Pot odds - right or wrong?

[Sniiii]

Blinds are 3/6k, one raises to 22k, one calls, I call. Next pushes all in for another 89k, which makes pot 164k. I have a 40% chance of winning the hand PF, hypothetically speaking. Is this the right formula?

164k/89k = 1,8~ getting ~ 2/1 = 50%
which means i'd have to fold with a 40% hand?

correct?

[SunOfBeach]

If I'm understanding right, blinds are 3/6, and one raises to 22, someone calls 22, you call 22, next pushes all in for 22 plus 89, then blinds fold, then pf raiser and first caller both fold, and now it's to you. I also assume that you're not in a blind. So, you need to call 89 more, to win a pot of 3+6+22+22+22+22+89 = 182. I dont know if your number (164) is different than mine due to someone being in a blind, or confusion over the exact amount of the push (89 more, or total?) or whatnot...

But anyway,

If you need to call 89 to win 182, and you have 40% pot equity if you call, then you'll win 182 40% of the time, and lose 89 60% of the time. That's ~73- ~53 = ~20. Based only on pot odds, it's a call.

Put more simply, 89 ~ half of 182, so you need to be better than 2:1. 40% is 1.5:1.

If the pot is 164, you still get +EV by calling.

[Low_Card2]

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm understanding right, blinds are 3/6, and one raises to 22, someone calls 22, you call 22, next pushes all in for 22 plus 89, then blinds fold, then pf raiser and first caller both fold, and now it's to you. I also assume that you're not in a blind. So, you need to call 89 more, to win a pot of 3+6+22+22+22+22+89 = 182. I dont know if your number (164) is different than mine due to someone being in a blind, or confusion over the exact amount of the push (89 more, or total?) or whatnot...

But anyway,

If you need to call 89 to win 182, and you have 40% pot equity if you call, then you'll win 182 40% of the time, and lose 89 60% of the time. That's ~73- ~53 = ~20. Based only on pot odds, it's a call.

Put more simply, 89 ~ half of 182, so you need to be better than 2:1. 40% is 1.5:1.

If the pot is 164, you still get +EV by calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Pokerfarian]

"164k/89k = 1,8~ getting ~ 2/1 = 50%"

It should be (164+89)/89 = 2.8~ = call

[JustCuz]

[ QUOTE ]
"164k/89k = 1,8~ getting ~ 2/1 = 50%"

It should be (164+89)/89 = 2.8~ = call

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you counting the 89 call he is contimplating, but has not yet committed, as part of the pot when calculating pot odds (164+89/89)???

[DevinLake]

sonofbeach has it right barring any small mistake with the blinds.

But, I just want to clear up the OP's confusion between odds and probability. Two different things.

In your calculation you came to the conclusion that 2-1 odds = 50%. This is not the case.

2-1 odds means that you need to win once for every two times you lose. In other words, you need to win 1 out of 3.

So, 2-1 odds is 1/3 in terms of probability. 1/3 = 33%.

A 40% hand means you will win 40 times out of a 100 and lose 60 times. So, in terms of odds, 60-40 or 1.5-1.

[startrak]

where did you guys learn about poker math? I've been reading BLdSWtTRs' old posts and he seems to understand the math excepionally well, so I guess it's important. I just have no idea where to start.

The Bill Chen book seems to be too much about limit poker stuff and not EV +/- moves.

[jay_shark]

[ QUOTE ]
Blinds are 3/6k, one raises to 22k, one calls, I call. Next pushes all in for another 89k, which makes pot 164k. I have a 40% chance of winning the hand PF, hypothetically speaking. Is this the right formula?

164k/89k = 1,8~ getting ~ 2/1 = 50%
which means i'd have to fold with a 40% hand?

correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

In total , there is 3+6+22+22+22+89 = 164 .
Assuming the other two players have folded and it's a heads up pot and it's 67 more for you to call , you're getting pot odds of 164:67 which means you need to win at least 67/(164+67) or 28.6% and so a call is mandatory .

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
where did you guys learn about poker math?

[/ QUOTE ]

Public school maybe? I dunno, maybe as late as high school? jk. Although I did learn that stuff in school, it is covered in a lot of books. Theory of Poker might be a good place to start.