[MyTurn2Raise]

any cookbook recipe will suck

this is all player dependent.
It depends on your opponent's hand range and how much they will pay off if you hit. I chase an awful lot of crap againt people who go out of their way to get stacked. against nits, not so much crap.

[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]
it was interesting that matt flynn came on today and said that he thinks the 5/10 rule sucks and he uses a rule of 3-8. wonder if this will be in the SSNL book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet, I use this. I think 10% is rubbish.

[xGREGORx]

A lot of people are discussing sets in relation to the 5/10 rule, but the authors have a wider range of hands in mind. The example in which the rule is given is limping on the button with 98s and the big blind raises. The authors suggest using the 5/10 rule to call with a drawing hand when your position is good.

For sets, I evaluate my implied odds using a 10:1 criterion. The overlay above 8:1 to account for those times when I hit and don't get paid off or when I hit and still manage to lose.

[matv]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it was interesting that matt flynn came on today and said that he thinks the 5/10 rule sucks and he uses a rule of 3-8. wonder if this will be in the SSNL book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet, I use this. I think 10% is rubbish.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think not being able to call a 4xBB raise when the effective stacks are 100BB is rubbish