Which betting method/thought process to apply?

When I started playing poker a few weeks ago the first bet-sizing method I learnt to apply was the simple one of matching the bet size with the pot odds;

1) For a pot size of $100, and drawing odds of 4:1, break-even bet would be $25. The idea at first (wrongly really) was that if the call size was any higher than $25 I should theoretically fold. However in that case, I would theoretically never make any money.

2) The second method I recently learnt reading Sklansky's Theory of Poker. I had already read something (probably on CardsChat) about 'offering' odds to your opponent and never understood it, but now I do;

If your odds/odds to offer are 4:1, and the pot is $100, you should bet $33 to offer your opponent these odds. To break-even you would bet $25, as above.

This seems more appropriate as this way you aren't just breaking even and you can control the odds you offer to the opponent, providing they are experienced enough to act in accordance with odds offered.

However on top of this then there is the complication of implied odds and reverse implied odds. Sklansky refers a lot to situations such like 'if you think there will be a lot of betting', and estimating the amount of calls there will be in the next streets... but my query is, how can anybody do this? Particularly on the lower stakes tables where behaviour is a lot more random?

For example say you are dealt Ah Ks in EP1 in 9max, $10NL. What is the first thought that goes through your head with regards to implied odds?

Say you raised 2.5BBs then (not slowplaying because it isn't a monster hand), and you were called by 2 people and then raised by another BB by a player in CO. What thought occurs then?

And then, depending on your action, when the flop comes it is

Kc 3d 7d

How do we anticipate implied odds here?

Turn: Ac

(etc)

River: 4d

--------

Any advice much appreciated.

After re-reading Sklansky's chapter on Implied Odds I think I get it, with reference to his anecdote about Ungar and Brunson;

Am I right in thinking then that implied odds is not something you generally calculate mathematically but something you estimate to either be good or bad? And when you do 'calculate' it it is based on how well you know your opponent, so is easier in heads-ups, or when you expect your opponent will go all-in (as you can calculate accurately from his stack)?

Looking at Sklansky's Ungar and Brunson anecdote, Ungar expected Brunson to go all-in, so Brunson's entire stack was ultimately what Ungar would win, so his call of $17,000 was more than accommodated by the implied odds. Same as normal odds but reversed; the call comes before the pot becomes of size.

For all other situations I'm guessing it is a general 'feel'; e.g. with my speculative draw, does the board look like there will be a lot of betting? If so, is it worth calling on a spec draw for the sake of if it does hit a made hand, being 'speculative' it is very likely to beat other hands, and win the large pot?

In summary then... implied odds are like 'usual odds' but cart before the horse; in that the call is made before the pot becomes of size, therefore the odds are very much in your favour whilst the call size is low if you think the pot is going to be huge afterwards, so it's worth calling as these implied odds more than accommodate the odds for a gutshot draw.

?

I think it's important to amass your poker knowledge from more than one single book, as that's only one person's opinion on how to play the game. As you know, poker is much more complex than any one system and even something like bet sizing has a wide range of opinions.

Read what others say and see what fits you best.

In practice, I imagine a lot of people don't actually calculate out the implied odds. But as a concept, it is downright defined as calculating out the odds.

Arguably, implied odds should be considered in every situation, it's just that the specific numbers that you calculate would have to depend on your opponent model.

In its simplest form, say you are playing heads-up, and deciding whether to call a bet or not. If you call, you get to see the next card, say the river. Now, if you call, you might have -EV odds currently, but you know that you can always fold after the river, if you do not hit your card. If you DO hit it, you can call a raise, or raise yourself. In this situation, the implied odds would be current pot + the expected amount that you think will be added by villain after the river. Now, unless you think that villain will not, under any circumstances, add money to the pot if you make your draw, the implied odds should be taken into account.

The problem you're referring to is not really that of the implied odds, but rather accuracy of your opponent model. If you had a perfect opponent model, you should definitely adhere to implied pot odds rather than pot odds. But since you don't I guess implied odds expose you to more risk than standard pot odds, since overestimating the implied odds would lead to negative EV calls. I am curious whether any of the more experienced players on here have opinions on this; do they take into account implied odds? do they make their implied odds calculation more conservative to mitigate the risk of negative EV calls?