Implied Odds and their real application in Online Poker.

I made a good effort this year on going back to practice and work on my implied odds. For years, I kept putting it off as I found it just too much hassle and too abstract, but I think I got it now. However I realised that the concept of Implied Odds has a fundamental flaw in its philosophy in relation to modern poker; It encourages you to be a calling station.

I wasn't a winning player, largely I was blaming my draw chasing. That's why I went on to improve my understanding and aplication of pot odds. I have been using implied odds almost quite effortlessly multitabling 8 tables. Yet, to my despair I am losing, over a stretch of 25k hands. I was blaming bad luck, but then I turned on Non-Showdown winnings and almost died in a shock.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2fqy8z9evzy8916/Results.png?dl=0

It is quite normal for the redline to be in negative, I am aware, but not like this. My non-showdowns are literally offsetting my winrate. This could be due to several factors, and I am yet to make a proper revision to find out more. But among usual suspects are Low Cbet success, calling 3bets too much, giving up too much and this includes the River!

Say you have a Flush Draw on the Flop IP. UTG raised and we Flatted (lets put aside 3betting for this example) Flop came AXX. We flopped a flush draw and say he did a Top Pair. Pot is $10. He leads for 6. We have around 18% for the Turn. In order to continue we need $27 (rounded off) to break even. His bet + pot is 16. So we will need to get at least $11 from villain if we hit. He has $190 behind him, effective.
We call Turn is blank. Pot is $22. He leads again for 16. We still have pretty much the same equity as before. This time we need 73+plus from last street $11. That's $84, minus the pot. We need to get paid at least $46 if we hit. Which should be easy, as the pot will be $54 once we call. We are IP, and he is showing way too much strength, we'll get a lot more!! We call, and the River card is blank. He bets the River and we fold.

This is essentially the approach Implied Odds take you to. What I find quite interesting is that modern poker theory is a bit in a state of self-contradiction. On the one hand every poker book and blog cannot emphasize enough pot odds and outs. And on the other hand, modern theory emphasizes raising your draws (which, indeed, is a powerful move).

I understand the motif behind these powerful semibluffs: improving the redline by raising Cbets, concealing your flush when it hits, disseminating predictability by mixing up raising and calling with your draws. But how do you reconcile the two?

The only thing coming to mind is using Implied Odds when you decide to call (which at this stage of poker play is the minority of the time).

Daithi said:

I made a good effort this year on going back to practice and work on my implied odds. For years, I kept putting it off as I found it just too much hassle and too abstract, but I think I got it now. However I realised that the concept of Implied Odds has a fundamental flaw in its philosophy in relation to modern poker; It encourages you to be a calling station.

I wasn't a winning player, largely I was blaming my draw chasing. That's why I went on to improve my understanding and aplication of Pot Odds. I have been using implied odds almost quite effortlessly multitabling 8 tables. Yet, to my despair I am losing, over a stretch of 25k hands. I was blaming bad luck, but then I turned on Non-Showdown winnings and almost died in a shock.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2fqy8z9evzy8916/Results.png?dl=0

It is quite normal for the redline to be in negative, I am aware, but not like this. My non-showdowns are literally offsetting my winrate. This could be due to several factors, and I am yet to make a proper revision to find out more. But among usual suspects are Low Cbet success, calling 3bets too much, giving up too much and this includes the River!

Say you have a Flush Draw on the Flop IP. UTG raised and we Flatted (lets put aside 3betting for this example) Flop came AXX. We flopped a flush draw and say he did a Top Pair. Pot is $10. He leads for 6. We have around 18% for the Turn. In order to continue we need $27 (rounded off) to break even. His bet + pot is 16. So we will need to get at least $11 from villain if we hit. He has $190 behind him, effective.
We call Turn is blank. Pot is $22. He leads again for 16. We still have pretty much the same equity as before. This time we need 73+plus from last street $11. That's $84, minus the pot. We need to get paid at least $46 if we hit. Which should be easy, as the pot will be $54 once we call. We are IP, and he is showing way too much strength, we'll get a lot more!! We call, and the River card is blank. He bets the River and we fold.

This is essentially the approach Implied Odds take you to. What I find quite interesting is that modern poker theory is a bit in a state of self-contradiction. On the one hand every poker book and blog cannot emphasize enough pot odds and outs. And on the other hand, modern theory emphasizes raising your draws (which, indeed, is a powerful move).

I understand the motif behind these powerful semibluffs: improving the redline by raising Cbets, concealing your flush when it hits, disseminating predictability by mixing up raising and calling with your draws. But how do you reconcile the two?

The only thing coming to mind is using Implied Odds when you decide to call (which at this stage of poker play is the minority of the time).

Click to expand...

Implied odds isn't about being a "calling station".

Implied odds is about getting your entire stack matched by the river.

If you are drawing and you get there and your opponent recognizes that he is beat and folds AND you weren't getting correct pot-odds to draw....then you win the hand but really it is a mistake that will cost you if you persist with that behavior.

Implied odds is something like, you know the villain is raising w AA or KK and you call with QT suited. You flop 2 pair and either bet into your opponent or check call and allow him to bet you all-in at some point. You know he has a strong hand and will overplay it (not that I blame him but at some point what are you doing in the hand?).

Or your hand is otherwise disguised and you make the nuts and you predict that your opponent(s) will pay you handsomely.

The only way to really know if you will get implied odds is to double up (or more).

It doesn't always work. It's implied but NOT guaranteed....lol

Good luck !

Poker_Mike said:

Implied odds isn't about being a "calling station".

Implied odds is about getting your entire stack matched by the river.

If you are drawing and you get there and your opponent recognizes that he is beat and folds AND you weren't getting correct pot-odds to draw....then you win the hand but really it is a mistake that will cost you if you persist with that behavior.

Implied odds is something like, you know the villain is raising w AA or KK and you call with QT suited. You flop 2 pair and either bet into your opponent or check call and allow him to bet you all-in at some point. You know he has a strong hand and will overplay it (not that I blame him but at some point what are you doing in the hand?).

Or your hand is otherwise disguised and you make the nuts and you predict that your opponent(s) will pay you handsomely.

The only way to really know if you will get implied odds is to double up (or more).

It doesn't always work. It's implied but NOT guaranteed....lol

Good luck !

Click to expand...

I find it very interesting that after reading these two posts I actually have different interpretations sort of than either of those versions?

My interpretation of pot odds was neither of the explanations here?
I've always understood pot odds to be something like:

Your in the big blind and there's a min-raise and 4/5 callers after (I'm sure this is more relevant in a limit game) anyway it only costs you one bet to call getting 5/6 to one on your money.

My understanding is the pot odds dictates you call with almost any two cards in this situation because if your hand is good enough to win one out of 5 times or better long term your money ahead? Granted if you don't catch anything your not investing another dime in the pot.

It's not something I use a whole lot and could be way off base but that's what I've always understood it to be about? It's useful if I'm on the fence with a hand and figure out I'm getting better than 2/1 if I call stuff like that.

Implied odds in my understanding is similar to the second explanation but has some differences.

Again I can be completely wrong I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong I'm just sharing another version.

Implied odds as I understand it is used a lot more in hands like 5/6 clubs small suited connectors small and medium pairs which isn't a whole lot different than the 2 pair example except:

I've always understood it to be your in late postion and you have a bet and a raise in front and believe original better will just call. If you hit your straight, set, flush whatever you think you can get both players to call. The implied odds of what could be made off a connected hand need to be 3 times the size of the re-bet to justify the call or even re-raise in this situation provided you think player A was coming in weak? Three times being the magic number but no idea why three? It's been years but that's been my general interpretation of both?

Again I just find it odd three different people three different examples of both? Maybe we go 4/4 ?
Thanks for sharing I'm interested to see where it goes...

I think that I and the OP are talking about the same thing...

You can get implied odds with 56c because it will be well disguised and if you flop a straight or 2 pair then AA or KK may pay you off.

You CAN get very good implied odds headsup - but you must try to stack your opponent. It depends. It is very difficult to realize implied odds when you don't know the betting or calling behavior of the other players at the table. Implied odds is NOT about just being hopeful that my 56c gets there AND I get paid reasonably.

This is the kind of thing that Loose AGgressive players BANK on!

Implied odds is ALL about getting paid! You often ignore correct pot odds because if you can get there - even though it's a $30 pot - your opponent will pay you if you shove $600 on the river. That is how to more correctly use "implied" odds. If you get there with your 56c and just bet $12 into a $30 pot then villain may pay you but your pot-odds were likely incorrect and therefore UN-profitable over longterm.

Wiki Def
Implied pot odds, or simply implied odds, are calculated the same way as pot odds, but take into consideration estimated future betting. Implied odds are calculated in situations where the player expects to fold in the following round if the draw is missed, thereby losing no additional bets, but expects to gain additional bets when the draw is made. Since the player expects to always gain additional bets in later rounds when the draw is made, and never lose any additional bets when the draw is missed, the extra bets that the player expects to gain, excluding his own, can fairly be added to the current size of the pot. This adjusted pot value is known as the implied pot.

Good luck !

Poker_Mike said:

I think that I and the OR are talking about the same thing...

You can get implied odds with 56c because it will be well disguised and if you flop a straight or 2 pair then AA or KK may pay you off.

You CAN get very good implied odds headsup - but you must try to stack your opponent. It depends. It is very difficult to realize implied odds when you don't know the betting or calling behavior of the other players at the table. Implied odds is NOT about just being hopeful that my 56c gets there AND I get paid reasonably.

This is the kind of thing that Loose AGgressive players BANK on!

Implied odds is ALL about getting paid! You often ignore correct pot odds because if you can get there - even though it's a $30 pot - your opponent will pay you if you shove $600 on the river. That is how to more correctly use "implied" odds. If you get there with your 56c and just bet $12 into a $30 pot then villain may pay you but your pot-odds were likely incorrect and therefore UN-profitable over longterm.

Wiki Def
Implied pot odds, or simply implied odds, are calculated the same way as pot odds, but take into consideration estimated future betting. Implied odds are calculated in situations where the player expects to fold in the following round if the draw is missed, thereby losing no additional bets, but expects to gain additional bets when the draw is made. Since the player expects to always gain additional bets in later rounds when the draw is made, and never lose any additional bets when the draw is missed, the extra bets that the player expects to gain, excluding his own, can fairly be added to the current size of the pot. This adjusted pot value is known as the implied pot.

Good luck !

Click to expand...

That's a very well detailed explanation as well thanks. I get what you mean about them being similar I just didn't really look at it the same at first but I see the similarities now.

I did some work on poker theory in this thread Back to Books: The Theory of Poker (Sklansky). Sklansky had a few things to say about this topic, check out....

• Chapter 6: Effective Odds
• Chapter Seven: Implied Odds and Reverse Implied Odds

I struggled (still am struggling) with the fundamental difference between effective odds and implied odds; however, I do understand that the key to calling bets with implied odds is getting your opponent to call when you make your hand.

If you call a ton of pots where you are getting implied odds and you do not hit hands, you lose money (obviously). If you then don't get your opponents to call off his stack (hopefully doubling you up) when you HIT your hand... then you will never break even on the pots you've lost when you do NOT hit your hand. The key with continuing in a hand because of the implied odds is getting your opponent to pay you off when you hit the big hands.

scubed said:

I did some work on poker theory in this thread Back to Books: The Theory of Poker (Sklansky). Sklansky had a few things to say about this topic, check out....

• Chapter 6: Effective Odds
• Chapter Seven: Implied Odds and Reverse Implied Odds

I struggled (still am struggling) with the fundamental difference between effective odds and implied odds; however, I do understand that the key to calling bets with implied odds is getting your opponent to call when you make your hand.

If you call a ton of pots where you are getting implied odds and you do not hit hands, you lose money (obviously). If you then don't get your opponents to call off his stack (hopefully doubling you up) when you HIT your hand... then you will never break even on the pots you've lost when you do NOT hit your hand. The key with continuing in a hand because of the implied odds is getting your opponent to pay you off when you hit the big hands.

Click to expand...

Good post man.

I suggest giving Sklansky a call to get clarification lol

Good luck !

Poker_Mike said:

Implied odds isn't about being a "calling station".

Implied odds is about getting your entire stack matched by the river.

If you are drawing and you get there and your opponent recognizes that he is beat and folds AND you weren't getting correct pot-odds to draw....then you win the hand but really it is a mistake that will cost you if you persist with that behavior.

Implied odds is something like, you know the villain is raising w AA or KK and you call with QT suited. You flop 2 pair and either bet into your opponent or check call and allow him to bet you all-in at some point. You know he has a strong hand and will overplay it (not that I blame him but at some point what are you doing in the hand?).

Or your hand is otherwise disguised and you make the nuts and you predict that your opponent(s) will pay you handsomely.

The only way to really know if you will get implied odds is to double up (or more).

It doesn't always work. It's implied but NOT guaranteed....lol

Good luck !

Click to expand...

Poker Mike and SouthParkSith

First of all, let me clarify that I was pertaining to post flop play. But of course it applies to preflop too.

Your in the big blind and there's a min-raise and 4/5 callers after (I'm sure this is more relevant in a limit game) anyway it only costs you one bet to call getting 5/6 to one on your money.

My understanding is the pot odds dictates you call with almost any two cards in this situation because if your hand is good enough to win one out of 5 times or better long term your money ahead? Granted if you don't catch anything your not investing another dime in the pot.

Click to expand...

Your understanding is correct! Those are expressed odds, or immediate odds you getting right now. And there are really 2 ways of looking at them like you said, example 1 raise, 3 callers, you are getting 4:1 (excluding you are big blind for now). So you can look at it as a ratio 4:1 or percentage: 1/5 (fraction) is 20%. You need a hand that has 20% equity to call (which is almost everything). If you ask which unit should you pick, the answer is you need to be good a converting both unfortunately, because lots odds are naturally easier for us to work out in ratios while poker calculators express hand equities in percentages haha.

There's also Reverse Implied Odds, Scubed mentioned, which is another story for another day. That usually applies to broadway cards like KQ, KJ, etc. when you hit 2nd best top pair, etc. It's the potential of losing chips.

Anyway, SouthParksith, what you were showing are expressed odds, which is totally useless, except for one thing; you are facing an all-in. Implied odds do not apply to an all-in (well, unless posibillity of another all in call), because more chips in are no longer implied but you know the total already. That's the only area you use expressed odds. Because if you did, you'd have to fold most of your hands facing a raise or 3bet.

Implied Odds step in. Preflop, it's a lot more straight forward then post flop. Preflop you look at what is the effective stack (the potential to win if you hit), what is your opponents aggression and range, are you IP, and size of the raise. For example, low pocket pairs.....

You are Button with 55. UTG raised 3bbs with AA. Pot is 4.5bbs and 3 to you. 4.5/3, 1.5:1. Your hand has only 20% equity by the River against the Aces. 1 in 5 games. Your hand needs 4:1. Or your hand has 20% equity and you are required contribute 40% to the pot, which you can't, you'd need a hand that has 40% equity against the Aces. Which there is none, unless another pair of AA. Expressed odds say "You must fold!".

But hang on, you don't have to according to implied odds. You adjust your strategy to only see the Flop to see if you flop a set. Turn and River are out of question because you know he'll value betting and it's too dear to chase 2 outs.
The frequency to Flop a set is 12.5% or 8.5:1. Say 9:1. His raise was 3bbs. We need to get back at least 3x9=27 bbs from him to break even. We look at effective stack to see if the implied potential is there. He has 90bbs and we too. Also we know he will value bet!
Now, in reality, even though 9:1 is break even, different tutors recommend different reward to set mine. Some say you need at least 15:1, and some as high as 25:1. That's because not always you get the needed 9:1 or more. Sonetimes people just fold post flop and you don't get the payout, that's why you are aiming for more. Say 20:1. His raise 3bbx20 is 60bbs. We both have that! We can still go ahead. That's simplified theory is if he is 60BBs+ deep, you can go ahead. But imagine there was a 3bet to 9bbs. Now you have to multiple 9x20, which is 190bbs. It gets tricky! You can lower your multiplier in situations where there was a call to 3bet.

Similar goes for suited connectors, gappers, etc. You need to find out their frequencies to see what you can call. Surprisingly, High Broadways lose a bit of value (reverse implied odds) in deep stack poker and drawing hands gain value. Even though they don't hit often, when they do they stack and stack deep those AKs and AA, KK, QQ, etc. Conversely, drawing hands lose value in shallow stack poker like 40bbs or less, and you guessed it Late Stage Tournaments, and Broadways gain.

I don't know what effective odds are. But this is preflop. It's a lot more straight forward. My question was to postflop, I should have specified, but I thought it was obvious from my hand example.


Poker_Mike

Implied odds is about getting your entire stack matched by the river.

Click to expand...

I am sorry but I think you are over-exaggerating here to be honest. Yes of course it's the ultimate goal, but there is a lot thinner value to be had and you can work out exactly what it is and isnt. And it seems to me that you just guess and don't actually know if you are meeting the minimums, because let's be frank they don't stack often at all. Interestingly QTs holds against AA same equity as low pocket pair 20%. To flop a flush draw we have 11%, flopping 2 pair is only 2%. We need him to have at least 8x times the bet, plus extra to complete are draw. Easily 10 times the raise. So if he raised preflop 3bbs and had less then 30bb behind him, then you'd have no business calling it in the first place, I'd be still looking to over 60bbs.

But in your example you flop Two Pair. Then you are already ahead. You just extract the preflop determined value. For example I want 15x times raise so, I want 45bbs. Pretty straightforward.


The problem here is—the core of my original post— that more money goes in the pot. If he checked it down to the River, all you need is to extract preflop determined value. That will never happen! You flopped a flush draw and you are around 35% underdog to the River, assuming he hasn't hit a Set, then you'd be less, around 25%. He bets 2/3 of the pot. So you are telling me that you must stack him to justify the call?

Pot is 7.5bb he bets 4bbs. To simplify we take our equity 35%. But we know he will bet the Turn as well. So we half it. Say 18%. Convert to ratio. 100/18 is 5.55. Convert it ratio 4.5:1. We need 4.5:1 to break even. But we are getting 1.9:1. Expressed odds is telling us "You need to fold! You are not getting the required price!" But implied odds saying hang on: "If you are able to get the 4.5:1 and more you will be fine!"
So, we check if we can get them. 4.5 multiple his bet is 18bbs. Pot already is 11.5bb (inc. his bet). We are short of 6.5 blinds, which is 1/3 of the pot on the Turn, piece of cake!

But say he bet twice the pot on the Flop. Pot 7.5bb, villain bets 15bb. Now we need 67.5bb - minus pot, 45bb. We need a lot more. Interestingly his case we would need to stack off on the River.

Poker_Mike said:

I suggest giving Sklansky a call to get clarification lol

Click to expand...

Haha! I actually did contact Sklansky back when I was studying the chapters. His "assistant" said he would try to get Sklansky to clarify. He never did

Addon: I think I have made a mistake in the OP when I said you need to add the expected reward from calling the Flop bet to the total when working out your odds again on the Turn.

Say you're getting 2:1 on Flop bet but you need 4.5:1. You called because you were certain you would get the extra 2.5 on the Turn if hitting the Flush. You shouldn't have to roll it over to next street. Next street is a story of it's own.

It'd be nice if someone with better math skills could confirm this. But I'd bet ( ) that you treat each street completely independently.

Nice post

scubed said:

I did some work on poker theory in this thread Back to Books: The Theory of Poker (Sklansky). Sklansky had a few things to say about this topic, check out....

• Chapter 6: Effective Odds
• Chapter Seven: Implied Odds and Reverse Implied Odds

I struggled (still am struggling) with the fundamental difference between effective odds and implied odds; however, I do understand that the key to calling bets with implied odds is getting your opponent to call when you make your hand.

If you call a ton of pots where you are getting implied odds and you do not hit hands, you lose money (obviously). If you then don't get your opponents to call off his stack (hopefully doubling you up) when you HIT your hand... then you will never break even on the pots you've lost when you do NOT hit your hand. The key with continuing in a hand because of the implied odds is getting your opponent to pay you off when you hit the big hands.

Click to expand...

It is always good to come across post like this, I will watch these videos more often on these concepts and enrich my knowledge.

Daithi said:

Poker Mike and SouthParkSith
Poker_Mike
I am sorry but I think you are over-exaggerating here to be honest. Yes of course it's the ultimate goal, but there is a lot thinner value to be had and you can work out exactly what it is and isnt. And it seems to me that you just guess and don't actually know if you are meeting the minimums, because let's be frank they don't stack often at all. Interestingly QTs holds against AA same equity as low pocket pair 20%. To flop a flush draw we have 11%, flopping 2 pair is only 2%. We need him to have at least 8x times the bet, plus extra to complete are draw. Easily 10 times the raise. So if he raised preflop 3bbs and had less then 30bb behind him, then you'd have no business calling it in the first place, I'd be still looking to over 60bbs.

But in your example you flop Two Pair. Then you are already ahead. You just extract the preflop determined value. For example I want 15x times raise so, I want 45bbs. Pretty straightforward.

The problem here is—the core of my original post— that more money goes in the pot. If he checked it down to the River, all you need is to extract preflop determined value. That will never happen! You flopped a flush draw and you are around 35% underdog to the River, assuming he hasn't hit a Set, then you'd be less, around 25%. He bets 2/3 of the pot. So you are telling me that you must stack him to justify the call?

Pot is 7.5bb he bets 4bbs. To simplify we take our equity 35%. But we know he will bet the Turn as well. So we half it. Say 18%. Convert to ratio. 100/18 is 5.55. Convert it ratio 4.5:1. We need 4.5:1 to break even. But we are getting 1.9:1. Expressed odds is telling us "You need to fold! You are not getting the required price!" But implied odds saying hang on: "If you are able to get the 4.5:1 and more you will be fine!"
So, we check if we can get them. 4.5 multiple his bet is 18bbs. Pot already is 11.5bb (inc. his bet). We are short of 6.5 blinds, which is 1/3 of the pot on the Turn, piece of cake!

But say he bet twice the pot on the Flop. Pot 7.5bb, villain bets 15bb. Now we need 67.5bb - minus pot, 45bb. We need a lot more. Interestingly his case we would need to stack off on the River.

Click to expand...

Hi Daithi,

I don't want to argue too much - mostly because you are correct about a lot of points here.

Yes, I was over-exaggerating a little - lol - for Southparksith's benefit so she could understand the difference between pot-odds and implied. I think she got the point.

True, you don't have to "stack" your opponent...but to be successful I try to get a big chunk of it.

I appreciate your desire for precise math in your examples.

But to me implied odds begins with my psychological assessment of the villain. If I think they will be married to their superior preflop hand then I am interested in implied odds....not for the "thin" value but for much much more. If the villain is a good enough player to lay down AA - then I'm not even attempting to get into the pot with "implied" odds because they are not there. Villain will not pay you. Do all the calculations you want...if the villain won't pay you or you can't bluff the villain off the pot when you miss your draw...it's not worth it to me.

Implied odds is about drawing with an inferior hand based on future bets (really your raise on turn or river) if your hand can get there. His stack size behind is important but that is only if you can get it.

These are the only times I am ignoring correct pot odds......if I think I can get much much more.

But that's my game....I'm not aiming for small pots with thin value that barely justify my "correct" pot odds. I'm greedy...I want it all.....and I'm looking for those spots.....implied odds.

Good luck buddy !

Poker_Mike said:

Hi Daithi,

I don't want to argue too much - mostly because you are correct about a lot of points here.

Yes, I was over-exaggerating a little - lol - for Southparksith's benefit so she could understand the difference between pot-odds and implied. I think she got the point.

True, you don't have to "stack" your opponent...but to be successful I try to get a big chunk of it.

I appreciate your desire for precise math in your examples.

But to me implied odds begins with my psychological assessment of the villain. If I think they will be married to their superior preflop hand then I am interested in implied odds....not for the "thin" value but for much much more. If the villain is a good enough player to lay down AA - then I'm not even attempting to get into the pot with "implied" odds because they are not there. Villain will not pay you. Do all the calculations you want...if the villain won't pay you or you can't bluff the villain off the pot when you miss your draw...it's not worth it to me.

Implied odds is about drawing with an inferior hand based on future bets (really your raise on turn or river) if your hand can get there. His stack size behind is important but that is only if you can get it.

These are the only times I am ignoring correct pot odds......if I think I can get much much more.

But that's my game....I'm not aiming for small pots with thin value that barely justify my "correct" pot odds. I'm greedy...I want it all.....and I'm looking for those spots.....implied odds.

Good luck buddy !

Click to expand...

No problem, fair reply. But I will just add this. I don't understand what makes you think I am only interested in thin value . I go for the "big pots" too. Everyone does, Mike. But I also focus on other spots too, otherwise you're missing out too much. You can't shove every time you get the nuts either (although you can do a lot more of it online) because your play will become too predictable, and you will be getting less calls on your Nut Shoves, which can turn out to be a problem. It is nice to know on the River how much you need to get to not to be -EV. Also when the action becomes stale, you must know what to extract.

I agree with your advice to pick the right opponent. I already stated in my reply

Implied Odds step in. Preflop, it's a lot more straight forward then post flop. Preflop you look at what is the effective stack (the potential to win if you hit), what is your opponents aggression and range, are you IP, and size of the raise. For example, low pocket pairs....

Click to expand...

It seems to me you romanticize the player criterion a little. I get ya, you want the dude who doesn't fold the Aces under any circumstances. But that's pretty much just fish. You'll end up playing against LAGs and TAGs with your draws as well, you gotta know your price there. You can have the basic profile and an idea of what you think Villain will do. But quite frankly you can never know the action until the Board comes up. It could freeze the action with cooler cards, etc.

I agree that you will get basic idea preflop as to the action and implied odds. You say you get it from villains ability to fold TPTK, fair point (though, how can you tell that? multitabling), I get it more from AF and Range and player profile. But even with that I still see how they behave on certain boards.

Say, you have a tough opponent LAG, exactly fitting your profile.
He has BB, you have on the Button 100bb deep
Action is folded to you. You raise 3bb (pot 4.5bb), he 3bets to 12bb, you call. Pot is 24.5bb

Flop

Villain leads for 12bb (1/2 pot), you raise to 36bb to conceal your flush draw. He calls.
Pot is 96.5 bb. You both have 52bb left.

Turn . Villain shoves 52bbs. You?

I thought your post was spot on and I agree there is a bit of a contradiction. I've thought about as well. I think a lot of LAG players do ignore the proper odds and semi bluff their draws instead of getting a free card, or call a bet they shouldn't because of the concept of implied odds- the belief they will be paid handsomely if they hit or the belief that they will be able to bluff on a latter street and take the pot away. This can definitely work but I think it can be over done and is to do it right is very situational. If the player is tight are you really going to be paid off in spades (no pun intended) if you hit your draw? If your table image is loose are you really going to be able to get a better hand to fold when you miss your draw and you bluff the turn or river? You can't over estimate your chances of these things happening. If you are bleeding a lot of chips on these moves, maybe tighten up and take a free card more often instead of semi bluffing your draws. Also fold your draw when your not getting the correct pot odds to call, especially if you don't have position on your opponent.

Amanda A said:

I thought your post was spot on and I agree there is a bit of a contradiction. I've thought about as well. I think a lot of LAG players do ignore the proper odds and semi bluff their draws instead of getting a free card, or call a bet they shouldn't because of the concept of implied odds- the belief they will be paid handsomely if they hit or the belief that they will be able to bluff on a latter street and take the pot away. This can definitely work but I think it can be over done and is to do it right is very situational. If the player is tight are you really going to be paid off in spades (no pun intended) if you hit your draw? If your table image is loose are you really going to be able to get a better hand to fold when you miss your draw and you bluff the turn or river? You can't over estimate your chances of these things happening. If you are bleeding a lot of chips on these moves, maybe tighten up and take a free card more often instead of semi bluffing your draws. Also fold your draw when your not getting the correct pot odds to call, especially if you don't have position on your opponent.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I also agree with everything you've said. Another point is that they wanna play for stacks with mid-high flushes way too often. Don't get me wrong, it's a great hand, but you need to be cautious with them. I would be very careful to stack off with them. Unless of course SPR is tiny.

But to be fair, Turn raise when chasing Flush is a very powerful move. It just might be one of the most powerful and annoying moves in NLHE. Especially when you have TPTK. You value betted Flop, Villain calls. Blank comes, you value bet the Turn. He raises. You think a set hit or 2nd pair. You call. And the worst thing is that you do not see the flush coming because the pattern tells a different story.

It's kinda desperate, I have seen fish-regs committing over half their stack by Turn to chase their River flush. On the River they shove flush or no flush. I have been caught out when they make it and caught them out too. It's all because they make the pot so big by the river that you are forced to call with TPTK. It's a nasty affair. Encourages varience and higher rake.

I'm gonna have to adjust my strategy against these, as I see this move way too often. (It's like these guys just learn to 3bet a lot and raise the Turn on a flush draw, nothing else matters). I might have to just shove them all in on the Turn with TPTK to deny 'em odds (since they are usually below 25% underdogs). This will make a big variance, but they leave no choice. The problem is guys who slowplay sets. TPTK will get crushed. From now on I will be slowplaying my Sets a lot more till the Turn on two-tone boards.

Amanda A said:

I thought your post was spot on and I agree there is a bit of a contradiction. I've thought about as well. I think a lot of LAG players do ignore the proper odds and semi bluff their draws instead of getting a free card, or call a bet they shouldn't because of the concept of implied odds- the belief they will be paid handsomely if they hit or the belief that they will be able to bluff on a latter street and take the pot away. This can definitely work but I think it can be over done and is to do it right is very situational. If the player is tight are you really going to be paid off in spades (no pun intended) if you hit your draw? If your table image is loose are you really going to be able to get a better hand to fold when you miss your draw and you bluff the turn or river? You can't over estimate your chances of these things happening. If you are bleeding a lot of chips on these moves, maybe tighten up and take a free card more often instead of semi bluffing your draws. Also fold your draw when your not getting the correct pot odds to call, especially if you don't have position on your opponent.

Click to expand...

We'll put, However just playing devil's advocate here the reverse is also true and there in lies the problem. To use the same example if I'm on a spades draw and playing against someone I don't think will pay me if I hit I absolutely need to bet my draw for any value.

But going a step further if I don't believe he will call a third spade he probably won't call a third straight card either? Which doubles the opportunity to maybe steal if your draw missed.

But t I also agree table image is everything in these situations. If you're bleeding out no one is going to give you credit for anything till you show them.

Daithi said:

No problem, fair reply. But I will just add this. I don't understand what makes you think I am only interested in thin value . I go for the "big pots" too. Everyone does, Mike. But I also focus on other spots too, otherwise you're missing out too much. You can't shove every time you get the nuts either (although you can do a lot more of it online) because your play will become too predictable, and you will be getting less calls on your Nut Shoves, which can turn out to be a problem. It is nice to know on the River how much you need to get to not to be -EV. Also when the action becomes stale, you must know what to extract.

I agree with your advice to pick the right opponent. I already stated in my reply It seems to me you romanticize the player criterion a little. I get ya, you want the dude who doesn't fold the Aces under any circumstances. But that's pretty much just fish. You'll end up playing against LAGs and TAGs with your draws as well, you gotta know your price there. You can have the basic profile and an idea of what you think Villain will do. But quite frankly you can never know the action until the Board comes up. It could freeze the action with cooler cards, etc.

I agree that you will get basic idea preflop as to the action and implied odds. You say you get it from villains ability to fold TPTK, fair point (though, how can you tell that? multitabling), I get it more from AF and Range and player profile. But even with that I still see how they behave on certain boards.

Say, you have a tough opponent LAG, exactly fitting your profile.
He has BB, you have on the Button 100bb deep
Action is folded to you. You raise 3bb (pot 4.5bb), he 3bets to 12bb, you call. Pot is 24.5bb

Flop

Villain leads for 12bb (1/2 pot), you raise to 36bb to conceal your flush draw. He calls.
Pot is 96.5 bb. You both have 52bb left.

Turn . Villain shoves 52bbs. You?

Click to expand...

Wow....this is exactly the scenario I want to avoid. It is trouble with just K-high.

But, once I saw the flop I would want to get my whole stack in there. So...would I continue with that behavior (including calling his turn shove?).

You know the answer.....technically not getting correct pot-odds here. But they are close. And, you have already committed approx. half your stack in the pot. This is no longer an implied odds pot because your hand is not made yet. This is a hopes and wishes and dreams (HAWAD) hand on the turn.

He is LAG? Then he already has me beat IMHO - in which case my draw is strong and good. However, his calling my raise is disturbing and the shove on the turn is an absolute alarm. I only got one more card coming. Villain has correctly put me on a draw and is trying to push me off of it.

The way this plays out though - I'm not even sure hitting a K or Q here will be good. I need a flush and I don't want to see him with ATs - which would be a reasonable hand for the villain. So now definitely not getting pot-odds with just naked K-high flush draw.


I promised my auntie I would stop calling off my stack w K-high. lol

I think "my" plan to get it all in was good until I got "punched in the nose" by his turn shove. Unless this is his LAG signature move. The way you describe it...I like his play a lot better than I like mine.

I can come back with 52 BB behind.

So....I got a question for you. If flush comes on river......how much does he pay you?

I appreciate your analysis of stacking the opponent vs. just getting implied odds. Stack him anyways!

I have been in this headsup scenario in a tournie. And, flush came on river and AA check to me and I bet in position and he folded. I won the pot but I had AA beat on the flop. He was very focused on the front door flush. He open mucks AA and the table breaks.

Good luck !

Amanda A said:

I thought your post was spot on and I agree there is a bit of a contradiction. I've thought about as well. I think a lot of LAG players do ignore the proper odds and semi bluff their draws instead of getting a free card, or call a bet they shouldn't because of the concept of implied odds- the belief they will be paid handsomely if they hit or the belief that they will be able to bluff on a latter street and take the pot away. This can definitely work but I think it can be over done and is to do it right is very situational. If the player is tight are you really going to be paid off in spades (no pun intended) if you hit your draw? If your table image is loose are you really going to be able to get a better hand to fold when you miss your draw and you bluff the turn or river? You can't over estimate your chances of these things happening. If you are bleeding a lot of chips on these moves, maybe tighten up and take a free card more often instead of semi bluffing your draws. Also fold your draw when your not getting the correct pot odds to call, especially if you don't have position on your opponent.

Click to expand...

FYI...I find some LAGs will check the turn in position to get that free card - because often they are not there yet. And often they have nothing anyways - not even A-high. But if their opponent checks the river then the LAG bets it (as they should) and often their opponent folds. So the LAG raises preflop - cbets the flop - checks the turn and then bets the river small - with nothing. They bet more on the river if they have the nuts.

Lil off topic but that is how I have seen some LAGs pursue their version of implied odds.

Good luck !

Players that you can get good implied odds from are NOT just fish.

A tilted player may be a good candidate.

Also, a player that you are in a leveling war with....."You know why you didn't win that hand?" reply from candidate, "No, why?" answer, "Because I am a much much better player than you! Every day!" This sets up future hands for fireworks!

Good luck !

Poker_Mike said:

Wow....this is exactly the scenario I want to avoid. It is trouble with just K-high.

But, once I saw the flop I would want to get my whole stack in there. So...would I continue with that behavior (including calling his turn shove?).

You know the answer.....technically not getting correct pot-odds here. But they are close. And, you have already committed approx. half your stack in the pot. This is no longer an implied odds pot because your hand is not made yet. This is a hopes and wishes and dreams (HAWAD) hand on the turn.

He is LAG? Then he already has me beat IMHO - in which case my draw is strong and good. However, his calling my raise is disturbing and the shove on the turn is an absolute alarm. I only got one more card coming. Villain has correctly put me on a draw and is trying to push me off of it.

The way this plays out though - I'm not even sure hitting a K or Q here will be good. I need a flush and I don't want to see him with ATs - which would be a reasonable hand for the villain. So now definitely not getting pot-odds with just naked K-high flush draw.

I gotta fold K-high unless I think K-high is good against this LAG.​

I promised my auntie I would stop calling off my stack w K-high. lol

I think "my" plan to get it all in was good until I got "punched in the nose" by his turn shove. Unless this is his LAG signature move. The way you describe it...I like his play a lot better than I like mine.

I can come back with 52 BB behind.

So....I got a question for you. If flush comes on river......how much does he pay you?

I appreciate your analysis of stacking the opponent vs. just getting implied odds. Stack him anyways!

I have been in this headsup scenario in a tournie. And, flush came on river and AA check to me and I bet in position and he folded. I won the pot but I had AA beat on the flop. He was very focused on the front door flush. He open mucks AA and the table breaks.

Good luck !

Click to expand...

Can't really comment on your Tourney spot as there are other factors to consider like M-Ratio, distance from ITM, etc.

If you call the shove on the Turn you just did an EV –11bb move.

Say you shipped it on the Flop. Your move would be EV –12bb

In a Tourney it would be different as there's lots of dead money from antes and different ratios to stacks.

The above example is simplified so we know that he has AA. I did this because you said you seek out spots where your opponent has AA. You can swap the for if you like, so you can chase the Nut Flush since 2nd best makes you uncomfortable. Your odds will remain the same in this particular hand. Still –EV move.

Now in real life example there is Fold Equity too. But you said it yourself, you selected an opponent who doesn't lay down AA, so Fold Equity is next to 0.

I have changed opponents cards into a range of AA, KK, QQ, AK. On the Turn you are still -9bb EV. On the Flop you are 0.22bb EV (rake is more than that).

I'm open to correction on my results and would be interest in FE advanced applications, anyone.

Thanks.

Daithi said:

If you call the shove on the Turn you just did an EV –11bb move.

Say you shipped it on the Flop. Your move would be EV –12bb

Click to expand...

Hi Daithi - what software/process do you use to figure out EV? I will be very thankful to learn from you!

Daithi said:

Can't really comment on your Tourney spot as there are other factors to consider like M-Ratio, distance from ITM, etc.

If you call the shove on the Turn you just did an EV –11bb move.

Say you shipped it on the Flop. Your move would be EV –12bb

In a Tourney it would be different as there's lots of dead money from antes and different ratios to stacks.

The above example is simplified so we know that he has AA. I did this because you said you seek out spots where your opponent has AA. You can swap the for if you like, so you can chase the Nut Flush since 2nd best makes you uncomfortable. Your odds will remain the same in this particular hand. Still –EV move.

Now in real life example there is Fold Equity too. But you said it yourself, you selected an opponent who doesn't lay down AA, so Fold Equity is next to 0.

I have changed opponents cards into a range of AA, KK, QQ, AK. On the Turn you are still -9bb EV. On the Flop you are 0.22bb EV (rake is more than that).

I'm open to correction on my results and would be interest in FE advanced applications, anyone.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Just -12BB EV? I've made worse plays....lol

But I would like to remind you that your thread is not about how to play these hands....it's about implied odds.



So we're always folding the hand if we don't get there. And while I don't hate your raise against AA on the turn - that is not what we're doing. Despite the fact that I get super excited with 2 overs and K-high flush draw.

I will say that most of my successful implied odds plays - I have been in situations where I either flop it - or the turn brings a monster draw that is well disguised and gets there on the river. Mostly flopping baby sets or rivering a ridiculous straight. Basically my opponent bets the river and then calls my raise and he only has 1 or 2 pair. And my point is the importance of getting much much more value on the river. It doesn't have to be a shove but getting paid with a few more stacks is vital.

It always helps to have 2 or 3 players to the flop / turn.

I have found this discussion interesting and useful.

Thank you!

scubed said:

Hi Daithi - what software/process do you use to figure out EV? I will be very thankful to learn from you!

Click to expand...

I used a simplified version of EV formula that DrazaFFT showed me and used the regular EV formula to confirm it.

So the simplified is total pot (inc. your call/push) x chance to win - your bet/push
Standard EV formula is (pot, excluded your call x chance of winning) - (call/push x chance of losing)

So on the Turn Pot is 96.5bb. Villain shoves 52bb, we have 52 behind us.
We get a total sum of the pot 200.5. We have 20.5% equity.
200x0.205=41
41-52=-11

Let's try the other method.
pot 148.50 (96.5+52)
(148.5x0.205) - (52 x 0.795)
30.4 - 41.3 = - 10.9
The result is slightly different only because I didn't bother with all the decimals.

Also you can use SplitSuit's calculator
https://redchippoker.com/simple-poker-ev-calculator/

Poker_Mike said:

Just -12BB EV? I've made worse plays....lol

But I would like to remind you that your thread is not about how to play these hands....it's about implied odds.

Implied odds are calculated in situations where the player expects to fold in the following round if the draw is missed, thereby losing no additional bets, but expects to gain additional bets when the draw is made.​

So we're always folding the hand if we don't get there. And while I don't hate your raise against AA on the turn - that is not what we're doing. Despite the fact that I get super excited with 2 overs and K-high flush draw.

I will say that most of my successful implied odds plays - I have been in situations where I either flop it - or the turn brings a monster draw that is well disguised and gets there on the river. Mostly flopping baby sets or rivering a ridiculous straight. Basically my opponent bets the river and then calls my raise and he only has 1 or 2 pair. And my point is the importance of getting much much more value on the river. It doesn't have to be a shove but getting paid with a few more stacks is vital.

It always helps to have 2 or 3 players to the flop / turn.

I have found this discussion interesting and useful.

Thank you!

Click to expand...

You asked me a question about River payout and I showed you 2 outcomes showing negative EV. Of course there are other scenarios too with +EV.

Poker_Mike said:

So....I got a question for you. If flush comes on river......how much does he pay you?

Click to expand...

Implied odds are calculated in situations where the player expects to fold in the following round if the draw is missed, thereby losing no additional bets, but expects to gain additional bets when the draw is made.(Source: Wikipedia)

Click to expand...

I don't see a reason why implied odds cannot be used on both streets, of course excluding calling a HU all-in.

So we're always folding the hand if we don't get there. And while I don't hate your raise against AA on the turn - that is not what we're doing. Despite the fact that I get super excited with 2 overs and K-high flush draw.

Click to expand...

Let's be frank by now, because it is obvious at this stage from your posts that you don't bother working out your Implied Odds and play totally by feel. You are going for stacks and don't care much about how much it'll cost ya to chase down that Flush as long as you get there and can stack 'em. And it's okay. If that's what you wanna do and works for you, great! I didn't come here to force anything on anybody, but really actually came here for advice. As it turns out I am getting a better picture of Implied Odds from the collective input, yours too.

My conclusion to my OP is that you can jailbreak from the passive mindset of Implied Odds by raising. Even though when you raise, chasing a draw and get called it worsens your draw pot odds because it just became a lot more expensive to chase the draw. There are 2 reasons I can see to justify this. #1 Fold Equity. Every time you raise chasing, you should forget about Implied Odds and switch to Fold Equity mode. I believe, but can't back it up yet, that Fold Equity wins more money in the long-run than the draws themselves. So obviously you want someone with High Fold Equity. If you raise into someone who is expected to have a very low FE, then you are making your draw to cost you a fortune. I personally see that as a bad thing. I think LAG style would warrant raising low FE villains, at least I gathered that from your previous posts. #2 Improves your Implied Odds. If you raise a villain but he persists, his FE just plummeted which is very good for your implied odds because you know he will very likely stack off.

In the end of the day, I don't think you need to be worried about Implied Odds all that much because you do the raising most of the time (I assume), but you still need to where you at when he re-raises you, then you gotta know your maths.

I think chasing flush/straight/set mine (as preflop caller) will need to consider preflop raiser ranges and board textures to make profitable calls under various scenarios.

Problem with implied odds is that you may not realise your new EV (which you estimated) when hit with big hands, as opponents may not have any hands to call with or they may have exploited your play style and decide not to call with any worse hands.
https://www.beatthefish.com/poker-strategy/implied-odds/