Originally Posted by Styrofoam
you can't play completely mathmatically every time (although, you would if you knew everyone's cards) the implied odds are somewhat of a judgement call.... I'd still stick to roughly the pot odds, and don't make any bad calls. I don't think sklansky is pushing poor calls with odds here.
It's a bit of a judgment call, sure. But at the same time, if you routinely make laydowns where you have obvious implied odds that justify a call, you're missing out on potential profit. For example:
Limit hold'em, you're on the button with JTs. A middle position player limps, you limp, the folds and and the BB raises.
Flop comes 89K rainbow. There are 6SB in the pot. BB bets and the limper calls. There are now 8 bets in the pot, giving you 8-1, but your gutshot requires 10.5-1 to call profitably.
You should call here. If you hit your straight, you will most likely win at least one more BIG bet from one of the two people ahead of you, and very often more.
In aggressive games, the implied odds are often huge, and "peeling" on the flop (taking a new card for the small bet) is often okay. Don't go too far with it, though; always peeling on the flop - which a lot of weak players do "just because it's cheap" - adds up to a LOT of bets in the long run. But some of these situations are profitable. It's essential to learn how to properly count the outs, which there may be more of than one would have thought.
For instance, playing AK on a flop that missed me. This used to be a nightmare situation for me, but after realizing how to properly adjust my thinking to the outs that I had (including "hidden" outs), it becomes a walk in the park. That's a discussion better left for Small Stakes Hold 'em by Ed Miller though, and we'll get there soon enough.