Effective odds vs odds for the next card only.

B

Bentheman87

Guest
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Total posts
794
Is there any real difference between these two? Wouldn't using the odds for the next card only plus factoring in implied odds be the same as effective odds?
 
aliengenius

aliengenius

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Total posts
4,596
Is there any real difference between these two? Wouldn't using the odds for the next card only plus factoring in implied odds be the same as effective odds?

No. You are two confusing separate ideas.

Implied odds are what you can expect to make if you hit (which might be zero, if you wont get paid when, say, the easily seen flush card hits).

But using what you are calling "effective" odds (if I'm understanding you here), you are NOT factoring in the PRICE you will have to pay on the turn (in NL, typically at least half the pot or more).

When making a gambling decision you are comparing the price to the odds of the event occurring. So you compare the amount you can win to the amount it will cost you, then compare that in turn to the chances of the event happening.

Simply put, "implied odds" can make your money odds better, but it isn't necessarily correlated to the "effective" event odds (which don't change, you are 2:1 to hit your flush draw by the river if using a fair deck).

Let's say you and your opponent both have 1000 behind in your stacks after the preflop betting, and there is 200 in the pot. Your opponent bets 200, so you are getting 2:1 on your money. If you have a flush draw you are 2:1 to make it by the river. However, you are not 2:1 to make it on the next card alone.

If you call, the pot is now 600, and you each have 800 behind. Now your opponent bets the pot again (600), giving you 2:1 on your money again. You call, pot is now 1800, and you each have 200 left. Say you hit your flush on the river. Now you can win only the 200 that is left.

Your "implied odds" on the flop might be enough to call (assuming he will pay you his entire stack on the turn/river). However, when your opponent bets 600 on the turn, and has only 200 behind to win, so your implied odds are not very good.

If you call both the flop bet and the turn bet, then you have paid a total price of 800 (200 + 600) to win 1200 (initial 200 pot + 1,000 behind): that's only 3:2 money odds on a draw that is 2:1 event odds to make.
(note that you may be able to call on the flop due to implied odds alone, but thinking that you are calling because of effective odds isn't correct).

In other words, effective odds are only good in all-in situations, where you know the total "price" up front.
 
Last edited:
B

Bentheman87

Guest
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Total posts
794
"If you call both the flop bet and the turn bet, then you have paid a total price of 800 (200 + 600) to win 1200 (initial 200 pot + 1,000 behind): that's only 3:2 money odds on a draw that is 2:1 event odds to make."

Yeah, that is exactly what effective odds are. It's when you have to make a decision with more than one card to come. When you compare the total amount you will win if you hit vs the total amount you will lose if you miss, and compare those odds to the odds against you hitting on the turn and river. But I thought effective odds were supposed to take implied odds into account. Using your example Alien, you're paying 800 to win 1200, so you're effective odds are 3:2. But what if you believe you're opponent will call a 500 chip bet on the river, even though the flush card is now showing. Then you're effective odds would improve to about 2.125:1.

Now here's what I really meant to ask. Say you have a flush draw on the flop. Odds against you hitting the flush on the turn is 4:1. Odds against you hitting on the turn and river is about 2:1. Is there any difference between using effective odds and comparing the pot odds to the odds of hitting on the turn only?

What I meant by that second method is seeing if the pot odds are better than 4:1, and calling if they are better. Then doing the same thing on the turn if you miss.

Is using effective odds always superior? Because right now I compare my odds against hitting to my pot odds one card at a time, just because it's so much easier than figuring out the effective odds.

*edit Oh I see you already factored in the implied odds for your example Alien. 3:2 would be assuming the opponent calls on the river with his last 200 chips.
 
aliengenius

aliengenius

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Total posts
4,596
"If you call both the flop bet and the turn bet, then you have paid a total price of 800 (200 + 600) to win 1200 (initial 200 pot + 1,000 behind): that's only 3:2 money odds on a draw that is 2:1 event odds to make."

Yeah, that is exactly what effective odds are. It's when you have to make a decision with more than one card to come. When you compare the total amount you will win if you hit vs the total amount you will lose if you miss, and compare those odds to the odds against you hitting on the turn and river. But I thought effective odds were supposed to take implied odds into account. Using your example Alien, you're paying 800 to win 1200, so you're effective odds are 3:2. But what if you believe you're opponent will call a 500 chip bet on the river, even though the flush card is now showing. Then you're effective odds would improve to about 2.125:1.

Now here's what I really meant to ask. Say you have a flush draw on the flop. Odds against you hitting the flush on the turn is 4:1. Odds against you hitting on the turn and river is about 2:1. Is there any difference between using effective odds and comparing the pot odds to the odds of hitting on the turn only?

What I meant by that second method is seeing if the pot odds are better than 4:1, and calling if they are better. Then doing the same thing on the turn if you miss.

Is using effective odds always superior? Because right now I compare my odds against hitting to my pot odds one card at a time, just because it's so much easier than figuring out the effective odds.

*edit Oh I see you already factored in the implied odds for your example Alien. 3:2 would be assuming the opponent calls on the river with his last 200 chips.

In my above post I was using "effective odds" to mean the odds with two cards to come, i.e., 2:1 on the flush draw (I think that's what you meant, although I'm not entirely sure). I'll continue with that as my definition for consistency of thought here.

The real point I wanted to try to make is that using 2:1 as your odds to hit doesn't account for the additional price you will have to pay on the turn.

So to answer your question: you should calculate your odds one street at a time, as you said you are doing, but taking into account what you might win (implied odds) as you do so. This is NOT the same as using the effective odds of 2:1.

In our above example you might call on the flop because of the implied odds, but then have to fold on the turn because your odds are no longer there due to the next bet. But you called because the price you had to pay at the time had a potential ("implied") payoff of 4:1, NOT because of the effective 2:1 odds.

Using 2:1 to justify a flop call is HORRIBLE logically, and bad practically too. While you are right to notice that implied odds can get you closer to getting the right price to call, they are not the same as the effective odds with two cards to come. Keep the ideas separate, and use effective odds only in all in situations.
 
Poker Odds - Pot & Implied Odds - Odds Calculator
Top