Episode #137: Pot Odds Redux

MAIN TOPIC

You asked for it, we cried, but we gave it to you. We tried our best to improve upon our previous infamous "pot odds" show. How'd we do? Click here to listen to the show.

To calculate pot odds, first figure the ratio of the money you need to bet to the money that's in the pot. if there's $30 in the pot, and the bet is $3, that's 10-1. Next, figure out how many "outs" - cards that will help your hand - exist, and divide the number of unseen cards by that number. Let's say you've flopped four to the nut flush. Nine remaining cards complete your flush. There are 47 cards, divided by nine is 4.22-1.

Generally speaking, if the first number (10-1, in this case) is larger than the second number (4.22-1, here), then you call. If it's lower, you fold.

We also briefly touch on "implied odds," which is when you can factor in future bets you expect to win if your hand improves.

There are a gazillion good resources on the Web, but we suggest you find a pot odds chart and study it. Just having a basic idea of whether a call, or fold, is the right move will improve your game immensely.

OTHER TOPICS

Just shut up! No, not you. (Well, yes you if you're as whiny as the guy on Scott's left this week). Seriously folks, no one wants to hear bad beat stories or constant crying at the poker table. Grow up.

Chicago is our kind of town: Thanks again to the Chicago Poker Club for keeping us atop their podcast rankings, and come by the Billy Goat on Sunday to rib Scott for not always talking clearly into the mic.

Show!, no you show! No, you show! A playground confrontation between Phil Hellmuth and Jean-Robert Bellande took place on Poker After Dark this week, and listen in to get the real scoop on who was right from Sam Minutello.

Be Chris' social network friend! Chris has joined the new Poker Players Social Network, kinda like a Facebook or MySpace for poker players. It's pretty new, but is picking up steam quickly, all by word of mouth.

What's on your Poker Bucket List? Let us know.

Poker pitchmen on wheels: Online gambling site 888.com has joined up with cabbies in London to promote its site. When you climb into a cab, a cabbie might try to get you to talk about poker. If you do, then he might try to convince you to play on 888.com. Hey, what else are you going to do on the average 16-minute cab ride in London?!?

Hotline: Ross from Indiana calls, suggesting that we use our "card dead" periods to pay attention to action and try to steal in optimal situations. We agree.

One Minute Mystery: Columbo makes what he says is a reckless call, and it works out as his opponent was making a move with 2-2.

HAND OF THE WEEK

To demonstrate our proficiency in pot odds (pause for laughter), we break down a hand from the Ante Up! Home Game where Chris tiptoed on the border of correct odds to win a no-limit hold'em hand.

It's a six-handed table, with blinds of .50/1 and a 50-unit cap. UTG+1 raises to 3, and Chris calls on the but-ton with Ad-Kd, as does the SB.

The flop: 3s-8d-4d.

The SB checks, the original raiser bets 6. Chris figures he's getting 2.7-1 on his money, and his odds of improving are 3.1-1. He makes the borderline call, and the SB check-raises to 15. The original raiser folds, and now Chris is getting 4.1-1 to call, and his new odds are 5.875-1, since he has to assume some of his previous "outs" are no longer good with a player showing strength. That's not enough to call, but Chris reasons he has enough implied odds to make the call profitable.

The turn: 10c.

SB bets 12, which gives Chris 5.3-1 on his money. When considering the cap, Chris makes the call, hits his flush on the river and extracts a value bet out of the SB, who had 3-3.

NEXT WEEK'S SHOW

Former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, now chairman of the Poker Players Alliance, calls in to field our questions on what the PPA is up to these days and to give us an update on the legislative climate for poker. Have a question for the senator? Post it here.

- SCOTT

Comments

[aces88ss]

FINALLY...Can't wait to hot the tables tonight now that I understand pot odds!

Seriously, nicely done. Especially tossing out that 4/2 "easy" way to calculate. I always had a problem with that number, especially lower limits, where there is always going to be 5-6 (sometimes it feels like 11) callers.

But, do have a 2 cents worth opinion... With that many callers, assuming you have slick, if an A or K doesn't hit the flop, you really shouldn't count the 3 aces nor the three K's as outs. I live in a small casino town, filled with tourists that have that dangerous little bit of knowledge.

Maybe they read a book, or possibly listened to episode 17...But during their table talk, they always talk about pot odds when they are drawing to top pair. Strictly anecdotal, I have no idea about the math, but in the long run, players who draw to hopefully get top pair will hit it and get paid off just often enough to keep them playing till they go broke. More often than not, either they don't make that top pair, or they make it, and lose to 2 pair, straights or what have you.

When there are 5 people seeing a flop, counting top pair draws as outs is very dangerous.

My long winded point is that most players count too many outs as true outs. Just cause it improves your hand, doesn't make it an out.

[AZslick]

The hand of the week. . .Guys it is easy to tell that those calculations were done after the fact. . . I don't think that the conculator in Chris' head goes to the right of the decimal point. LOL

Good job guys and keep up the AWARD WINNING Podcasts.

As Always With Pocket Aces

[Chi-Guy]

Great Job on the Pot odds show. Perfect analysis and Math.

Brian

[Rasputin]

Sometimes you guys just slay me. Usually this is a good thing. Not this time.

First, the previous pot odds show wasn't bad. It's just a subject that makes for crappy radio.

That's not the problem here though.

The problem is the excoriation of the rule of 4.

You say people shouldn't use it at all because they're using it wrong. That's like saying you shouldn't use a hammer to pound nails because it's hard to hit the nail with the claw.

The rule of 4 was never ever intended to be used when you're only seeing one more card. Phil Gordon never said so, David Sklansky never said so. No poker writer has ever said so--even the really really crappy ones.

As a tool for estimating odds with two cards to come it's fine. There are better approximations but the rule of 4 is fine.

If you really want your listeners to understand pot odds and implied odds, tell them to read a book. Seriously, it just doesn't work via audio.

There never used to be any good books on No Limit. You had Theory of Poker but that was more general and it's not always easy to apply the general to the specific.

No longer.

The first three parts of Professional No Limit Holdem Volume 1 by Matt Flynn and Sunny Mehta are excellent for understanding outs and odds, bet sizes, stack sizes, pot control, position, and the process of putting someone on a range of hands, estimating your equity and, and maximizing your value. If you're going to play a lot of No Limit you want to know these things and you want to think about them when you look at hands.

Let's face it, whenever someone talks about pot odds or implied odds they act like you know exactly what your opponent's cards are which in practice is almost never the case. It's a much more fluid process than is often described.

I haven't seen them yet, of course, but Dan Harrington has two cash game books coming out soon and judging by his tournament books the cash game books will be outstanding.

You can see the table of contents by going here
http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/Harrington%20on%20Cash%20Games.pdf

Just for fun, look under Calculating Outs.

And in conclusion, you might want to look into having Tommy Angelo on your show. He's got a book he wants to sell and judging by the columns on his web site he's a funny SOB.

[Erik]

If you played your A,K suited faster you'd have gotten him to put in the $50 cap on the flop and won an even nicer pot.

[Eddy]

Great job clearing up the "rule of 4" misconception. It's always bugged me that people don't get it only applies to situations that put you all in. One note though. At one point Chris says 20% = 5 to 1. That's not correct. If you are 20% to catch your hand, that's actually 4 to 1 odds. You make your hand 20% of the time, and miss it 80% of that time. That is, you make your hand one time in 5, and miss it 4 times in 5. That = 4 to 1 against.

[Chris Cosenza]

Eddy: That's right on the 20% line, I just misspoke, thanks.

Rasputin: I don't dispute your assertion that no poker writer said The Rule of 4 is for just one street. So why did I spend half the segment explaining that exact point? Because THEY NEVER DID. In their descriptions of the Rule of 4 they always say it's the rough percentage you'll make your hand by the river. But they NEVER say don't use this percentage in figuring the turn. The first thing they tell you is here's the percentage you'll make your hand by the river, and then they tell you to figure you're pot odds for the turn. It's easy to see why people get confused. It's a HUGE misconception and something beginners should have burned into their brains. Hopefully Harrington's treatment of The Rule of 4 will make it clear for the readers. I never said the Rule of 4 was bogus for overall percentage, just a huge mistake if you think it's the odds you should use to figure the turn bet. We obviously didn't have time to get into strategy otherwise I could have used the Rule of 4 for good instead of evil. Maybe someday we'll do a Pot Odds strategy episode, but until then we had to give you nuts and bolts, and right a wrong.

Also, we always tell listeners that we're just giving you basics and there's a font of knowledge at your fingertips on the Internet and book store. No one should think we are the end-all be-all of poker knowledge. If anyone believes that they have more problems than wondering what odds they are getting on their money with a flush draw.

[Brett Otte]

Pokerbook shoulda been the name of the social site.

[Ashwin]

Just a small question to ask about this topic to see if I'm thinking correctly. Chris says 'we count 9 outs for the flush even though we know someone may have one heart'. It's my understanding that we know that people may have hearts, but we think that the distribution will be relatively even, so it doesn't matter.

[viii_ball]

When discussing Pot Odds everyone always seems to come from the angle of what do I need to call a bet. There is a flip side to this that I try to use as well. How much do I need to bet in order to make my opponent make a mathematical mistake to chase his draw. Now I am certainly no math whiz but if you take out the "Rule of 4" as Chris asks us to do, any bet at or over 1/2 of the pot on either the turn or river makes it incorrect for my opponent to call (and on the flip side, incorrect for you to call if you opponent bets 1/2 of the pot).

Here is my calculation and let me know if I am correct.

Usually the biggest draw is the flush and open end straight draw (called the suckers draw because you can never get away from it and it seems to never hit). So I have 9 outs for the flush and 8 outs for the OE Str8 but I have to take out 2 for the OE str8 because they are counted in the flush draw. I have a total of 15 outs. The formula is (outs x 2) + 2 so its (15 x 2) + 2 or 32% to catch my hand on that particular street. This means if I bet roughly 1/2 the pot then my opponent is making a mistake. I can not just bet 1/3 of the pot (33%) because that actually gives my opponent pot odds of 24% and he is correct to call.

Here is the example with some numbers. I put my opponent on the flush and OE str8 draw for a 32% to catch his hand on any street. Pot is $100. If I bet 33% of the pot, then he is calling $33 to win $133 or 24%. 32% to win and costing 24% its an easy call.

Same scenario but this time I bet 1/2 the pot or $50. He is calling $50 to win $150 or 33%. 32% to win costing 33% and its a mathematical mistake (I know only 1% but I am using this as an illustration) for him to call.

With draws not as strong as this you can bet less to have them make the mistake.

Bottom line, without taking into any other factors (including implied odds) it is a mathematical mistake to call any more than a 1/2 pot sized bet with any draw (except maybe the flush, OE str8 and 2 overs but how many times do you get that monster of a draw) so to maximize your EV and keep your opponents from drawing correctly bet 1/2 of the pot.

Thoughts?

[Clever Moniker]

I can't find it now, but there was some article I found months ago which broke all this down (i.e. bet sizing to give your opponent bad odds to call while drawing) in terms of pot size. For some reason I want to say it was Phil Gordon that did it, but I can't be certain.

[van]

vii_ball with your example of 32% to hit the draw, one would need pot odds of 2.1:1 (32%:68%) to call. Betting 50 into 100 would give the "drawer" correct odds of 3:1 (50 to win 150). Betting the pot would give 2:1 (100 to win 200)and a border line math call.

A helpful tip is that percentages are probablities & shouldn't be confused with odds. i.e. 33% is 1/3 meaning you'll hit your draw 1 in 3. Translates to odds hit 1 lose 2 .. 2:1.

[viii_ball]

Van:

I guess I am confused about odds vs. percentages. Thats why I play like a nit and never chase my draws.

Someone needs to come up with a quick chart that says if you have a flush draw you can call a pot sized bet or lower. With a OE str8 you can call a 2/3 sized pot bet or lower. Some math geek want to take this on for the common draws? This basic type of concept would be some much easier than 2:1, 3:1, 33% etc.

[Dave]

Guys, a potential question for Sen. D'Amato. I've heard and read quite a lot about how regulating online gaming could generate billions of dollars for the government which could then be used for all sorts of programs, lowering the debt, etc. Why doesn't that argument resonate with Congress, particularly at this time of fiscal concern?

[viii_ball]

I think I have it.

Str8 & Flush 2:1 - pot sized bet
Flush - roughly 4:1 - 1/3 pot sized bet
Str8 - roughly 5:1 - 1/4 pot sized bet
Boat - roughly 10:1 - 1/9 pot sized bet

Anyone??

[Van]

viii_ball:
I'll probably end up confusing myslef now :) Your example of calling 32% of the pot if your draw is 32% is ok .. typically described as your pot equity. You just need to add your call to the total pot when doing the calculation. If your opponent bets 100 into a 100 pot and you call the total pot will be 300. 32% of 300=96 .. a border line math call (called 100 when the math says 96). Using "Pot Odds" you called 100 to win 200 or 2:1 when the math said you needed 2.1:1 (based on a 32% draw). Same result different calculation.

BTW .. Phil Gordon had a chart in his "Little Green Book" .. if you do a search on odds and outs you should come up with a few handy charts.

[van]

Chart looks good viii_ball!

[viii_ball]

I have a great pot odds chart (found here http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/13913).
It lists both % and odds. But as you can see from my questioning, I was looking to relate a bet to a fraction of the pot size as that is so easy to determine in the heat of the action.

If I don't want to give my opponent odds to call a flush draw I have to bet 1/3 or more of the pot. And on the flip side, if I am drawing to a flush I should not call more than a 1/3 pot sized bet. For me this is easier than 2:1 vs 8134:234.

[viii_ball]

Sorry to belabor this but I just reread the article on Cardplayer that I reference above and the author writes:

"The strategic implications of this are simple: If you have a 10 percent chance of winning, the cost of your call should not be more than 10 percent of the pot's total. With a 32 percent chance, you can call a bet of up to one-third the size of the pot."

This was the point I was making earlier but Van says was incorrect thinking. I am getting more and more confused over this thing. See what you guys started. I think you need a show on Pot Odds Redeux Reduex

[van]

vii_man:
Maybe I'm off base .. this is how I interpret the the comment from the article. If I'm 10% to win that is 9:1 against me. I need 9:1 to justify a call. Krieger says that your call should not be more than 10% of the pots "total". As I noted above, I believe you have to add your call to the "Pot Total". So using a simple examaple .. If I'm 10% to win (9:1)and my opponent bets 10 into a 90 pot I can call i.e. 9:1. If I were to call the 10 bet the pot total would be 100. 10% of 100 is 10 and we have the same answer. I can call a 10 bet into a 90 pot. ??

[van]

sorry viii_ball .. I called you vii_man .. I think I'm losing it! :)