Implied Odds and Reverse Implied Odds are the topic of discussion on Day 9 of our course.

If you have not yet read Day 9 and watched the video for Day 9 - take a few minutes now to do that and then come back here to discuss it:

Implied Odds and Reverse Implied Odds

Implied odds is the ratio of the possible or likely amount we will win relative to the cost of calling. This is a very important concept if you are playing with deep stacks.

Reverse implied odds is having a made hand that's not likely to win us more money when it's best, and can lose us a lot of money when we are beat.

What did you learn from this lesson and what questions do you have for Collin and Katie?

This is my favorite video so far because it goes right to the heart of justifying how much to bet. I'm currently playing an 888 "$1k Hand of the Day" free roll where 90 are paid, I'm presently 48th in this field of 237/772 where top prize is $125. This small field 8H turbo game contains winners from the cash games so it can get tricky. In these games this video addresses Step 1 in rationalizing proper choices, Step 2 involves playing the players and not the cards. I'm including a screen shot where I increased my chips from 19k to 40k. In the prior hand I lost 4k with 88 vs AJu so Gedy probably thought I was gun shy with that raise. I'm now at 14th.

Unfortunately I couldn't edit the prior post and add the two subsequent screen shots so I had to put them in this follow-up. I usually try to go for the win and this entails making some judgement calls. Here, I went all-in post flop .. not only because of the better numbers but because this player was being a money badger...so I felt his hand was not rock solid. Moreover, the aggression factor was ramped up with many large raises targeting the scared money. I lost (and I have had this last card thing take me down a lot recently) but I think I did the right thing at this point in the game regarding odds/equity.

I would pay, from approximately 30 to 1 odds

With Implied odds we need to look at the other players entire stack? Isn't this assuming we will be in an all-in hand? I understand yes we have a player covered and yes it goes to an all-in then yes the bet to take his / hers whole stack would be
bet/stack,. Yes if they have us covered then the implied odds would be our stack ? Correct?

with pocket "66" - why call?
why not raise t(bb)x10bb ?

Originally Posted by magistrant420

with pocket "66" - why call?
why not raise t(bb)x10bb ?

Wait for the lesson on "value owning yourself". 3-betting 6s in a relatively early position is definitely a mistake. Ask yourself: "What hands are going to call a 3-bet at this point?"
Keep in mind that pocket pairs do not play well post-flop. You either hit your set (very rarely) or you are left far behind any hand that connects to the board after calling a 3-bet.

Tricky stuff those implied odds. I still cannot convince myself that chasing that gut-shot was a +EV move.

Great work this course is! (In my Yoda voice)

Originally Posted by onecardsteve

With Implied odds we need to look at the other players entire stack? Isn't this assuming we will be in an all-in hand? I understand yes we have a player covered and yes it goes to an all-in then yes the bet to take his / hers whole stack would be
bet/stack,. Yes if they have us covered then the implied odds would be our stack ? Correct?

Yes, you want to look at the effective stack -- whichever is shorter between your stack and his. The key idea is that doesn't actually assume you'll play an all-in. It just means that the potential reward of winning his stack (or yours, if you're shorter like you said) compensates you for the risk of losing your chip investment.

Originally Posted by magistrant420

with pocket "66" - why call?
why not raise t(bb)x10bb ?

Because you don't want to allow your opponent to raise back, and you don't want to play a large pot. The most profitable way to play this hand is just to get involved against one or multiple opponents with a hand that has the potential to win huge when you hit your set.

Being aggressive is great, but sometimes the passive play wins the most in the long-run!

Originally Posted by PsychoVas

Wait for the lesson on "value owning yourself". 3-betting 6s in a relatively early position is definitely a mistake. Ask yourself: "What hands are going to call a 3-bet at this point?"
Keep in mind that pocket pairs do not play well post-flop. You either hit your set (very rarely) or you are left far behind any hand that connects to the board after calling a 3-bet.

Tricky stuff those implied odds. I still cannot convince myself that chasing that gut-shot was a +EV move.

Great work this course is! (In my Yoda voice)

Haha thanks Psycho we appreciate that!

I found this chapter very interesting specifically for me that it was hand to be played at the beginning of the tour but I didn't, because I always followed the maxim "be very tight at the beginning" but if you have hands like pocket pairs or connectors at the beginning why not play it them?

When I played this hands always felt down because when I want to see the showdown and i have to fold as soon I was sad because i was made a beginner or wrong play, but in fact, with a lot of chips, players call a lot and a hand can really grow with a small amount of chips.

My difficulty will be calling on the turn and river because in low-value tournaments the villains raise with fear that a better hand will come and they either have nothing or a second pair maybe. How will we know? good as I always say experience and analysis of other cases can give us the answers.


Good Luck and lets movie foward

Exactly Jean, you just have to use your experience and analysis in these spots. Nobody knows exactly what an opponent has, so if you do the process better than others, money will flow to you in the long run

Finished Day #9.

Answers to this chapter's quiz:

i)Implied Odds: 4860$/140$ = ~35/1
ii)I would call. I will not raise here, because if more players after me call behind, my implied odds increase even more and if I finally hit my set, I'm going to get paid off bigger.

Tomorrow with Day #10.

Got the answers right, but was slightly wrong in getting there, lol. I had calculated the villain's stack after he posted the raise, but it still worked out over 20BB so still worked ; and the action would be a call because there are still several players to follow.

But a great lesson and one that I will be reviewing again.

I think this lesson also helps me understand why so many players seem to chase draws on some of the tournaments that I play - some will just be calling stations, of course, but some may be playing 'implied odds'. I may have to try to take that into account - definitely a lesson I want to review a few times until I have it down pat.

Thanks again CC!

"Rule of Thumb: If you’re getting 20:1 or better implied odds, (at least) call with a pocket pair pre-flop."

Through Day 9 so far and I feel like this is the rule that has stuck out to me the most. I always felt lost on when I should or shouldn't call with a small pocket pair. I was folding 4's and under too often when facing a raise.

Love trying to hit the set on pocket pairs. I will use the implied odds now as to whether I should call them. If it's not too big a raise I will anyway..hahaha. Sometimes I am too stubborn.

Thanks guys, and jmg I'm very glad that rule stood out for you. Me too. It's super useful in a lot of different situations with low pocket pairs!

Thanks for the definition of reverse implied odds. I have been folding correctly most times but didn't think of it in these terms. For the quiz question, why would you only use the raisers stack to calculate implied odds. Is this because technically the other players are not in the pot until they call the raise?

Fellow CCers,

Another eye-opening concept here. The good thing about this information is the fact that we have a benchmark to guide decisions. It is great to take the guesswork out and make mathematically supported plays to increase profitability over time.

Response to the video question:

The scary part about this is the number of players to act behind. Before reading this this chapter I would have folded this hand instantly. However, putting implied odds into play, I see that the odds are about 38:1, well over the 20:1 guideline and worth taking a stab at hitting a 6 on the flop. If hero flops a set he can double up and then some.

I would call and hope no one else does, although I gave some thought to raising. It would be nice to drive the other players away with a raise.

I am enjoying seeing the game through a different lens. Good stuff.

Hmm,

I did not use the effective stack size for my calculation. I would have been way off if villain's stack was not close to mine. Correction noted.

This is a very important concept but u have to know very well your oponent iff is a louse agresive player and he raises us with a draw is very likly that we are going to strat max value iff we hit the draw,but iff the guy is very passive and tigh hardly we will be brake even iff we call out off odds.
The same way with poket pair, iff the guy 3bets very louse calling to set mining isnt so good because he has a lot off hands that will not impact the board and will be tend to fold to any shonw off agretion.

Nice work seeing that Redboy, you're crushing these quiz questions -- keep up the great work.

Belize, very good question. While you should be mainly concerned with how much you can win from the initial raiser, if you're deep with remaining players who might call and take a flop too, that's definitely a favorable factor. Thanks for pointing that out!

Very interesting concept today.
until day 9 this course really improve my play.
everyday with new concept.
i was playing poker like a simple betting game without any strategy.
and now i feel like poker is more about learning than being a simple betting card game .
this course make me love poker more and more.
thank you .

Originally Posted by Collin Moshman

Thanks guys, and jmg I'm very glad that rule stood out for you. Me too. It's super useful in a lot of different situations with low pocket pairs!

Question about this rule of thumb that stood out to me as well though:
I noticed that in the pdf we calculated implied odds as ratio of our opponent's stack to our amount needed to call (which was $5,000: $80). I understand that this is merely the definition for how implied odds are calculated, but I ask: "why do we use opponent's entire stack for this calculation - wouldn't it make more sense to use the amount we think we can successfully extract from them?"

Just because I hit a set of deuces here, that doesn't mean I can get Villain to shove all-in against us. So are we really getting $5,000: $80, or about 63:1 here? Obviously, this is way better than the 20:1 rule of thumb given, but I feel that Reverse Implied odds would lower us to less than 63:1 since getting Villain to shove into our potential set is not 100% or am I misinterpreting something?

In this example, I'd probably at least see the flop with our pair of deuces, but in similar situations I'd be hesitant about even playing this hand at all preflop. Is this also acceptable from a theory perspective?

Originally Posted by Phoenix Wright

Question about this rule of thumb that stood out to me as well though:
I noticed that in the pdf we calculated implied odds as ratio of our opponent's stack to our amount needed to call (which was $5,000: $80). I understand that this is merely the definition for how implied odds are calculated, but I ask: "why do we use opponent's entire stack for this calculation - wouldn't it make more sense to use the amount we think we can successfully extract from them?"

Just because I hit a set of deuces here, that doesn't mean I can get Villain to shove all-in against us. So are we really getting $5,000: $80, or about 63:1 here? Obviously, this is way better than the 20:1 rule of thumb given, but I feel that Reverse Implied odds would lower us to less than 63:1 since getting Villain to shove into our potential set is not 100% or am I misinterpreting something?

In this example, I'd probably at least see the flop with our pair of deuces, but in similar situations I'd be hesitant about even playing this hand at all preflop. Is this also acceptable from a theory perspective?

i think that you speek about pot adds.
there is a difference between pot odds and implied odds.
pot adds is about what you really play for and that's what you are calculating but implied odd for what you can play for.

Originally Posted by Phoenix Wright

Question about this rule of thumb that stood out to me as well though:
I noticed that in the pdf we calculated implied odds as ratio of our opponent's stack to our amount needed to call (which was $5,000: $80). I understand that this is merely the definition for how implied odds are calculated, but I ask: "why do we use opponent's entire stack for this calculation - wouldn't it make more sense to use the amount we think we can successfully extract from them?"

Just because I hit a set of deuces here, that doesn't mean I can get Villain to shove all-in against us. So are we really getting $5,000: $80, or about 63:1 here? Obviously, this is way better than the 20:1 rule of thumb given, but I feel that Reverse Implied odds would lower us to less than 63:1 since getting Villain to shove into our potential set is not 100% or am I misinterpreting something?

In this example, I'd probably at least see the flop with our pair of deuces, but in similar situations I'd be hesitant about even playing this hand at all preflop. Is this also acceptable from a theory perspective?

Great question Phoenix. The reason it's done this way is because we're not assuming we will always stack our opponent when we connect. If we're getting 10:1 implied and know we'll always get a full double when we connect, that's plenty to call with 22. But we fold because some of the time we won't hit our set.

So the idea is that we calculate implied odds this way and then only call to set-mine if we're getting much better than we "need" since a lot of the time we won't stack our opponent when we connect.

Hope that makes sense the way I'm explaining it here, if not just let me know!

I think the concept of reverse implied odds is incredibly important, especially on a wet board. When I was starting out, too often I only looked at the possibilities of my cards, which is a mistake I think quite a few amateurs make.

In reality, we might have to discount a fair number of outs, because they would make someone else's hand even stronger than ours.

Originally Posted by iveyfan

I think the concept of reverse implied odds is incredibly important, especially on a wet board. When I was starting out, too often I only looked at the possibilities of my cards, which is a mistake I think quite a few amateurs make.

You're totally right and this was true of me too when I first started playing!

Should we forget about implied odds at the final table when ICM is involved?
Let's say we are the middle stack and big stack is offering us good implied odds. Would it still be better to wait for the small stacks to get crushed if ladders are good enough?

Originally Posted by Nafor

Should we forget about implied odds at the final table when ICM is involved?
Let's say we are the middle stack and big stack is offering us good implied odds. Would it still be better to wait for the small stacks to get crushed if ladders are good enough?

No, it's still an important idea but the number you want might change. The example you give is a good one. If the big stack raises and we have 22, we might be a little tighter than 20:1 implied because of our risk aversion. But I'd still look at the implied odds and be happy to call if they were good.

Thank you, only now I understand the meaning of call 20.
Very practical part. Now I will not fold small pocket pairs if the call does not exceed 10% of the effective stack.
Understanding reverse implied odds is very important, now it will be much easier to fold in situations where the probability that I'm behind is high enough.

Implied odds aren't difficult to understand. The chapter is well explained.


.

Hey Hey Hey!

Ouh la la! Feels like I got myself a new tool! Very exiting!

I mean I just completely understood the implied odds and the reversed implied odds concepts and how to estimate it... And it feels like buying a new tool for your little company, but in this case I got for free!!

Very greatful to be part of this community!

Great work!

gl gl gl

Thanks guys.

Two take always for me from this.

Reverse implied odds is a real way to determine when to give up on a hand that may look good but has real possibility to be a money drain.

Using effective stacks as the way to determine implied odds isn’t something I have previously done but thinking it through really justifies that call early on to give yourself a chance to win big.

Thank you

BB

Originally Posted by redboy23

Response to the video question:

The scary part about this is the number of players to act behind. Before reading this this chapter I would have folded this hand instantly. However, putting implied odds into play, I see that the odds are about 38:1, well over the 20:1 guideline and worth taking a stab at hitting a 6 on the flop. If hero flops a set he can double up and then some.

I would call and hope no one else does, although I gave some thought to raising. It would be nice to drive the other players away with a raise.

Actually, I think it's better if other players get involved too. So I would call and hope for remaining players to call too. That way the pot will be bigger and the implied odds better! Our potential set would make us more money.

More great information learned today many thanks.

In hand 9-2, the odds I think should be 240:30 or 8:1 and we still have UTG to act after us in the BB. So the pot odds are just about good enough for a gutshot straight draw if I am not mistaken.

In hand 9-3, I don't know why the pot is 18,500 but my question is: what if we take the initiative from UTG and donk bet our top pair to see what UTG would do. Is that recommend play?

Originally Posted by Tux97

More great information learned today many thanks.

In hand 9-2, the odds I think should be 240:30 or 8:1 and we still have UTG to act after us in the BB. So the pot odds are just about good enough for a gutshot straight draw if I am not mistaken.

In hand 9-3, I don't know why the pot is 18,500 but my question is: what if we take the initiative from UTG and donk bet our top pair to see what UTG would do. Is that recommend play?

Glad to hear that Tux!

Hand 9-2: You are completely right on that mistake. I'll pass it along. Thanks and great eye

Hand 9-3: The pot is $18,600 from the $6000 x 2 in pre-flop raise and call, $3000 small blind, and $400 * 9 in antes. Donk-betting is a nice option to consider, but still leaves us playing a large pot out of position when he calls, and we'll have to fold facing raise. Our preference is to check-fold unless Villain bets very small, or he checks back and the turn blanks (in which case we bet out at that point).

Originally Posted by Collin Moshman

Glad to hear that Tux!

Hand 9-2: You are completely right on that mistake. I'll pass it along. Thanks and great eye

Hand 9-3: The pot is $18,600 from the $6000 x 2 in pre-flop raise and call, $3000 small blind, and $400 * 9 in antes. Donk-betting is a nice option to consider, but still leaves us playing a large pot out of position when he calls, and we'll have to fold facing raise. Our preference is to check-fold unless Villain bets very small, or he checks back and the turn blanks (in which case we bet out at that point).

Thanks for the explanation Collin. Now I know why it's better not to donk bet on the flop in this case. BTW, the small blind is 1500 so maybe it was a typo in the book or just adjust the pot size to be 1500 less. In any case, the good analysis stays the same.

Originally Posted by Tux97

Thanks for the explanation Collin. Now I know why it's better not to donk bet on the flop in this case. BTW, the small blind is 1500 so maybe it was a typo in the book or just adjust the pot size to be 1500 less. In any case, the good analysis stays the same.

That's funny -- I somehow got it wrong twice now then. You're totally right Tux, thanks and I'll add it to the list of changes!

Magnificent article to better understand the implied odds and reverse implied odds, this article will undoubtedly help me make better decisions at the tables, which in the long run will be profitable.

This tactic is already a more aggressive, because when you place a bigger bet it helps you to see the strength of other players hands, because only those who have good hands will remain.

This is a very important concept but u have to know very well your oponent iff is a louse agresive player and he raises us with a draw is very likly that we are going to strat max value iff we hit the draw,but iff the guy is very passive and tigh hardly we will be brake even iff we call out off odds.
The same way with poket pair, iff the guy 3bets very louse calling to set mining isnt so good because he has a lot off hands that will not impact the board and will be tend to fold to any shonw off agretion.

Originally Posted by ammje

Magnificent article to better understand the implied odds and reverse implied odds, this article will undoubtedly help me make better decisions at the tables, which in the long run will be profitable.

Happy to hear this, thanks Ammje!

Again, thx for the great content, sooo many questions about it but it all come to this:

If I got a pocket pair (They say 1 of 8 times I play i hit trips on flop) and I'm in a CALL position, pre flop, what should i Consider?

ODDS 1 to 8? OR IMPLIED ODDS, the max I can win considering how much is the call ?

Originally Posted by morthiman

Again, thx for the great content, sooo many questions about it but it all come to this:

If I got a pocket pair (They say 1 of 8 times I play i hit trips on flop) and I'm in a CALL position, pre flop, what should i Consider?

ODDS 1 to 8? OR IMPLIED ODDS, the max I can win considering how much is the call ?

You should consider your implied odds -- the ratio of how much you can win relative to the call amount. But for sure you can consider other factors too: How likely it is you get 3-bet by another player, how high your pair is (77 can get away with lower implied odds compared to 22, for example, because you're not just set-mining), and how well your opponents play post-flop.

Thanks for another good summary chapter! If I were adding anything to the first example it would be how we consider the potential action behind in implied odds. In the example calling from UTG+1 means you'll have several players to act behind, so you might want to factor in the additional implied odds if you think you'll get additional callers behind. Might not work as well in the first hand of an MTT example, but after a few levels you'd probably know how loose the table is.

Just a thought!

Originally Posted by johnnylawford

Thanks for another good summary chapter! If I were adding anything to the first example it would be how we consider the potential action behind in implied odds. In the example calling from UTG+1 means you'll have several players to act behind, so you might want to factor in the additional implied odds if you think you'll get additional callers behind. Might not work as well in the first hand of an MTT example, but after a few levels you'd probably know how loose the table is.

Just a thought!

Good addition, thanks--just be sure to differentiate between loose-passive and a loose-aggressive table; the former will likely illicit more calls, but the latter may often result in you being raised off your hand

My favorite quote: "If you call pre-flop, hit top pair, and then check/fold to a single bet, that’s normally pretty weak poker."
The top pair, the second pair or the low pocket pair that I discovered, I often fold to cbet when the flop scares me. Now I'm more stubborn. But now I often fold with ATo without position when a flop like JhTh9d and SPR> 10, because the reverse implied odds. I like the 20 to 1 rule and I look at an effective stack with a number to compare.

Originally Posted by Coinuss

My favorite quote: "If you call pre-flop, hit top pair, and then check/fold to a single bet, that’s normally pretty weak poker."
The top pair, the second pair or the low pocket pair that I discovered, I often fold to cbet when the flop scares me. Now I'm more stubborn. But now I often fold with ATo without position when a flop like JhTh9d and SPR> 10, because the reverse implied odds. I like the 20 to 1 rule and I look at an effective stack with a number to compare.

I def agree with generally folding the ATo in the spot you describe. I'm glad you like the 20-1 rule; I love to get to set mine and find that to be an easy way to make sure it is justified

The implied odds are not so easy to apply; They can help you win a big pot but if you make a mistake and don't have the right connectors it can turn into reverse implied odds and can make you lose a lot of chips.