Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:23 am GMT by mortaleclipse
What does this mean exactly?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:46 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Implied odds factor in how much you could POTENTIALLY win beyond pure pot odds.
For instance, say you have a small pocket pair (say, 66) in 100 BB No-Limit. Say your opponent raises 4x the BB, and for some reason you KNEW he had AA. Calling here is a mistake by pure pot odds, because you are getting less than even 2-to-1 and you are a 4-to-1 dog. BUT, if the flop comes 6-x-x, you might win his entire 100 BB stack, not just the 4 BB you committed preflop. Thus, your implied odds would be more on the order of 25-to-1.
Estimating implied odds involves just that... estimating; it is not an exact science. But the basic concept is summed up with an old Poker saying, "turning a tooth pick into a lumber yard."
Basically, implied odds are what make it profitable to play hands like suited connectors or small pairs, even against a raise.
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:34 am GMT by Geno
If I understand implied odds correctly, I personally feel a bit like they are a tool for helping players who like a bit of gamble to justify their actions perhaps incorrectly.
Implied odds in a NL game when there is a family pot are especially dubious in my opinion (doesn't really apply in a FL game since a family pot is likely to be offering correct pot odds on every street). You can never really be sure who will and will not call at any time so if you are sat in, say, second position in a 6 way pot with a nut flush draw and the player UTG puts in a raise that prices you out the pot, you can justify calling if you think a later player will call pricing you in to the pot. To me, this is a bad way to play but perhaps I am misunderstanding the concept?
Maybe implied odds were invented when people who studied the game found pot odds too restrictive? Who knows, all I know is that I tend not to assume anything of anyone which is a fairly 'safe' way to play. Then again, I am not exactly a great player so what the hell do I know? 
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:50 am GMT by KingOHearts
| Geno wrote: | If I understand implied odds correctly, I personally feel a bit like they are a tool for helping players who like a bit of gamble to justify their actions perhaps incorrectly.
Implied odds in a NL game when there is a family pot are especially dubious in my opinion (doesn't really apply in a FL game since a family pot is likely to be offering correct pot odds on every street). You can never really be sure who will and will not call at any time so if you are sat in, say, second position in a 6 way pot with a nut flush draw and the player UTG puts in a raise that prices you out the pot, you can justify calling if you think a later player will call pricing you in to the pot. To me, this is a bad way to play but perhaps I am misunderstanding the concept?
Maybe implied odds were invented when people who studied the game found pot odds too restrictive? Who knows, all I know is that I tend not to assume anything of anyone which is a fairly 'safe' way to play. Then again, I am not exactly a great player so what the hell do I know? |
I think DC put it quite aptly....its an estimate, but an informed one. Not solely an excuse to gamble. We do this in other ways all the time when we dont know the odds for sure. We estimate that villian has a 50% chance of holding XX, or we estimate that villian is bluffing XX% of the time in this situation. I see implied odds no differently. You are acting not only on what you know for sure, but also on what you estimate will happen based on what you do.
To use your family pot situation....in 2nd position with nut flush draw in a 6 way pot...what other hands are likely to be in that will call a raise....especially if you call and help to price them in? A lesser flush draw perhaps? And then if the flush hits how likely is this particular villian to pay you off? This figures into your implied odds to call.
Oh yeah...and my signature quote arose out of this exact type of situation, where I stacked someone based on calling a bet with what I thought were the proper implied odds. 
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:12 am GMT by supafrey
Implied odds : How much money we think we're gonna make if we make this hand. This is supposed to be based on something - using it to gamble is no different than any other leak.
Reverse implied odds : How much money we are going to lose if we make our hand. (Because our opponent will make a better one).
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:49 pm GMT by shorn7
Whiel it can be true that some people will ise implied odds to make very loose (and sometimes weak) calls, this is an essential piece of the NL puzzle that you must apply if you want to be a LT winner. Basically, it all comes down to knowing your opponents tendencies and how you have seen them play in the past. IF the opponent is a total rock who won't overplay AA on a rag flop, then your odds aren't as good. IF he is wildly aggressive then you need a lower # to call since if you do flop your set, you will take his stack.
One other thing to point out is that when we make a call of a raise with a small pair or suited connector, sometimes we are ahead of the raiser right now (if he holds unpaired high cards). So, you can mae these calls more often IN POSITION simply because of the combined chances of flopping your set or taking the pot down later when your opponent misses. Basically, I want higher implied odds to make these calls out of position then I do when I am behind the raiser.
Posted Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:59 pm GMT by mortaleclipse
Ok think im understanding and that basically what i thought it was. Take this hand I played about a month ago and it was because i thought implied odds were in effect here.
All people at table ahve around 50 bucks including myself.
First to act raises to 2 dolalrs. I call with 8  9 and the BB reraises to 5 dollars and other guys calls. Now its on me which I am on the button I would call here cause how much money is on the pot and what comes on that flop Ic ould get paid off well with my hand.
Flop came 2 7 10  . First to act goes 15 and the second guy goes all in. Now thinking I have nice outs and 3 to 1 on my money this would be the right call with flush and straight draw. Turn comes K and river a blank. Villians show queens and jacks and I take down the 150 dollar pot. Now I believe that was a call for implied odds that I would get paid off on my hand if I floped my golden flop. Was I correct to call this in your guys opinion?
Posted Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:14 pm GMT by Ensano
to my understanding that's exactly it. same as playing a med PP you don't need 8 to 1 odds to call preflop cause you know if you hit your set you're going to suck in some extra money... and is you miss you can let it go... the hand you played had the flop come A-K-2 rainbow with a bet and a raise you would fold and that would be that... so taking implied odds into account you called 3$ preflop to win their whole stakes (50$) each
or am I wrong?
Posted Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:17 pm GMT by Jauron
| mortaleclipse wrote: | Ok think im understanding and that basically what i thought it was. Take this hand I played about a month ago and it was because i thought implied odds were in effect here.
All people at table ahve around 50 bucks including myself.
First to act raises to 2 dolalrs. I call with 8 9 and the BB reraises to 5 dollars and other guys calls. Now its on me which I am on the button I would call here cause how much money is on the pot and what comes on that flop Ic ould get paid off well with my hand.
Flop came 2 7 10 . First to act goes 15 and the second guy goes all in. Now thinking I have nice outs and 3 to 1 on my money this would be the right call with flush and straight draw. Turn comes K and river a blank. Villians show queens and jacks and I take down the 150 dollar pot. Now I believe that was a call for implied odds that I would get paid off on my hand if I floped my golden flop. Was I correct to call this in your guys opinion? |
Unless I am missing something there is no 3-1 odds calling 45 into a pot of ~80.
Regardless you never put villian on a hand or explained how villian would be likely to call or move in if you hit the right flop enough to have implied odds. This seems to me more like the gamble side of implied odds, an excuse to do so. When a player is all in, and everyone has about the same meaning likely a dry side pot I am not sure how you have implied odds, ever just pot odds.
To me if the money is in the middle and you are left only to call, we have only pot odds, never implied odds.
Am I missing something here?
Posted Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:57 pm GMT by mortaleclipse
No this is my question, maybe your right. Im trying to get my terms correct and have a better understanding of them.
Posted Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:02 am GMT by Ensano
or maybe implied odds are more a consideration for situations like these...
***** Hand History for Game 5518109825 *****
$25 NL Texas Hold'em - Tuesday, December 19, 18:58:33 ET 2006
Table Table 126980 (Real Money)
Seat 9 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: Ekunde ( $21.90 )
Seat 2: Hooligan_ehv ( $30.50 )
Seat 3: ikiz77 ( $8.60 )
Seat 4: duralexsedle ( $55.77 )
Seat 5: mandee1222 ( $23.65 )
Seat 6: o_Maximus_o ( $24 )
Seat 7: pandamaru ( $21.50 )
Seat 8: ben_richard1 ( $49.19 )
Seat 9: Moye85 ( $4.25 )
Seat 10: Ensano ( $24.75 )
Ensano posts small blind $0.10.
Ekunde posts big blind $0.25.
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Ensano  
Hooligan_ehv folds.
ikiz77 folds.
duralexsedle folds.
o_Maximus_o folds.
pandamaru calls $0.25
ben_richard1 calls $0.25
Moye85 folds.
Ensano calls $0.15
Ekunde raises $0.95
pandamaru folds.
ben_richard1 folds.
Ensano calls $0.95
** Dealing Flop **   
Ensano bets $1.60
Ekunde calls $1.60
** Dealing Turn ** 
Ensano bets $3.50
Ekunde raises $7
Ensano calls $3.50
** Dealing River ** 
Ensano checks.
Ekunde bets $8
Ensano is all-In.
Ekunde is all-In.
Ekunde shows   three of a kind, Aces.
Ensano shows a straight Five to Nine.
Ensano wins $2.85 from side pot #1 with a straight, Five to Nine.
Ensano wins $42.10 from the main pot with a straight, Five to Nine.
#Game No : 5518113337
on the turn I was getting 4.11 to 1 to call but needed 4.75 to 1 to call with 8 solid outs... so technically i wasn't getting the right odds but if I hit my draw I am taking his stack or at least a small bet out of him to compensate...
Posted Mon Dec 25, 2006 4:25 pm GMT by Jefecaminador
pot odds is the ratio of the money in the pot RIGHT NOW, vs how much you have to put in to call. If the pot is 30$ and you have to call a 10$ bet, you're getting 3-1 pot odds.
Implied odds are how much you THINK you can win if you make your hand.
Say you have a flush draw and your opponent has an overpair which he'll commit the rest of his chips with if you hit.
If your opponent bets 10$ and has 50$ left, your IMPLIED odds for calling are 5-1. Because if you hit your hand it is "implied" that you will take the rest of his 50$.
Posted Mon Dec 25, 2006 5:55 pm GMT by Geno
My issue still remains:
Pot odds are totally based in fact, eg "the pot is Y, with my bet I am getting X to 1 on my call which when compared to the statistical odds of hitting my card it is right/wrong to call".
Implied odds involve a very grey area whereby you have to put your opponent(s) on certain hands when really you have no certainty over what they hold or how they will react to the next card/action.
Posted Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:10 pm GMT by supafrey
| Geno wrote: | My issue still remains:
Pot odds are totally based in fact, eg "the pot is Y, with my bet I am getting X to 1 on my call which when compared to the statistical odds of hitting my card it is right/wrong to call".
Implied odds involve a very grey area whereby you have to put your opponent(s) on certain hands when really you have no certainty over what they hold or how they will react to the next card/action. |
While technically true, aren't like... 99% of our poker decisions based on similarly incomplete information?
Posted Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:20 pm GMT by Geno
Definitely, half the time when we are counting odds we are assuming that all our cards are still live in the deck which is clearly wrong. I guess implied odds is the theory that makes me the most uneasy in poker so I tend not to pay too much attention to it. That probably explains why I am far too tight a player generally and have never done better than third in a MTT in 8 years of playing 
Posted Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:27 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | Definitely, half the time when we are counting odds we are assuming that all our cards are still live in the deck which is clearly wrong. |
No we're not. We're assuming that it's just as likely that they're taken as if they were not.
I meant more with like... any decision we make?
Posted Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:15 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Jefecaminador wrote: | | If your opponent bets 10$ and has 50$ left, your IMPLIED odds for calling are 5-1. Because if you hit your hand it is "implied" that you will take the rest of his 50$. |
It's usually best to subtract a few from what your opponent has left because you won't get it all everytime.
Posted Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:08 pm GMT by supafrey
suited he specifically mentioned a gaurantee.
Posted Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:58 pm GMT by TheSalche
| supafrey wrote: | | Reverse implied odds : How much money we are going to lose if we make our hand. (Because our opponent will make a better one). |
I didn't take reverse implied odds to mean that. I'm pretty sure its usually used as the fact that if we make our hand we are unlikely to get paid off. For example: board is Q x x clubs and our opponent has top pair weak kicker and makes good laydowns, we hold the ace of clubs. If a club comes on the turn/river we are unlikely to extract enough money to justify making a call with improper pot odds.
Posted Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:11 pm GMT by supafrey
| TheSalche wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | | Reverse implied odds : How much money we are going to lose if we make our hand. (Because our opponent will make a better one). |
I didn't take reverse implied odds to mean that. I'm pretty sure its usually used as the fact that if we make our hand we are unlikely to get paid off. For example: board is Q x x clubs and our opponent has top pair weak kicker and makes good laydowns, we hold the ace of clubs. If a club comes on the turn/river we are unlikely to extract enough money to justify making a call with improper pot odds. |
No. Your example just illustrates some of the finer points of implied odds.
An example of reverse implied odds would be drawing to a flush on a paired board against a nitty player. While we may hit our monster, the cost of that may be too dear to draw, so we fold because of reverse implied odds. Better that than getting stacked vs his likely fh. Got it?
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:21 am GMT by mortaleclipse
Supa u talking drawing to the nut flush when hes got the boat? Im kinda confused on what you are saying
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:37 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| mortaleclipse wrote: | | Supa u talking drawing to the nut flush when hes got the boat? |
Yes, or drawing to one.
For example, you hold K Q, villain has A A . Board shows A 7 3 6.
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:47 am GMT by supafrey
Not only if he already has the boat, but also if he's drawing to it as well.
Lets do an example with some cards...
You have the 3 2 .
The board reads T T 8
The pot has $100 in it and there's a $30 bet to you, headsup, with you out of position. This example would work fine even if we were in position, but whatever - I'm trying to make this example easy. We have $150 in our stack at this point, with our opp covering us. What do we do?
To simplify, lets say that our opp will likely give away a good chunk of his stack if the board gets a third club, regardless of his hand. Does this change anything? Not really.
While the pot odds might be excellent, we haveta consider what likely holdings most opps have. Normally we'd assume we have a solid 9 outs. Problem is, most likely holdings for this kind of a scenario include AT, KT, QT, JT, 9T, Jc9c, 7c9c, or even a larger draw. Even if we were to have the A and 2 , we have little idea whether the 9, J or K of would actually boat up our opp. Reverse implied odds are sort of like the implied odds that our opponent has to draw to his hand, except we're the ones considering it for him - hence "reverse"
Yes, we could win a really nice pot here on occasion, but for most real life scenarios a lot of better players would easily fold trips in this situation if the final flush card comes up. So basically, while the pot odds may be in our favour, the most likely scenarios that will come up include:
1. We miss our draw and lose (or hit a pair, stubbornly assume they have nothing and get stacked, etc)
2. We hit our flush draw, our opp doesn't have one AND doesn't boat up, and folds to any bet of any size. (Not everything is as perfect as my scenario...)
3. We hit our flush, but the hand our opp hits (which we've already discussed could literally be anything from T7 and up) boats him and we lose our entire stack.
This gets trickier with more complicated scenarios... (Flushes are easy to spot - most things aren't)
Edit: While typing, sean posted a slightly more difficult to "spot" example of reverse implied odds.
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:03 am GMT by mortaleclipse
Well I usually dont try to get to involved if the board pairs and im drawing to say a straight. Like you said my money card could be their better money card.
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:23 am GMT by supafrey
Congrats. You have figured out 1 particular example out of like.. a thousand where implied odds and their backwards cousin can apply. =)
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:04 am GMT by aaronw
| supafrey wrote: | Not only if he already has the boat, but also if he's drawing to it as well.
Lets do an example with some cards...
You have the 3 2 .
The board reads T T 8
The pot has $100 in it and there's a $30 bet to you, headsup, with you out of position. This example would work fine even if we were in position, but whatever - I'm trying to make this example easy. We have $150 in our stack at this point, with our opp covering us. What do we do?
To simplify, lets say that our opp will likely give away a good chunk of his stack if the board gets a third club, regardless of his hand. Does this change anything? Not really.
While the pot odds might be excellent, we haveta consider what likely holdings most opps have. Normally we'd assume we have a solid 9 outs. Problem is, most likely holdings for this kind of a scenario include AT, KT, QT, JT, 9T, Jc9c, 7c9c, or even a larger draw. Even if we were to have the A and 2 , we have little idea whether the 9, J or K of would actually boat up our opp. Reverse implied odds are sort of like the implied odds that our opponent has to draw to his hand, except we're the ones considering it for him - hence "reverse"
Yes, we could win a really nice pot here on occasion, but for most real life scenarios a lot of better players would easily fold trips in this situation if the final flush card comes up. So basically, while the pot odds may be in our favour, the most likely scenarios that will come up include:
1. We miss our draw and lose (or hit a pair, stubbornly assume they have nothing and get stacked, etc)
2. We hit our flush draw, our opp doesn't have one AND doesn't boat up, and folds to any bet of any size. (Not everything is as perfect as my scenario...)
3. We hit our flush, but the hand our opp hits (which we've already discussed could literally be anything from T7 and up) boats him and we lose our entire stack.
This gets trickier with more complicated scenarios... (Flushes are easy to spot - most things aren't)
Edit: While typing, sean posted a slightly more difficult to "spot" example of reverse implied odds. |
Very good explanation. I completely agree with this!
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 3:52 am GMT by TheSalche
weird ... i always thought it was my way
oh well
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:32 am GMT by shorn7
Supa-
Great post and discussion. Thanks for sharing the knowledge you clearly have with all of us.
Shorn
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:14 am GMT by supafrey
Small supplementary:
Do we see why having the ace, jack, or nine of clubs greatly improves our hand?
Considering these are the likeliest cards that our opp would also have (probably dominating us and with top trips, now) that now allows us to draw farther into the hand without having to worry as much about filling up our opponent. While we can't be certain of what our opp has, even if we're certain he has the trips we have to remember what likely cards he called with preflop - if we hold that second card there's no chance that we can go broke due to the boat.
While the implied odds of the hand haven't changed, the reverse ones have. God I hate jargon.
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:21 am GMT by Dave B
fold preflop
Posted Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:15 pm GMT by Implied_Odds
I shoot for Tilt Implied Odds. Thats how you get paid.
|
|
