Implied Odds = Stack + Pot: Call ...?

J

JKawai

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Total posts
107
Chips
0
Watching a video on pokerbank, mathematics of Holdem ep 2, and 'WiltOnTilt' says in one of his slides that:

With a stack of $950, call of $100 to win $200, implied odds are 950+200 = 1150:100 = 11.5:1. And with drawing odds of 5:1 a call is definitely in order.

How are implied odds connected to the stack size? He doesn't explain this.

Thanks,
 
1

1blanqueanu1

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 11, 2013
Total posts
101
Chips
0
what I have understood is that if you bet 100 into a pot of 200 ods got to 2-1 by which to profitably call need to have an equity of 33% if you got less equity the call never seriously profitable than you think that in case they fall your out the villain bet all his chips and bet something, then based on what you think you are going to bet villain's account becomes and thus got an approximation of implied ods and calculate if the call is profitable or not.
 
P

ph_il

...
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Total posts
10,128
Awards
1
Chips
25
Implied odds are an estimation of how much you believe you can make off your opponent if you hit your hand. It's connected to the shorter stack size because that is the maximum you can make and what you should base your implied odds off of. If your implied odds are greater than the odds of you hitting, then its a good play.

In Wilts example, say he puts his opponents on an overpair to the board, maybe KK and Wilt has a double-gutter straight draw. If he calls the bet on the flop and hits, he believes he would be able to get his opponent to commit all of their chips on the turn/river. Stack sizes are big enough where he is getting greater odds on a call against odds of hitting, so its a profitable play.

However, if stack sizes were shorter, say there was only $200 behind, then the implied odds would be $200 +$200 or $400:$100, which is worse than a 5:1 odds of hitting, so this would be a non profitable play.
 
L

LoneWolf

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 6, 2014
Total posts
25
Chips
0
Thanks Philthy for the explaination, thats very good to know
 
Aces2w1n

Aces2w1n

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Total posts
5,781
Chips
0
Sometimes implied odds can be tricky because if your hand is pretty much face up... meaning your playing a draw strong and people notice.. when it comes out they will more than likely fold unless they have the nuts.
 
J

JKawai

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Total posts
107
Chips
0
Implied odds are an estimation of how much you believe you can make off your opponent if you hit your hand. It's connected to the shorter stack size because that is the maximum you can make and what you should base your implied odds off of. If your implied odds are greater than the odds of you hitting, then its a good play.

In Wilts example, say he puts his opponents on an overpair to the board, maybe KK and Wilt has a double-gutter straight draw. If he calls the bet on the flop and hits, he believes he would be able to get his opponent to commit all of their chips on the turn/river. Stack sizes are big enough where he is getting greater odds on a call against odds of hitting, so its a profitable play.

However, if stack sizes were shorter, say there was only $200 behind, then the implied odds would be $200 +$200 or $400:$100, which is worse than a 5:1 odds of hitting, so this would be a non profitable play.

When you say 'behind' - does this mean, 'the shortest stack'?

I thought Wilt was talking about his own stack when he referred to 950. I'm guessing he's referring to the shorter stack amongst the opponents?

I think I get it now actually yeah - 'cause the 'implied pot' is their stack not-yet-in-the-pot. So he must be referring to the opponent's stacks.
 
J

JKawai

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Total posts
107
Chips
0
But I suppose this theory only applies if you think that he is going to go all-in? I mean he does say in the video that it more than gives us the implied odds to call "against this particular player".

Would it not be easier to just multiply the call size by your odds to give you an 'implied pot size must be at least:' figure?
 
P

ph_il

...
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Total posts
10,128
Awards
1
Chips
25
When you say 'behind' - does this mean, 'the shortest stack'?

I thought Wilt was talking about his own stack when he referred to 950. I'm guessing he's referring to the shorter stack amongst the opponents?

I think I get it now actually yeah - 'cause the 'implied pot' is their stack not-yet-in-the-pot. So he must be referring to the opponent's stacks.
Well, if will has a stack of $950 and the opponents stack is only $400, then Wilt can only factor in what the opponent has because it thats the most he can make. If Wilt haas $950 and the opponent has $2100, then he can factor in what he has because thats the most he can make on that hand.
 
J

JKawai

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Total posts
107
Chips
0
Well, if will has a stack of $950 and the opponents stack is only $400, then Wilt can only factor in what the opponent has because it thats the most he can make. If Wilt haas $950 and the opponent has $2100, then he can factor in what he has because thats the most he can make on that hand.

Thanks for clarifying!
 
B

Ben_Dover

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Total posts
34
Chips
0
<snip>
With a stack of $950, call of $100 to win $200
And with drawing odds of 5:1
</snip>

Another way to think about this: the initial pot was $100 and I am facing a $100 full-pot call with 5:1 draw (probably 8 outs). I happen to know that my max break-even bet heads-up for a 8 out single card draw is only around quarter-pot. The only way I'm going to get the $100 call to quarter-pot means bump the implied pot up to $400, meaning I need $300 more from my pal. What's in my opponent's stack? Will s/he pay me $300+ if I hit? Anything less is a losing proposition over the long-haul.

-Ben
 
Poker Odds - Pot & Implied Odds - Odds Calculator
Top