Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

What do you guys think about this statement?

Reply to Thread
  1. supermoves supermoves is offline invented poker

    Posts: 6,840
    Joined: Feb 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:15pm)

    "Pot odds are <SPAN>never</SPAN> meaningless. If your hand can win 10% of the time, it's a mistake to fold if the pot is offering you 10-to-1 or better"

    I agree with the first part, but disagree with the second part. I dont think pot odds are "end all,be all" of any decision, but certainly they should be a factor. Just because a call would be mathematically correct, doesnt always make it correct overall. I can think of several instances where I would fold no matter WHAT the pot odds were, because I believe it to be a correct overall strategy.

    If I had a flush draw and the pot was paying 3.1:1 but the call was for all my chips, I can think of MANY situations where I would lay the hand down vs. risking my tournament life.

    How do others feel about it?
    1
  2. MookMonster MookMonster is offline

    Manhattan, NY
    United States

    Posts: 5,170
    Joined: Oct 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:20pm) in reply to supermoves

    i totally agree..i usually only concern myself with pot odds when im HU or 3 handed...LETS TAKE THAT STAT.if ur 10 percent and getting 10-1 u gonna need a great flop..People who play soley by odds sometimes forget that they g2 now beat 8 or 9 people...Even a hand like AK AQ 9 10s is in serious trouble vs many oppents no matter wat the pot odds..Dunno if i did a great job explainly my reasoning here

    =MOOK=
  3. warden warden is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,533
    Joined: Apr 06

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:24pm) in reply to supermoves

    Early in a tourney, I take the odds all day every day.
     2
  4. epicatc epicatc is offline

    New York City, NY
    United States

    Posts: 1,704
    Joined: Apr 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:27pm) in reply to warden

    It's a basic Sklansky problem...it is often correct to forgo a slightly +EV situation if there will be a greater +EV situation later.
  5. MookMonster MookMonster is offline

    Manhattan, NY
    United States

    Posts: 5,170
    Joined: Oct 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:29pm) in reply to epicatc

    Does ne1 pay attention to the players in the pot...lets say theres 5 players after the flop...ur getting 10-1 and 10 percent to win...Is this a worse call than getting 10-1 when HU??
  6. supermoves supermoves is offline invented poker

    Posts: 6,840
    Joined: Feb 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:30pm) in reply to MookMonster

    Oddswise, its the same thing...but if youre heads up your gaurenteed 2nd...so I might take the risk...whereas at a full table, you may not even be in the money yet...
    1
    Thread Starter
  7. steve steve is offline

    Memphis, TN
    United States

    Posts: 1,469
    Joined: Jan 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:31pm) in reply to supermoves

    you're right, I think you have to combine the odds with your read of your opponent. For example, if you are on a flush draw, you have X outs to make the flush, so you need a certain pot odds ratio to make the call. (I don't know the exact numbers off-hand) but unless you're drawing to the immortal nuts (i.e. the A-high flush), there remains the possibility that you could hit your out and still lose. I think you have to factor that into your decision. You have to ask yourself what you are up against--a set, two pair, a straight, or a higher flush draw. in my example, if you have a good read that tells you you're up against a higher flush draw, it is correct to fold even when receiving proper odds, because the outs you're using to calculate the required pot odds aren't true outs.
  8. warden warden is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,533
    Joined: Apr 06

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:32pm) in reply to epicatc

    Misquote. Sklansky says that's only the case if you're a great player. I'm not great, but I consider myself good. And the only reason I'm any good is because I take the +EV situation when I have it.
     2
  9. warden warden is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,533
    Joined: Apr 06

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:34pm) in reply to steve

    I think that's taken into account. For me, the outs calculation is a PokerStove calculation. My range v. their range = percent, and if that is good enough to call then I will.
     2
  10. Run Screamin Run Screamin is offline

    Mexico
    Mexico

    Posts: 386
    Joined: Oct 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:35pm) in reply to supermoves

    I apply this statement to cash games:

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>"Pot odds are <SPAN>never</SPAN> meaningless. If your hand can win 10% of the time, it's a mistake to fold if the pot is offering you 10-to-1 or better"</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
    I apply this statement to tournaments:

    "If I had a flush draw and the pot was paying 3.1:1 but the call was for all my chips, I can think of MANY situations where I would lay the hand down vs. risking my tournament life."

    The two have to be treated separately.
    1
  11. warden warden is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,533
    Joined: Apr 06

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:36pm) in reply to supermoves

    And it's 9:1, not 10:1. You're calling with 10:1 if you have a 1/11 shot of winning the hand or better.
     2
  12. Pokerghost2 Pokerghost2 is offline

    Denton, MD
    United States

    Posts: 210
    Joined: Jun 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:45pm) in reply to warden

    sounds like the guy who made that statement was referring to a cash game scenario.
  13. warden warden is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,533
    Joined: Apr 06

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:46pm) in reply to MookMonster

    Neither is bad, but it doesn't matter how many players are in the pot. It just matter what your chance at winning the pot is. 10% is 10% whether it's heads-up or with 20 players.
     2
  14. warden warden is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,533
    Joined: Apr 06

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:48pm) in reply to Pokerghost2

    Why does it have to be a cash game situation?
     2
  15. threeven threeven is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 18,612
    Joined: Feb 06

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 4:56pm) in reply to supermoves

    Well when you are talking about tournements, then oppritunity cost comes into play. By taking a 3.1 to 1 shot for all your chips, even if you get slightly better odds than you would need, you are costing yourself future oppritunities to let skill take over.
    2
  16. warden warden is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,533
    Joined: Apr 06

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 5:00pm) in reply to threeven

    But isn't "skill" just taking +EV opportunities when they're presented?
     2
  17. OMG_LOL_WTF OMG_LOL_WTF is offline

    Los Angeles, CA
    United States

    Posts: 2,628
    Joined: Nov 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 5:06pm) in reply to warden

    Depends what the implied odds are?

    What does he have? Will he pay if I hit?

    In a limit game pot odds are king but in NL it's all about stacking people.
  18. sandwich sandwich is offline

    Berkeley, CA
    United States

    Posts: 224
    Joined: Jul 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 5:08pm) in reply to OMG_LOL_WTF

    What came first, the chicken or the egg?
  19. warden warden is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,533
    Joined: Apr 06

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 5:10pm) in reply to OMG_LOL_WTF

    Agreed. I'd say that's the bigger difference between cash games and tournaments. In tournaments, since you can't reload, you can't take advantage of as many implied odds situations because of the effect they'll have on your stack.
     2
  20. FastYellow FastYellow is offline

    Westlake Village, CA
    United States

    Posts: 242
    Joined: May 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 5:20pm) in reply to supermoves

    Pot odds are not really a factor in tournament play and here is the reason why:

    Odds take time to even out and each and every tourney you play is like a mini poker life. Once you are dead (out of chips) any and all "odds" that you were getting have gone out the window. They are not realized in the next tourney...it doesn't work that way.

    All pot odds say is that if the pot is offering you greater odds than what it takes to make your draw then OVER TIME you will make money (the difference of the odds to make the hand and what the pot is laying you.)

    In tourneys, if you are eliminated, there is no longer time to realize the odds that you were getting.
  21. warden warden is offline

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,533
    Joined: Apr 06

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 6:03pm) in reply to FastYellow

    But if you play multiple MTTs, doesn't that "over time" factor occur? And is that even necessary? The play, on average, has a positive expectation. What more do you need?
     2
  22. FastYellow FastYellow is offline

    Westlake Village, CA
    United States

    Posts: 242
    Joined: May 05

    Jun 7th, 2006 (6/7/2006 6:09pm) in reply to warden

    No, because once your poker life is over the odds go out the window.

    Everytime you enter a new tourney you start with a fixed # of chips. There are no carry overs from other tourneys. So anything you gained or lost was left behind in that specific tourney.

    The play having a positive expectation can be out-weighed and often is by your specific situation in the tourney. What level your at, your stack at the time, bubble concerns etc etc.

    There are many other factors in a specific tourney that require you not gamble and many that force you to. Remember, in a tourney, chips are just a way of keeping score...like points. Don't think of it in terms of money at all.
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads