betting and implied odds...

Gholimoli

Ok so I was playing a hand and even though I played the hand fine until the river I ended up paying the fish because I just couldn’t lay down by beautiful straight.
The dude rivered a flush on me and then even though I knew he had it I couldn’t let it go and I paid him.
After wards I started thinking about the odds he was offered and the implied odds he had.
We were both deep so there was planty there to play for.
The was the hand was played was he flopped a flush draw and I flopped OESD.
He bet and I raised.
The turn gave me the nut str and I bet just short of the pot giving him 2:1 on his money to chase. he called my bet and the river game him his flush .he then bet something like 1/3 of the pot and I obliged .now I pretty much knew he had the flush but the reason why I called was cuz I had a strong hand.if I had TPTK or even two pair I would have no problem letting it go.this then made me think if you should change your betting amount here based on the strength of your hand.what I mean is the stronger your hand is the more likely you are to call even if your beat (cuz u just cant let it go) so infact the higher implied odds your leaking to your opponent. and seen as this is the case maybe if you would bet 3/4 of the pot in a similar situation with TPTK then maybe u should bet more with two pair and even more with straight so as to offer him less in terms of implied odds.
I have no idea if what im saying has any merits but I thought it would make an interesting debate.
So what you all think?

mdwexford

if you want some action when you have a big hand so you cant just overbet ppl out of pots the whole time. you have to take risks and get paid with hands at times too. if you put him on a flush draw and the flush hits you have to drop your straight regardless, your just throwing away chips if not.
if you're prepared to drop it then your making him make a mistake, because hes getting 2/1 to hit his flush when its an actual 4/1 shot and he has no implied odds because if the flush hits your not putting another penny in the pot. its all about forcing your opponent to make mistakes

Gholimoli

mdwexford wrote:

if you want some action when you have a big hand so you cant just overbet ppl out of pots the whole time. you have to take risks and get paid with hands at times too. if you put him on a flush draw and the flush hits you have to drop your straight regardless, your just throwing away chips if not.
if you're prepared to drop it then your making him make a mistake, because hes getting 2/1 to hit his flush when its an actual 4/1 shot and he has no implied odds because if the flush hits your not putting another penny in the pot. its all about forcing your opponent to make mistakes

suppose you have the nut str on the river and the flush card just hit.
there is 400 in the pot and villain bets 100 in to you.
are you saying u will never call here?

Ste05

Well if you look at it like this, if you bet the pot on the turn and he calls, then he bets 1/3 pot when he hits on the river, you're still only giving him 3/1 (including his implied odds) on his turn call, (still a mistake) in which case I don't mind it.

If however people are routinely calling pot bets on the river in this situation to an obvious flush then there's a problem. And IMO changing bet sizes on the turn (based on the strenght of your hand) is not the way to fix it...

Would you have called a Pot sized bet here Gholi?? Or even for that case a 3/4 Pot bet.

shoutman

Firstly Gholi, I don't understand how you can come out with a statement saying you knew he had the flush but called him anyway because you had a beautifull straight... I think you are good enough to lay it down in this position and am surprised you didnt lay it down, if this is a regular occurence I think it is definately a leak in your game and you will become a better player if you rectify it....

That said obviously you didn't 100% know he was chasing the flush but that said you should always follow your read.

Secondly I'd have to agree with mdwexford, and just keep giving your opponent bad odds for chasing a flush, for your theory to make any sort of sense at all your opponent would have to know you reraised him with a oesd and caught it on the turn which isnt the easiest to do...
I doubt if when you asked your opponent why he called the bet on the turn he said implied odds. And he definately would not of said well I thought you had a straight or trips so felt if i hit my flush I could get a call out of you regardless as a straight and trips are too good to lay down.

No hand is too good to lay down (don't get silly and say quads etc)

Once again if anyone see's why my thoughts are illogical or wrong please dont be afraid to say

regards
Luke

mdwexford

Gholimoli wrote:

suppose you have the nut str on the river and the flush card just hit.
there is 400 in the pot and villain bets 100 in to you.
are you saying u will never call here?

not never, it depends how well i know my opponent and exactly how the hand has played out. but you have to go with your reads and if you put him on the flush why call???
its just giving away chips, whether you have good odds or not

Gholimoli

Ste05 wrote:

Well if you look at it like this, if you bet the pot on the turn and he calls, then he bets 1/3 pot when he hits on the river, you're still only giving him 3/1 (including his implied odds) on his turn call, (still a mistake) in which case I don't mind it.

If however people are routinely calling pot bets on the river in this situation to an obvious flush then there's a problem. And IMO changing bet sizes on the turn (based on the strenght of your hand) is not the way to fix it...

Would you have called a Pot sized bet here Gholi?? Or even for that case a 3/4 Pot bet.

i would deffo folded to a pot sized or 3/4 but i may very well have called half pot bet.
even though you put him on a flush but he could have other hands here some times as well that u can beat.

Gholimoli

mdwexford wrote:

not never, it depends how well i know my opponent and exactly how the hand has played out. but you have to go with your reads and if you put him on the flush why call???
its just giving away chips, whether you have good odds or not

you call becasue he could also betting with some hands that u have beat.

Ste05

Gholimoli wrote:

i would deffo folded to a pot sized or 3/4 but i may very well have called half pot bet.
even though you put him on a flush but he could have other hands here some times as well that u can beat.

that's my point, he still made a mistake on the turn, because he never had the correct implied odds, either he takes the bet at 3:1 (or possibly) 4:1. Either way it's fine, I'd call every time for a small bet like this, and it wouldn't matter if I had a straight/ set/ top 2 if I thought I was ahead on the turn, and bet the pot, he called with a probable flush draw I'd pay him off for his microbet, and be happy that he didn't have the implied odds.

Once he starts looking for 5:1 or 6:1 implied odds on his turn call, I fold. Which again I don't mind, if it happens to be a bluff this time, when I have a hand and they do it again, it'll be easier to make money off him.

Gholimoli

shoutman wrote:

Firstly Gholi, I don't understand how you can come out with a statement saying you knew he had the flush but called him anyway because you had a beautifull straight... I think you are good enough to lay it down in this position and am surprised you didnt lay it down, if this is a regular occurence I think it is definately a leak in your game and you will become a better player if you rectify it....

That said obviously you didn't 100% know he was chasing the flush but that said you should always follow your read.

Secondly I'd have to agree with mdwexford, and just keep giving your opponent bad odds for chasing a flush, for your theory to make any sort of sense at all your opponent would have to know you reraised him with a oesd and caught it on the turn which isnt the easiest to do...
I doubt if when you asked your opponent why he called the bet on the turn he said implied odds. And he definately would not of said well I thought you had a straight or trips so felt if i hit my flush I could get a call out of you regardless as a straight and trips are too good to lay down.

No hand is too good to lay down (don't get silly and say quads etc)

Once again if anyone see's why my thoughts are illogical or wrong please dont be afraid to say

regards
Luke

when i say i knew he had a flush i meant it was most likely he had it.
the problem here is there are other possible holidngs for him that you can beat.
the stronger your hand is the more possible holdings of your opponent you can beat hence the more you are likely to call.

jimbling

no matter what way you look at it gholi.... calling on the river with a straight to an almost definite flush is a leak. It's a leak a lot of players have, but still a leak.
What your talking about is coming up with another mechanism for combatting the leak... rather than fixing it.
I think what your talking about may work, but on the negative side you'll be losing money in the long run because some of the fishy players who were calling your poor odds will not call worse odds. You want the guys who call a 2-1 bet on a 4-1 draw.

Gholimoli wrote:

when i say i knew he had a flush i meant it was most likely he had it.
the problem here is there are other possible holidngs for him that you can beat.
the stronger your hand is the more possible holdings of your opponent you can beat hence the more you are likely to call.

what you look at here is how much he bets on the end. In this situation he bets 1/3 the pot. Its up to your judgement how many times he will have the flush or not. If you think he will have the flush 3/4 times then you fold, if you think 1/4 times then u call. Its up to your read and gut.

When you dont have a str, but TPTK, then you have to include the other hands he could have in the above calculation. i.e. flush 1/4 and a 2 pair 1/8 etc etc.


But... the problem with your proposed method is that your scaring away potential winnings.

Hectorjelly

jimbling wrote:

no matter what way you look at it gholi.... calling on the river with a straight to an almost definite flush is a leak. It's a leak a lot of players have, but still a leak.

the guy bet 1/3 of the pot on the river

Gholimoli

Ste05 wrote:

that's my point, he still made a mistake on the turn, because he never had the correct implied odds, either he takes the bet at 3:1 (or possibly) 4:1. Either way it's fine, I'd call every time for a small bet like this, and it wouldn't matter if I had a straight/ set/ top 2 if I thought I was ahead on the turn, and bet the pot, he called with a probable flush draw I'd pay him off for his microbet, and be happy that he didn't have the implied odds.

Once he starts looking for 5:1 or 6:1 implied odds on his turn call, I fold. Which again I don't mind, if it happens to be a bluff this time, when I have a hand and they do it again, it'll be easier to make money off him.

yeah i get what ur saying.and your right .the problem is you gotta make sure you never pay anything above the odds and again the stronger your hand the more likey your are to do it.

Gholimoli

jimbling wrote:

no matter what way you look at it gholi.... calling on the river with a straight to an almost definite flush is a leak. It's a leak a lot of players have, but still a leak.
What your talking about is coming up with another mechanism for combatting the leak... rather than fixing it.
I think what your talking about may work, but on the negative side you'll be losing money in the long run because some of the fishy players who were calling your poor odds will not call worse odds. You want the guys who call a 2-1 bet on a 4-1 draw.

if he is a fish and is willing to take 2:1 on a 3:1 shot or 2:1 on a 4:1 shot then you can be sure he will take worse bets.

Ste05

Gholimoli wrote:

yeah i get what ur saying.and your right .the problem is you gotta make sure you never pay anything above the odds and again the stronger your hand the more likey your are to do it.

Well this is the leak that has to be looked at, are hands like a set, or 2 pair going to bet on the river when a flush completes?? In fact how often are weaker hands going to bet, whether you have a straight or TPTK, all you really beat is a bluff to this river bet, and so therefore just call/fold accordingly...

jimbling

Hectorjelly wrote:

the guy bet 1/3 of the pot on the river

yes... i tried to cover that in my edit. Gholi mentioned a pretty much sure flush. That small be would lead me to believe it even more (especially from a fish). I would think he will have the flush a huge number of times. much more than 2/3 times.

jimbling

Gholimoli wrote:

if he is a fish and is willing to take 2:1 on a 3:1 shot or 2:1 on a 4:1 shot then you can be sure he will take worse bets.

If you think this, then give them those worse odds all the time. You should... by nature be trying to give the worst odds possible that the players will call.

But you shouldnt be attempting to give bigger odds because your more likely to call on the river if they make it.

Hectorjelly

jimbling wrote:

yes... i tried to cover that in my edit. Gholi mentioned a pretty much sure flush. That small be would lead me to believe it even more (especially from a fish). I would think he will have the flush a huge number of times. much more than 2/3 times.

You dont need to win the hand 1/3 of the time. If a guy bets the pot on the river you need to win 50% of the time, half the pot 33% the time, and 1/3 of the pot you only need to be good 25% of the time.

I dont think your opponent will have you beat here more than 75% of the time.

jimbling

Hectorjelly wrote:

You dont need to win the hand 1/3 of the time. If a guy bets the pot on the river you need to win 50% of the time, half the pot 33% the time, and 1/3 of the pot you only need to be good 25% of the time.

I dont think your opponent will have you beat here more than 75% of the time.

Your missing the point to my argument. That is, he shouldnt be making them pay more just because he has a str and it will be harder to lay down. This is pretty much what he was saying.If he can make them pay more on the draw, then he should be doing this all the time.
The calling due to lower pot odds is a side argument and came from the example he gave. Very few will put in a bet this low, but obviously Gholi is still calling.

The only reason for giving worse odds with a str rather than top pair is if you actually fear you may not be ahead at the moment and your trying to save money.

As for the maths.....

sry.. your right about the 1/3rd pot bet and 25%... my bad

but... either way....his reasoning, and mine was based on the fact that he stated it was an almost sure thing. An almost sure thing is definately above 75%. I would also tend to disagree anyway. I think, from the run of the play, that this is a flush more than 75% of the time.

The Snapper

Gholimoli wrote:

Ok
this then made me think if you should change your betting amount here based on the strength of your hand.what I mean is the stronger your hand is the more likely you are to call even if your beat (cuz u just cant let it go) so infact the higher implied odds your leaking to your opponent. and seen as this is the case maybe if you would bet 3/4 of the pot in a similar situation with TPTK then maybe u should bet more with two pair and even more with straight so as to offer him less in terms of implied odds.
I have no idea if what im saying has any merits but I thought it would make an interesting debate.
So what you all think?

IMHO This system of betting would be very readable and good players would very easily exploit the info your giving them.

phantom_lord

Sorry to interject but is it not 3/1 to hit the flush on the river?

One in four chance?

mdwexford

phantom_lord wrote:

Sorry to interject but is it not 3/1 to hit the flush on the river?

One in four chance?

no, you've seen 6 cards. your own 2 hole cards and the 4 on the board

this leaves 46 cards in the deck, 9 of which make your flush

37-9 chance to hit your flush, just over 4/1