TexasHoldem-Poker.com

[mortaleclipse]

What does this mean exactly?

[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.

[HalfSugar]

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?

[KingOHearts]

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.

[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).

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Jauron]

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?

[mortaleclipse]

No this is my question, maybe your right. Im trying to get my terms correct and have a better understanding of them.

[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 [ 5s 6h ]
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 ** [ 8d, Ah, 7c ]
Ensano bets [$1.60]
Ekunde calls [$1.60]
** Dealing Turn ** [ Kh ]
Ensano bets [$3.50]
Ekunde raises [$7]
Ensano calls [$3.50]
** Dealing River ** [ 9d ]
Ensano checks.
Ekunde bets [$8]
Ensano is all-In.
Ekunde is all-In.
Ekunde shows [ As, Ad ]three of a kind, Aces.
Ensano shows [ 5s, 6h ]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...

[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$.

[HalfSugar]

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.

[supafrey]

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?

[HalfSugar]

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