Argue this.Implied odds excuse
So It struck me hard last night about the excuse implied odds
provides us, either consciously or unconsciously.
Situation is I'm EP with QJs and first to act. Table is reasonably active, blinds and antes make it so that my pot odds
are a little short for an actual odds based call (currently about 3.5/1 need 4/1), but close enough, when added to the likelihood of another player entering the pot, so that my implied odds are correct.
In this case my QJs are very playable, and I usually enter the pot, sometimes raising, sometimes limping. This was late tourney play during that phase when limps are common.
So I got to thinking, if QJs, why not 56s. Which led me to a serious discussion with myself about just what was playable from where.
While I like to think I am a Tag/Lag Hybrid (HAG?), in this case I realized that I need excuses to enter pots. No longer do I need excuses to avoid pots.
So I think implied odds are a valid excuse to enter pots. Really, I had done this for a long time, but without thinking about it. Now, I want to round out my thinking about it and need you all to argue (discuss) this.