Posted Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:35 pm GMT by Holdempokerplyr
I made an article on Pot odds on thepokerforum.com, I thought I would share it with you guys.
What are Pot Odds?
Pot odds is the ratio of the money in the pot compared to the amount of money to call a person's bet. It's a mathematical way to help you figure out to call a bet or not.
Why use Pot Odds?
People usually use pot odds when they are debating whether to call a bet or not. They usually don't use pot odds with every bet they want to make or call. If the pot odds are greater,you should make the call.
To figure out the Pot Odds it's very simple:
For Example:
The pot contains: $36
The bet to call is: $6
Pot to Bet:
36/6 which is simplified to 6/1 or 6 to 1.
Ok so now what?
Odds of Your Hand
We compare the Pot Odds to the odds against your hand. To figure out the odds of your hand you do this.
You have two cards and there are three cards on the board.
Work:
2+3=5
52-5=47
47 not seen cards
Out of those 47 cards you have your outs and the cards that you don't need. So for example if you have 12 outs that leaves with 35 cards you don't need.
So that makes the ratio of cards you don't need to need 35 to 12 or around 3 to 1. You would have to put 35/12 into its simplest form and its around 3/1 not exact (the exact figure is 2.916 repeating). Round that off to 3 to 1. The pot would have to be at least 3 times the size of the bet.
You would not count the cards that the people folded because you don't know what they had. The two cards you hold and the cards that are out on the community board are the only seen cards that you know. That is unless someone shows their cards to you.
Comparing
Now how do I combined these odds to help me? If the pot odds are higher than the odds against making your hand, you should call the bet.
Thank You
-HoldemPokerPlyr
© The Poker Forum.com, all rights reserved
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 Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:34 am GMT by pm_french
New-ish to this so please bear with me
When people go on about calculating the pot odds and out odds when deciding wether or not you should call this is not always feasible depending on the type of game you are playing.
If you are playing a tournament game with no further buy ins then to some degree you have to look more at the out odds surely. If you are deciding wether or not to go all in, even if you are getting good value for money, if it doesn't go your way then you are out of the game for good.
Of course, with ring games then over a period of time, these sorts of calculations will make you better off.
Is this a correct way of thinking?
Posted Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:53 am GMT by suitedaces84
Pot odds are good, but if you can figure your bet odds you will be better off. Bet odds work the same as pot odds, but instead of comparing the pot to the call compare the profit to the call (profit = pot + what you predict will be added to the pot, not including what you add). *Note if your pot odds are good, your bet odds will always be good. Pot odds are often bad in situations when bet odds are good.
Ex. after turn, pot = 6, to call = 2, outs = 8. 2/(6+2*+4**)
*opponents money going into the pot before river
**opponents money in pot after river (I'm assuming he'll bet again and I can raise him)
if 2/(6+2+4) is less than 8/46, then your bet odds are good.
if 2/6 is less than 8/46, then your pot odds are good.
Posted Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:56 am GMT by suitedaces84
Made a typo in my post, it should read:
Ex. after turn, pot = 6, to call = 2, outs = 8
2/(6+2*+4**)
Posted Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:55 pm GMT by v1etr1der
Hi, I'm a newbie, trying to understand the concept of pot odds. This explanation is very clear, but I do have one question. How do you figure pot odds if someone after you raises? Do you count your first bet in? Does the pot odds change after someone raises? Any help would be much appreciated!
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:59 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Pot odds count ONLY the money already in the pot. Ignore bets that have been placed but are not yet in the pot, when using pot odds. The fact that there are bets placed that you aren't counting is the flaw of pot odds.
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:16 pm GMT by Dave B
HUH????
Include your bet and their bets. Just because it isnt in the center of the pot, it still counts. It isnt like they can take the bets back if you call or raise.
In fact, in most cases, I count bets to come to. Early position, raised preflop w/ 6 callers, check check, I bet, all call then a blind check raises. If all those guys behind me are in for 3 bets already, most will call the 4th bet to see another card.
There are no flaws in pot odds (except maybe where chips are limited in a tourney situation and you dont want to risk a tourney for a 36% chance of making a draw). Playing and creating pot odds makes money. Period.
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:37 pm GMT by suitedaces84
I was always under the impression that bet odds count the bets of the current round that have not yet been put in the middle. But I'm sure Dave B is correct about that, as he is with most everything.
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:59 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | I was always under the impression that bet odds count the bets of the current round that have not yet been put in the middle. But I'm sure Dave B is correct about that, as he is with most everything. |
Bet odds are concerned with bets that haven't been placed yet by players left to act behind. It's strictly a guess.
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:20 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Another think to consider is what will happen if you hit your draw. Let's say you have $40 in front you in a NL ring game. You've got an open-ended nut straight with unpaired rainbow board after the turn. You're heads up against a guy who you're almost positive will not fold his hand, and has a bigger stack than you do. You have 8 cards that will give you the nuts. The pot is $4 he bets $3. This gives you bad pot odds. But calling is this situation is still a good idea, if you hit your draw the potential profit will easily make up for all the times you miss your draw. Pot odds can be flawed even in a ring game.
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:24 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: |
Bet odds are concerned with bets that haven't been placed yet by players left to act behind. It's strictly a guess. |
The terms are vaguely defined on this site, there was some confusion on my end. Sorry.
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:39 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Pot odds can be flawed even in a ring game. |
It's not that the pot odds are flawed, but that you can't use pot odds alone. You also have to use implied odds, which is what you're describing. In your example, you're calling $3 not to win $7 but to win $44, the $7 in the pot plus the remaining $37 you expect to get from your opponent if you hit your draw.
The real problem is implied odds, like bet odds, are only a guess. If you call that $3, hit your draw and your opponent check/folds to your bet, then your call was bad.
FWIW, I don't consider bet odds to be any different from implied odds. They're two names for the same concept: money that has yet to be wagered by your opponent.
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:11 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Okay, now we can agree on what pot odds, and implied odds are.
My newest interpretation of bet odds (after reviewing the one sentence definition on this site) is completely different from implied odds. Bet odds are used to determine if betting a draw is profitable based on value. Example: you flop a four flush, 6 handed, you predict that 4 will call your bet. That's 4:1. The odds of hitting your flush 2:1, bet for value in this case due to bet odds. You miss your flush on the turn, and predict that 2 will call your bet. Your bet odds are now 2:1, your odds of hitting the flush drop to 4:1, do not bet for value here.
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:55 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| suitedaces84 wrote: | Okay, now we can agree on what pot odds, and implied odds are.
My newest interpretation of bet odds (after reviewing the one sentence definition on this site) is completely different from implied odds. Bet odds are used to determine if betting a draw is profitable based on value. Example: you flop a four flush, 6 handed, you predict that 4 will call your bet. That's 4:1. The odds of hitting your flush 2:1, bet for value in this case due to bet odds. You miss your flush on the turn, and predict that 2 will call your bet. Your bet odds are now 2:1, your odds of hitting the flush drop to 4:1, do not bet for value here. |
Then we have to figure out how to modify those odds to account for the possibility the bet can win you the pot without a call, or that you might already have the best hand. 
But, point taken. I think we've got all the bases covered now. :D
Posted Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:18 am GMT by Verdi
Ok, but if you have the top pair and a straight or flush isn't probable. Then what? What are the odds that no one has two pairs or a set?
And what if you hit that flush and someone has a higher flush?
Everything must be included in the calculations...
Posted Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:01 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Verdi wrote: | | Ok, but if you have the top pair and a straight or flush isn't probable. Then what? |
Then you bet! Not based on bet odds based on the fact that you have hand. Bet odds ONLY concern betting with a draw for value. For value means you want to be called.
If you have a flush and someone has a higher flush, that's rough man. Like implied odds, bet odds are an approximation, so it's not necessary to factor in the odds of someone having a better hand than you if you hit your draw.
Posted Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 pm GMT by Dakijeza
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | The real problem is implied odds, like bet odds, are only a guess. If you call that $3, hit your draw and your opponent check/folds to your bet, then your call was bad. |
I don't necessarily agree with that. If you win the pot because your opponents folded, your call was good. But, if you've implied several bets, and only one other person calls, you're not doing so well anymore.
Posted Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:34 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Dakijeza wrote: | | I don't necessarily agree with that. If you win the pot because your opponents folded, your call was good. But, if you've implied several bets, and only one other person calls, you're not doing so well anymore. |
You can't let the results justify the means, because it just falls in the variance bucket. Even if you win the pot, your call on the turn becomes bad if you don't get the return you were expecting on your river bet. If it happens enough, you will lose money because it's inherently -EV. It's sort of the inverse to the problem of bluffing a calling station: the more you do it, the less incorrect it is for them to call all the way down.
If I can find the time, I'll work up a Sklanskyesque example. Mathematics isn't open to interpretation.
Posted Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:53 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| Quote: | | You can't let the results justify the means |
Precisely.
Example: I'm holding KK on the button. Four players limp and I raise to 5xBB. One player calls with A 2 off. The flop is 8 4 J rainbow. My opponent checks and I go all-in which is 4 times the size of the pot. Now, at this point, the A 2 should throw away their hand, but if they don't and they catch their A then they won. Now, to make my point. The call preflop and the all-in call were both poor plays, but they won when their A hit on the river. Just because they won the pot does not mean they made the right play.
I'm using this example because it happened to me a few nights ago online. When another player asked her what she was thinking calling the all-in bet, she replied "Well, I had odds and I wanted to win." Needless to say she paid me well later, but it was obvious that she did not have odds to call my all-in bet (I really think the preflop call was bad here too). So, just because she won the hand does not mean that she had the proper odds to play it or that she played the hand correctly.
Posted Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:24 pm GMT by Dakijeza
Well, apples are being compared to oranges here.
BW13, you're talking about straight pot odds. I wouldn't have called that hand, either. She only had 3 outs. The odds were against her, period. No implied odds came into the picture.
I'm talking about when you consider implied odds -- basically, it's speculation -- and you're wrong but you still win money. You won because you raised. Which is the object. One of the reasons you raise is that hopefully everyone else folds.
So, say you've got bad pot odds but you imply that four players will call you and give you good implied odds. If only one calls, you're odds are screwed. You speculated, wrongly. And, it bit you.
But, if everyone folds, you win.
In this situation, you screwed up badly in your implied odds. You need to rethink why you thought four people would call you and none did. You should realize that this doesn't mean everyone will fold to you again, and that it wasn't a good call in your implied odds.
But, on the other hand, in your decision process, you might have factored in that winning the hand immediately is a possibility. You bet, or raised, and you won, which is one of the advantages of betting or raising. In this situation, you either needed everyone to call, or you needed everyone to fold. The latter happened.
In general, though, yes, if you screw up that badly on your implied odds, you should reflect on how you misread the table.
Does that make sense?
Posted Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:50 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Dakijeza wrote: | | Well, apples are being compared to oranges here. |
Sounds like it. I'm talking about calling a turn bet based on the assumption that you will get paid on the river when you make your hand. If you don't get that money on the river, whether or not you win the hand, the play is -EV and your call on the turn was incorrect.
Raising the turn to get others to fold is not what we're talking about.
Posted Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:13 am GMT by BeerWench13
My basic point was using a hand to demonstrate Sean's statement that the results shouldn't justify the means. In that hand, she won but had terrible odds to call my bet. Just because she won doesn't mean that her call was correct as far as odds are concerned. I wasn't referring to implied odds at all. There were none in that hand.
Posted Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:40 am GMT by KINGJACK
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Pot odds count ONLY the money already in the pot. Ignore bets that have been placed but are not yet in the pot, when using pot odds. The fact that there are bets placed that you aren't counting is the flaw of pot odds. |
NOPE...
In fact there is 3 thigs to look at:
ie: you have 1/3 odds of hitting the cards that gives you the nuts(or what you thik is the winning hand)
1st, bet odds
you need 3 bettors to call... easy... 1/3 undedog, need 3 callers
note: here, it dosent mather if players had bet 1million$ or one buck... well... 1million$ could be a major concern... but you know what i mean! : )
if you have only 2 bettors, you have to look at
2nd, Pot odds
if the money already in the pot + money already on the table for bets, is greater than 3 times what you have to put in... then, call.
Note:if some money is yours and you have to call a raise, this money count in the pot odds. Any way, if you had the odds to call the bet, you have the odds to call the raise... in limit game at least.
if not, you have to look at
3rd, Implied odds
If the money already in the pot + the money already on the table for bets + the extra money you think you will win by hitting your card is greater than 3 times what you have to bet, then bet.
However the think could be a big issue... dont expect your oponent to automatilcly go all in if you hit your card.
Implied odds should be use only in very close call.
Or, when you know your oponent have a monster and will definately want to see what you got!!! But online its very hard to know if he have a monster or not. Betting patern could be a good indicator... but... who knows?
In live games it could be amazingly easy. Especialy from online players!!! : )
Made some mistakes?
Dont think soo... looks clear
Any way...
|
|
