|
ok
 Originally Posted by daven
allins are not really implied odds situations
Implied odds are to do with calling draws without direct pot odds based on making up this deficit by villains putting in more $$ if you hit. Their bet implies they have a hand they like, from this you can infer that they will continue to put in money on later streets.
people generally over-estimate their implied odds in a lot of spots
okey dokey,
So I guess this would just be an EV-AI situation???
I downloaded 'Poker Math That Matters' by Owen Gaines' .pdf, and yeah now I realize that def isn't an implied odds situation.
Anyone ever check this book out? It explained implied odds to me well, but there are a lot of situations where using the rule of 4/2 that the equity is like 3-4% off that of pokerstove or equilab.. that can be the deciding factor in a call in my eyes...
There is also little graphs he uses for pot odds & implied odds
They go something like this:
pot odds
2x pot bet needs 40% equity
pot bet needs 33%
2/3 pot needs 28%
1/2 pot needs 25%
1/4 pot needs 16%
implied odds:
if our equity is 35% multiply 2x opp bet, and thats how much more we need for implied odds to be correct.
25% need 3x opp bet to continue
Example:
if we have 25% equity in hand
pot= $10 opp bets $7.50
7.50 x 3 = $22.50
17.50 - 22.50 = 4
So opp needs at least $4 dollars for us to call..
Do you guys agree? Just wanna make sure I'm using good advice.
|