Something I don't understand about pot odds

[Supwithbates]

Obviously, pot odds are a huge part of playing poker successfully. We all know what pot odds are and what their significance is. However, the way they are described in most literature that I read is that "imagine you are flipping a coin; your opponent has to put up 3$ for your 1$ on the outcome" or whatever.

However, in poker, both players are putting the same amount of money into the pot, and the odds are being laid by the pot itself rather than the player. If I bet 20$ into a 30$ pot, my opponent is getting 2.5:1 odds to make the call, but it is entirely different from a situation where I'm betting 50$ against my opponent's 20$, isn't it? Or does the pot theoretically become "my money" when I bet at it until my bet is called by my opponent?

[LovinItAll]

Your first statement is correct: The pot is laying hte odds. The pot is nobody's money until it is won. A better line of thinking might be this:

Your opponent is getting 5:2 odds on his bet if he chooses to call your bet, which is now unowned equity.

[Lee_C]

I think the most important point to be made about pot odds is: You need to put your villian in a position to make a mistake. Whether it is call with the wrong odds (you control if you have position) or for you to call with the right odds given the hand you hold and the probability of it winning or the probability of catching the outs you still have. Once you start making plays based on +EV you will realize the value in pot odds.

[SparkyDog]

[ QUOTE ]
Your first statement is correct: The pot is laying hte odds. The pot is nobody's money until it is won. A better line of thinking might be this:

Your opponent is getting 5:2 odds on his bet if he chooses to call your bet, which is now unowned equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first statement is correct. But equity is equity, and it equals pot size mutliplied by probability of winning. Unowned equity is a contradiction in terms.

[Supwithbates]

I fully understand the value in pot odds and forcing opponents to make mistakes. I've read and fully understand Sklansky's Theory of Poker, and HoH I-III.

I think I wasn't clear in my previous post. My point is that the "pot odds" we're often taking into account are often illusory. While the pot is laying odds for our individual decisions, these odds are determined by the ratio of "unowned" money in the middle of the pot, an amalgamation of the contributions made by each participant, and the ratio of that equity to the bets made by each person. However, in the end the true expressed odds laid by each bettor are 1:1. Assuming a headsup confrontation, you are not making more money than you put in, and are thus relying solely on implied odds when you enter a pot with an inferior hand, and accordingly your ability to outplay your opponent by forcing him to make mistakes.

I thus fail to see any similarity between gambling on poker and gambling on the flip of a coin, because in one instance your opponent is making a mistake by committing 3$ for every dollar you commit; in the other, both bettors are committing the same amount of money. My thinking concerning the relationship between what I'm calling "bettor odds" which are always 1:1 and "pot odds" seems to still be somewhat unclear. In terms of its application, it's as clear as day to me, but I'm more interested in the academic aspect.

[Poker Plan]

There's two variables (this goes for any gambling bet):
-The return on your investment (ie the odds you are being laid by the pot)
-The probability that you will win

All you're interested in is the difference between these two figures (ie whether it's + or -)

So in you're coin flip game, the probability is 1:1, so you're looking for an opportunity to make back anything better than 1:1.

The other key is that once you have put a bet(s) into the pot- it's gone (at least until you hopefully win it + more).
It's no longer you're money- it's committed.

As long as every bet you put in is made in an "+EV" situation, you will always make more back than you're putting in.

Ian

[Supwithbates]

I still fear you're misunderstanding. Poker is a game of information, the flip game is not, so they're fundamentally different. In the flip game, the odds being laid are bettor odds, i.e. one bettor ponies up greater amounts of money than the other, and therefore risks much to win little.

In poker, your risk is always a 1:1 ratio with your reward in terms of pure $ amount. Say you bet all-in preflop for 100$ with a weak holding to take a pot of 3$ in no limit hold them. When you are called, you are not ever without outs to win. In this case, the pot odds are almost identical to the bettor odds, because they are both essentially 1:1.

Now look at this example: In a headsup cash game of NLHE, you are dealt KdQd and your opponent is dealt AcAs (assume both players have 200$ stacks). Blinds are 1$/2$, and you raise to 5$ from the button and your opponent smoothcalls with the aces. The flop comes Ad 5d 3c, giving you the nut flush draw. Now imagine at this point that you bet out for 7$, and your opponent raises to 20$, meaning you have to invest 13$ to win 37$, giving you 3:1 express odds in addition to substantial implied odds. In this case, pot odds clearly dictate a call, but the odds given by the pot are quite distinct from the 1:1 bettor odds being laid by your opponent.

Going back to the original coinflip analogy, I feel as if perhaps this is a poor analogy for poker. Imagine that you are betting on the best preflop hand in hold'em, and there will be no flop, turn, or river shown. All that matters are your pocket holdings against their's. How important would pot odds be in this situation? There are no implied odds. However, bettor odds would become a significant factor, as you're already either ahead or behind. This is the situation that confuses me.

[Kel]

Remember Sklansky wrote something like a poker hand starts as a battle of the antes (and/or blinds). In a HU situation with no blinds, no board and one betting round, then the odds is fixed at 1:1 and it only matters whether you have more than a 50% chance to win. If there are blinds/antes, a pot exists before any betting and the players cannot think of the money in the pot as theirs.

[Eponymous]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, pot odds are a huge part of playing poker successfully. We all know what pot odds are and what their significance is. However, the way they are described in most literature that I read is that "imagine you are flipping a coin; your opponent has to put up 3$ for your 1$ on the outcome" or whatever.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this example really used when discussing pot odds? Or expectation, rather? They are two different concepts, and the coin flip example is a better demonstration of the concept of expectation. I may be wrong, but I don't think I've seen that used to describe pot odds.

[Supwithbates]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember Sklansky wrote something like a poker hand starts as a battle of the antes (and/or blinds). In a HU situation with no blinds, no board and one betting round, then the odds is fixed at 1:1 and it only matters whether you have more than a 50% chance to win. If there are blinds/antes, a pot exists before any betting and the players cannot think of the money in the pot as theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]
which is exactly why bettor odds is different than pot odds