- Sep 6, 2007
- Total posts
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?
"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.