4/8 live, JTo in the BB flops a gutty

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Chess, the reason I'm not worried about that is because that's not the point of the exercise. I'm willing to stipulate that we'll make up the bets on the river for this hand. I'll even stipulate that we're making up twice the bets we need to on this hand.

(fwiw, I made the hand up.)



[/ QUOTE ]

If you know you will always make 3+ BB when you hit, then peeling the turn is a no-brainer. In fact, if you only wanted an answer to your question about the karmic load of making up lost bets from past hands with implied odds, then why didn't you just ask it, rather than making up a hand that was interesting only because of the uncertainty about the number of bets you might get if you connected on the river.

[sigh]...

[James.]

hey boz,

your odds are better than they appear because you aren't investing a single bet more without hitting your hand. i think for this reason you need to look at what the total pot size is at the end of the hand to see what your "odds" on the turn really were. sorry if i misunderstood what you were getting at, but i seem to think you are wondering how making calls like this(with much of the profitability relying on implied odds)is not costing you in the longrun.

[SixForty]

Hey bozlax,

I think I understand what you are asking here, so let me take a stab at it:

[ QUOTE ]
In this case, we're making a call on the turn because we're going to make up bets when we hit on the river, enough to make up for the deficit in our odds when we made the turn call. But what about the 10 out of 11 times that we make that call and DON'T hit on the river? Do those missing bets just disappear? Isn't making calls because our implied odds are good enough to make up the difference in this hand -EV if the implied odds don't make up for the hands that we miss?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not, but that's the point. We're making a call without the odds 11 times because we will make up enough bets to cover the odds 1 time. Doesn't that seem wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is precisely the point I'm disagreeing with. Implied odds don't magically add 2 bets to the pot. It's a technicality that allows us to make a +EV call out of a -EV call; shouldn't we be adjusting that based on the chance that we'll make the hand? It does seem like that should be built in to the concept, I just can't wrap my head around, using the presented example, if you applied implied odds correctly 11 times you're spending 12 bets to win 2.


[/ QUOTE ]

From all these statements, it seem to me like you are focusing only on the implied odds, and fogetting one very important thing: Current Pot Odds. This is where you get the bets that I think you are missing.

If a hand has an 10:1 shot of improving, and the pot is lying you 9:1, then you need implied odds to make up the difference. But it's only the difference that you need to make up. The rest is covered by the current pot.

Let's forget about implied odds for a moment. You make the call 11 times. 10 times you lose, and you are out one bet. But 1 time you win, and you gain 9 bets. It's these bets here that are covering your losses from the times that you miss. So over those 11 times that you call, you lose 10 bets but gain 9 bets, for a total net loss of only 1 bet.

It is this single bet here that is the only thing that you need to make up through implied odds. All your single bet losses are covered by what's already in that 9 bet pot.

I hope that answers your question - actually, I hope I understood your question correctly! If not, ignore all this! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[_TKO_]

SixForty: good explanation. From my understanding of the question, this seems to answer it perfectly.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
SixForty: good explanation. From my understanding of the question, this seems to answer it perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Werd...that is the part I was leaving out.