Implied Odds and Reverse Implied Odds (Day 9 Course Discussion)

[Collin Moshman]

Today I have learned to calculate implied odds and have better understood the concept of reverse implied odds.

That was my answer to the quiz on day 9:

The implied odds in this spot, if we were to keep all the villain's stack would be 34 to 1. Taking into account that the open raise is UTG and therefore we assign it a strong range, we have enough implicit odds to pay the bet, because if we get the set we can stack the villain.

I have a question for Collin or Katie:
What happens if there is a re-raise from one of the remaining players? Do we recalculate the implied odds?

See you in day 10!

Glad to hear bigdice!

To answer your question, facing a reraise, you can still calculate your pot odds and implied odds the same way. The difference is that you're now more likely to face yet another raise so this should make you tighter.

Here's an example. Suppose that a tight player raises UTG and another tight player 3-bets from one seat over. If you're getting exactly 20:1 implied odds with a low pocket pair, you should fold because of the higher probability that you'll face another raise (from the tight UTG player when action gets back to him).

Good question + hope this makes sense!

 

[lejaybird]

Always play the odds that are in favor of making the winning hand,

 

[Phyrrura]

Is it about only what is already in the table?

Well, if you know how to do it right, you can extract as much as your oponnent is willing to lose, and sometime it can be everything they has.

 

[Collin Moshman]

Well, if you know how to do it right, you can extract as much as your oponnent is willing to lose, and sometime it can be everything they has.

Yes exactly: pot odds and implied odds are only about what's on the table in terms of the effective stack. If, for example, you have 50bb and all remaining opponents only have 10bb, your implied odds will be much lower than if everyone covered you.

 

[ObbleeXY]

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'll be the dissenting voice re: your QTo shove. I think it was not the correct move. Sure, when the hands were revealed it *looks* like the right decision, but you did not possess that info when you pushed.

Now, I don't know your opponent... but with potential flush from the flop, or draw to one better than yours is easily possible. Your opponent will have a lot of AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK,AQ. AJ kind of hands some portion of the time here (though fewer of the Q holding hands due to blocker in your hand). This means that some portion of the time they'll beat you to a backdoor flush. And they'll beat you a portion of the time with a better kicker. They'll also beat you with AA,KK,QQ,JJ in many outcomes following this flop (Half of them also beating a backdoor flush).

Now, if this hand had been played flop-turn-river... rather than flop all in, your hand would have slightly devalues on the turn. Your opponents range however could have (and did) improved with the King. AK, KK, KQ, KJ (well KX actually)...but I'm only highlighting a relatively tight range. AT would also have had you dominated with only a flush to save you.

Chances are, your opponent would have made it hard on you to continue after the turn.

But just on the off-chance you call ( or raise and get called) and get to see the river, once again you've punched air. Q8 is clearly possible, possibly even J8, though I would have expected the turn to be weak if the opponent held J8 (third pair) on the river...basically only a check check.

So, the river 8 did kinda suck for you... but there were a lot of indicators that your hand was second best if this hand is played out flop-turn-river rather than flop all in.

If you had <10BB, I might have understood this, but top pair with a Ten kicker is not a 30BB+ shove against a player with a tight range.

In defence of your decision, however is the fact that you are out of position. This board would have been uncomfortable against a tight aggressive player with positional advantage. But then again, you simply might have had to fold on the turn, depending on aggression. If you ignore the hole cards, this board flops extremely well for a tight, positionally aware opponent. So in that regard, you could justify the shove as it removes position altogether.

It is also fair to say, your opponent calling the shove with such a poor kicker to a flush board is questionable. But if you'd been caught with your hand in the cookie jar or blind stealing, wider ranges might call down a raise. Calling down a shove with Top Pair, weak kicker is somewhat ballsy against that flop without a single heart greater than an 8 in your hand or another Broadway card.

So, based on the discussion above, I think you had sufficient information on the flop to proceed carefully, and then likely be forced to fold on the turn.

Regards,
ObbleeXY

 

[Polytarp]

I'll be the dissenting voice re: your QTo shove. I think it was not the correct move. Sure, when the hands were revealed it *looks* like the right decision, but you did not possess that info when you pushed.

Very good assessment. You're completely correct regarding the absence of information and that I should have folded. I had to balance my table presence value and what I surmised everyone would do with what they had. Last of all, the best cards don't always win and I had lost with better cards in the majority of games I had played prior to this one..so in the back of my mind I was thinking that the cards were decent enough to pull me through against the odds (which were my hand being improved vs everyone else's potential improvement).
Certain games can be played with some latitude, like this one, whereas others I will play differently with the same cards. I assume I'm being tracked in every online game I'm in ..if I'm in a future game with someone who has noted what I shoved all-in with here (and I have tracked them accordingly) then this will be a consideration (relative to position) when I'm at the same table with them again.
Again, thanks for your insight!

 

[Daddysprincess99]

Certain situations lend themselves to one or another. And in a lot of cases, you must use a specific version (either pot odds or implied odds).

For example:

** Facing a shove on any street you have to use pot odds.

** Deciding whether to call a bet on the river, you would only consider pot odds.

** Considering whether to call with a draw versus an opponent on a strong range with deep stacks, you would just use implied odds.

I'm thinking now that this would make a great topic for future content. Either a video breaking this concept down or a full list of when to use one or another. Great question!

I was wondering about this too when to use which. A bonus video about pot odds vs implied odds would be much appreciated.

My question: Considering there are no maniacs at the table after flop and all remaining players are tight would you consider pot odds more important than implied at that point?

 

[Phyrrura]

Second timane passing by

The first time I watched this, I leaned about implied odds and how I can estimate my wining rate at some tables. Them I came back and the concept of reverse implied odds made a lot more sense and I just have plenty of hands that I played where this subject just fits perfectly.

 

[Collin Moshman]

I was wondering about this too when to use which. A bonus video about pot odds vs implied odds would be much appreciated.

My question: Considering there are no maniacs at the table after flop and all remaining players are tight would you consider pot odds more important than implied at that point?

Sorry we missed this question earlier!

Nice idea on a future video. Generally while implied odds are increased if maniacs are left to act, you should consider implied odds (if needed) and how future betting will work for or against you.

I say "if needed" because sometimes you can make a good decision without doing this. For example, if you have the immediate odds to continue with a draw and you're not considering raising, then you don't need to consider implied odds in any way.

I hope this helps and feel free to post more questions/examples on this topic!

The first time I watched this, I leaned about implied odds and how I can estimate my wining rate at some tables. Them I came back and the concept of reverse implied odds made a lot more sense and I just have plenty of hands that I played where this subject just fits perfectly.

That's great to hear Phyrrura!

 

[monkey23]

many people play for implied odds differently to say, 10 years ago...the percentages are the same, but some players are more ' optimistic ' than the maths might suggest they should be. This is exploitable....

for instance...a player calls against the % for a flush or straight draw...the most common example of over expectation...the draw doesnt come on the turn...they could then be tempted to overplay the draw and call a turn bet, say 35%...because they feel pot/draw committed. The flush draw only has 20% for the river, and the oesd 16%. Combo draws are of course an exception to this math, and must be treated differently...but how to you put oppo on a Combo draw..??..tricky stuff.

the most common case of this ( non-Combo draw) is probably the Ax nut flush draw...where oppo has an overcard also. This might well give 3 more outs against a single pair...but doesnt help vs 2 pair or a set.

They might well try to bluff the river too, when they see that is the only way they can win a now sizeable pot.
................................................

reverse implied odds....a bit like reverse swing in cricket..??...errr...no....be careful with that sooted king or queen

 

[imnoobpoker]

Thank you so much for day 9,

Question, in the book you tell us:"If you call pre-flop, hit top pair, and then check/fold to a single bet, that’s normally pretty weak poker.", so you advice is always Bet when you hit top pair? And how much do you advice? 2B? Does it also depends on position?

 

[birdman666]

Yes, although reverse implied odds only apply when you have a made hand already. Implied odds apply when you're trying to make a hand or draw. So usually it wouldn't be that one situation turns into another, but you're right that it can take a lot of practice to use these concepts well!

Doesn't it also apply when drawing dead?

 

[Katie Dozier]

Thank you so much for day 9,

Question, in the book you tell us:"If you call pre-flop, hit top pair, and then check/fold to a single bet, that’s normally pretty weak poker.", so you advice is always Bet when you hit top pair? And how much do you advice? 2B? Does it also depends on position?

You’re right, how you proceed when flopping top pair depends a lot on position. For example, when we’re in the BB, call a raise pre-flop, and flop top pair, then I will nearly always check to the preflop raiser. Then my most common action will be to call, though versus some types of opponents/boards I would occasionally check raise too perhaps. The advice that you quoted refers to calling rather than betting out and the general advice is not to bet out when you don’t have the betting lead. Hope this helps [emoji4]

 

[Katie Dozier]

Doesn't it also apply when drawing dead?

When we’re drawing dead we have no implied odds (or odds of winning at all) and that’s a sad day indeed!

 

[birdman666]

When we’re drawing dead we have no implied odds (or odds of winning at all) and that’s a sad day indeed!

I mean reverse implied odds. Imagine drawing with KJ suited vs AQ suited. Isn't that a situation of reverse implied odds?

 

[Katie Dozier]

I mean reverse implied odds. Imagine drawing with KJ suited vs AQ suited. Isn't that a situation of reverse implied odds?

You’re correct that it is a situation that involves reverse implied odds, but we are not drawing dead (in fact far from it) in that example. Apologies if I misunderstood—I thought you were asking if reverse implied odds were applicable when we’re drawing dead [emoji4]

 

[birdman666]

You’re correct that it is a situation that involves reverse implied odds, but we are not drawing dead (in fact far from it) in that example. Apologies if I misunderstood—I thought you were asking if reverse implied odds were applicable when we’re drawing dead [emoji4]

Ok so lets suppose the flop is Ah2s3s. The player with KsJs may still call a bet trying to complete the flush, thinking he has implied odds to take the opponent's entire stack. However, if he does so he will be the one that will lose his stack against the player with AsQs. Aren't these reverse implied odds in a drawing dead situation?

Well anyway I have always associated reverse implied odds to both the cases where we have a marginal hand and where we are drawing dead. A lot of literature also considers both cases, for example here: https://www.888poker.com/magazine/poker-terms/drawing-dead

It is true that both are completely different situations. One you have a hand that is the best but vulnerable, and the other you have a hand that never was and never will be the best. The outcome is the only thing in common: large losses.

But if you think in the opponent prespective, you see that in both cases he has implied odds against us. Thats why it makes sense for me that both situations refer to "reverse implied odds", as in both cases the implied odds are on the opponent's side.

 

[Katie Dozier]

Ok so lets suppose the flop is Ah2s3s. The player with KsJs may still call a bet trying to complete the flush, thinking he has implied odds to take the opponent's entire stack. However, if he does so he will be the one that will lose his stack against the player with AsQs. Aren't these reverse implied odds in a drawing dead situation?

Well anyway I have always associated reverse implied odds to both the cases where we have a marginal hand and where we are drawing dead. A lot of literature also considers both cases, for example here: https://www.888poker.com/magazine/poker-terms/drawing-dead

It is true that both are completely different situations. One you have a hand that is the best but vulnerable, and the other you have a hand that never was and never will be the best. The outcome is the only thing in common: large losses.

But if you think in the opponent prespective, you see that in both cases he has implied odds against us. Thats why it makes sense for me that both situations refer to "reverse implied odds", as in both cases the implied odds are on the opponent's side.

No, because while we are drawing slim, we are not drawing dead in your example. We do need runner runner to make two pair or trips without making a flush, but there are still cards that can come where we win which means we aren’t drawing dead [emoji106] (We are only drawing dead when we have literally no chance of winning the hand and in that case all of our odds = 0)

This is a good hand example of a heavy reverse implied odds situation, you’re right!

 

[Collin Moshman]

The way we talk about reverse implied odds in the book pertains to made hands with the potential to call a bet and then usually just get more action when they're behind, like K2 on K J 9.

As you mention Birdman, it can be a very similar situation with draws. If you have a draw to the second nuts or worse, you might be in a reverse-implied-odds type situation where you hit your draw only to lose more money on the turn/river by a better hand. That's interesting from the link you gave that there are other discussions of RIO that expand the definition to include this type of situation.

Thinking more about this -- Katie's point is correct based on the definition we gave in the book and the way I normally talk about RIO. Now though I'm leaning toward broadening our definition (to include cases like dominated draws) in the next edition.

What do you guys think, would this be a good idea?

 

[birdman666]

The way we talk about reverse implied odds in the book pertains to made hands with the potential to call a bet and then usually just get more action when they're behind, like K2 on K J 9.

As you mention Birdman, it can be a very similar situation with draws. If you have a draw to the second nuts or worse, you might be in a reverse-implied-odds type situation where you hit your draw only to lose more money on the turn/river by a better hand. That's interesting from the link you gave that there are other discussions of RIO that expand the definition to include this type of situation.

Thinking more about this -- Katie's point is correct based on the definition we gave in the book and the way I normally talk about RIO. Now though I'm leaning toward broadening our definition (to include cases like dominated draws) in the next edition.

What do you guys think, would this be a good idea?

I am also of the opinion that both situations should be distinguished, because they are completely different. In your book "Heads-up No Limit Hold'em" you mention that future betting can work against a player shortly after defining the implied odds, but you don't mention the reverse implied odds. At the time I was reading it, I also found other sources relating reverse implied odds with drawing dead, actually I believe there are more sources using this last definition. So I thought about calling "reverse implied odds" for drawing dead situations and just "disadvantageous future bets" for marginal hands. But since I still found many sources calling "reverse implied odds" to both cases, I decided to do the same, thinking that it is the fact that the opponent has implied odds against us that defines the reverse implied odds. Nevertheless, this is the concept that has given me the most trouble in poker theory, and I am curious to know what is the real origin of the term.
Maybe a mathematical definition would help clarifying this, but while it is easy to write a formula for the implied odds starting from the ordinary pot odds, I don't believe there exists a formula for the reverse implied odds. Being just a qualitative definition helps a lot in diverging it.

Anyway, both definitions make perfect sense for me.

 

[xOneCoolHandx]

Quiz Question

IO: 36:1
Call and take a flop

Terrific video. I really like the section on the reverse implied odds and can't wait to learn more.

 

[Katie Dozier]

IO: 36:1
Call and take a flop

Terrific video. I really like the section on the reverse implied odds and can't wait to learn more.

So glad to hear that!

 

[dougiefresh1969]

Hello poker players wishing you all luck today

 

[Edgerik]

Good video, very well explained for beginners and why not also for professionals.

 

[Katie Dozier]

Good video, very well explained for beginners and why not also for professionals.

So glad to hear this!