Can someone explain implied odds... |
|
Posted Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:46 pm GMT by xGinNJuicex
I've read some on implied odds, and i've tried to use the concept. I recently posted a topic about a hand I played where I felt I made a correct decision to draw to an up and down straight draw based on implied odds (http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/forum/t20927/interesting-drawing-hand-odds-questions). Most told me my reasoning was incorrect, I understand my mistake regarding pot odds, but I don't know where I went wrong with my reasoning as it pertains to implied odds. A simple explanation with an example or two would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
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 Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:59 pm GMT by Gunslinger
http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/forum/t20474/implied-odds
Posted Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:53 pm GMT by xGinNJuicex
thank you
Posted Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:58 am GMT by Poto
Make sure you don't fall into a habit of overvaluing implied odds, cause that can be a very bad thing. When I first started playing poker I learned about pot odds and when I later got to know what Implied odds was I think I disregarded pot odds a little too much.
Just a thought.
Posted Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:19 pm GMT by xGinNJuicex
| Poto wrote: | Make sure you don't fall into a habit of overvaluing implied odds, cause that can be a very bad thing. When I first started playing poker I learned about pot odds and when I later got to know what Implied odds was I think I disregarded pot odds a little too much.
Just a thought. |
I try to use implied odds only when I'm drawing to the nuts or close-and in situations where I'm more than likely getting paid if I hit. That's a good point though and I will make sure to keep it in mind.
Is there any difference in using implied odds if you are involved in a multi-way pot? The example I posted in another topic was one in which there were numerous people in the pot, and one extra caller or so was needed to give me the right odds to be drawing. Are implied odds better in this situation or when you are heads up?
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:56 am GMT by snoogins47
There's no quick and dirty answer to figuring out what changes based on how many people are involved, and getting into the habit of 'only using implied odds' in some scenarios can be quite dangerous.
I think people make way too much of the whole thing, assuming that it's some ultra complicated way-over-their-head concept, and then do everything they can to make it feel as complicated as possible. That's pretty much how I operated when I first heard all these wacky terms.
You will hear all sorts of semantic arguing over what defines 'implied odds,' when it applies, when it doesn't.... but ignore it all. The underlying concept is just that you have to look at what can/will happen on the future streets, as opposed to just worrying about the situation right in front of you at the moment.
There are plenty of non-drawing situations in which you will want to take 'implied odds' into account. Many of them aren't so favorable though, giving us the big-bad-"omg i dont understand what this means" reverse implied odds. Sometimes, trapping, or betting/raising 'suboptimal' amounts can all be a part of the so-called "implied odds" puzzle.
The best advice I can give is to try and forget all the terms, and just try to re-orient the way you think about everything. If you always just think of how much money you might win, lose, etc. on future streets, depending on what scenarios can come up, you'll realize that you just magically developed an understanding of all these fancy concepts without overthinking it, and without strangling the effectiveness of the concepts by trying to apply bits and pieces.
You'll begin to see how all of these things apply pretty quickly if you just do that.
In response to the original link (the SNG hand): there are other things to consider here, that fall under the broad umbrella of implied odds, beyond just the fact that the pot is small. One, with a bet and a raise already in front of you, there's some chance of more action on the flop after you call: with all the action, you'll almost certainly be facing a sizeable bet on the turn if you miss: you have two outs that complete bring a 3 flush, which hurts you a lot (weakens your hand if you hit, and makes it much more likely that you will either be forced to pay off a better hand, as well as making it much more likely that you will be paid off by a worse hand)
The flaw in the reasoning is less of a failing of logic, and more of a failure when it came to considering all of the evidence available before arriving at a conclusion. But don't stress about it, the whole journey of poker improvement is almost exclusively learning how to get more/more accurate information, and learning how to process it.
You're on the right track though, thinking that you may have made a mistake initially, which caused your next call to be correct. That's one of my favorite ways to rationalize awful calls when I'm drunk, too 
"What do you mean 'why did I cap preflop with 57o?' I did it so I'd be right to call two-cold on the flop with a gutshot, dumbass"
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:16 pm GMT by xGinNJuicex
| snoogins47 wrote: | There's no quick and dirty answer to figuring out what changes based on how many people are involved, and getting into the habit of 'only using implied odds' in some scenarios can be quite dangerous.
I think people make way too much of the whole thing, assuming that it's some ultra complicated way-over-their-head concept, and then do everything they can to make it feel as complicated as possible. That's pretty much how I operated when I first heard all these wacky terms.
You will hear all sorts of semantic arguing over what defines 'implied odds,' when it applies, when it doesn't.... but ignore it all. The underlying concept is just that you have to look at what can/will happen on the future streets, as opposed to just worrying about the situation right in front of you at the moment.
There are plenty of non-drawing situations in which you will want to take 'implied odds' into account. Many of them aren't so favorable though, giving us the big-bad-"omg i dont understand what this means" reverse implied odds. Sometimes, trapping, or betting/raising 'suboptimal' amounts can all be a part of the so-called "implied odds" puzzle.
The best advice I can give is to try and forget all the terms, and just try to re-orient the way you think about everything. If you always just think of how much money you might win, lose, etc. on future streets, depending on what scenarios can come up, you'll realize that you just magically developed an understanding of all these fancy concepts without overthinking it, and without strangling the effectiveness of the concepts by trying to apply bits and pieces.
You'll begin to see how all of these things apply pretty quickly if you just do that.
In response to the original link (the SNG hand): there are other things to consider here, that fall under the broad umbrella of implied odds, beyond just the fact that the pot is small. One, with a bet and a raise already in front of you, there's some chance of more action on the flop after you call: with all the action, you'll almost certainly be facing a sizeable bet on the turn if you miss: you have two outs that complete bring a 3 flush, which hurts you a lot (weakens your hand if you hit, and makes it much more likely that you will either be forced to pay off a better hand, as well as making it much more likely that you will be paid off by a worse hand)
The flaw in the reasoning is less of a failing of logic, and more of a failure when it came to considering all of the evidence available before arriving at a conclusion. But don't stress about it, the whole journey of poker improvement is almost exclusively learning how to get more/more accurate information, and learning how to process it.
You're on the right track though, thinking that you may have made a mistake initially, which caused your next call to be correct. That's one of my favorite ways to rationalize awful calls when I'm drunk, too
"What do you mean 'why did I cap preflop with 57o?' I did it so I'd be right to call two-cold on the flop with a gutshot, dumbass" |
Thanks for taking the time. Best advice I've gotten on this so far. I often do think as far ahead as possible but sometimes I get hung up on odds and the current situation. I consider myself an intermediate player, so I am often wrong when it comes to predicting what may happen on 4th or 5th. I do need more work in that area than in my understanding of odds in every situation.
|
|
