TimmyX
Every poker book tells you to calculate pot odds using only the cost to call vs the total amount in the pot at that time. I don't see how this makes sense.
Let's use an example of hoping to hit a set on the flop when holding a pair, just for simplicity. We'll round the odds of hitting that to 7 to 1. Now let's say there's three people in the pot and the total is $80 at the time you have to call a $10 bet. These are just made up amounts for the purpose of this discussion and we'll say that if the set misses you will fold right then and if it hits everyone will check from there to the showdown at which point you win, again for simplicity.
So using the published method of pot odds calculation it looks like you would make a profit by calling $10 to win a $80 pot at 7:1 odds. Problem is, though the total pot is then $90 you put $30 of that in the pot yourself. So seven times you lose $30, for a total loss of $210, and one time you win $60 (what the other two players put in). Total loss $150. Where's the profit?
Would it not make more sense to disregard the amount in the pot and simply call or fold based on the calculated win percentage of your hand, based on an odds calculator, in comparison to the number of opponents you're facing? Over the long term, the amount in the pot when you hold that same hand against the same number of opponents is going to average out. Say the average pot is $90, including your call, and your winning percentage is 40% (not using the pair in this example but whatever hand would have that win percentage against two opponents). After 100 such hands you would have won $2400 (40 x the other two players' $60 share of the pot) and lost 60 x your $30, $1800, for a profit of $600. It wouldn't matter what the pot amounts actually averaged out to, as long as your win percentage is higher that 33.33% you're going to make a long term profit, disregarding the rake. Figuring in the rake, of 5%, you would have to have a win percentage above 35% to make it profitable.
Now, admittedly, if every poker player in the world used the published pot odds method it would even out between all the players because they would all be losing to each other every time they did it. On the other hand, if you happen to be the only player in the world using the win percentage method regardless of pot size then you're going to clean up because everybody else will basically just be handing you their money.
JimmyHo
TimmyX;161537 wroteyou put $30 of that in the pot yourself. So seven times you lose $30
in your EV calc, you have to ignore the money you have already put in the pot. This is dead money.
Hobbes
TimmyX;161537 wroteLet's use an example of hoping to hit a set on the flop when holding a pair, just for simplicity. We'll round the odds of hitting that to 7 to 1. Now let's say there's three people in the pot and the total is $80 at the time you have to call a $10 bet. These are just made up amounts for the purpose of this discussion and we'll say that if the set misses you will fold right then and if it hits everyone will check from there to the showdown at which point you win, again for simplicity.
So using the published method of pot odds calculation it looks like you would make a profit by calling $10 to win a $80 pot at 7:1 odds. Problem is, though the total pot is then $90 you put $30 of that in the pot yourself. So seven times you lose $30, for a total loss of $210, and one time you win $60 (what the other two players put in). Total loss $150. Where's the profit?
The odds are still there. Once your inital $20 is in the pot it is no longer yours, so it's still just a $10 call into a $70 pot.
JimmyHo
Hobbes;161551 wroteThe odds are still there. Once your inital $20 is in the pot it is no longer yours, so it's still just a $10 call into a $70 pot.
pretty confusing but I think he was indicating $10 into an $80 pot so the final pot is $90 pre-flop; more reason to make the call.
pkrfce9
ow ow ow. the cancer is coming back
welcome timmy.
yes, think of it as 10 into an 80 pot. 7 times you lose for 70. 1 time you win for 80. net +10.
if you fold all 8 times, you lose 0 extra. net 0.
your way of thinking has you losing 30 7 times and winning 60 once for a net of -150 but don't forget if you fold 8 times your net is -160. you are still up +10 by calling.
Hobbes
pokerJAH;161554 wrotepretty confusing but I think he was indicating $10 into an $80 pot so the final pot is $90 pre-flop; more reason to make the call.
You are correct sir.
TimmyX
First I should say that I made a mistake when I said if you folded you would save money. You would have folded anyway if you missed the set on the flop. I edited out that paragraph now.
Now in regard to the replies, yes, that's what the books all say. It's not your money anymore after it's in the pot. That may sort of make sense on paper, but let's face it, that money came out of your bankroll and if you win the pot one third of it is not profit but simply getting back your own money. All you've really won is the other two thirds of it. If the odds against making the winning hand are more than 2:1 you can't possibly profit in the long term.
I think it's a major fallacy to derive the pot odds from the single call amount compared to the full pot amount. As I showed, the math clearly indicates some big losses doing that. How did anyone ever think that made sense? Actually, it's probably best that nobody here agrees with me. That makes me the only player on Earth who won't be giving back all the money that the flawed pot odds players will be losing to me. Ka-ching!
Hobbes
Your error was not in the final call, it was in the first call of $10 if you thought you needed to hit a set to win.
Don't let your 1st error influence your correct pot odds call.
1st call getting 2:1 bad call for strict odds.
2nd call getting 5:1 again no odds.
3rd call getting 8:1...you've backed yourself into a corner of having to make the call based on pot odds.
See you at the tables
Ship it
JimmyHo
ok Buddy, stop playing games. We are on to you.
JimmyHo
TimmyX;161565 wroteYou would have folded anyway if you missed the set on the flop.
not necessarily:
a) pair board on the flop
b) three of the same suit (even if you missed)
c) open ended straight draw (with one of your cards)
d) etc., etc.
Even if I missed my trips, there are various situations I may represent or continue in the hand depending on the flop. Also, I'm not sure of your position based on how you described the opening hand. It depends.
Hobbes
pokerJAH;161573 wrotenot necessarily:
a) pair board on the flop
b) three of the same suit (even if you missed)
c) open ended straight draw (with one of your cards)
d) etc., etc.
Even if I missed my trips, there are various situations I may represent or continue in the hand depending on the flop. Also, I'm not sure of your position based on how you described the opening hand. It depends.
Overpair.
Bluff
JimmyHo
TimmyX;161537 wroteSo using the published method of pot odds calculation it looks like you would make a profit by calling $10 to win a $80 pot at 7:1 odds. Problem is, though the total pot is then $90 you put $30 of that in the pot yourself. So seven times you lose $30, for a total loss of $210, and one time you win $60 (what the other two players put in). Total loss $150. Where's the profit?
how about this example based on your theory:
$1/$2 cash game. You have small pocket pair on the button. Middle position makes it $100 to go ($98 raise). You feel frisky and decide to call. SB has exactly $100 left and goes all-in for a raise of $1. MP calls.
Based on your theory, you put $101 of the pot in yourself. So seven times you lose $101 for a total loss of $707, and one time you win $202 (what the other players put in). Total loss of $505.
You fold.
Me personally, for $1 raise, I'm going to see a $303 pot. Call me crazy.....
BlondeFish
TimmyX;161565 wroteActually, it's probably best that nobody here agrees with me. That makes me the only player on Earth who won't be giving back all the money that the flawed pot odds players will be losing to me. Ka-ching!
I'm one of those "flawed pot odds players" so please tell me where you play so I can donate to you instead of the casino raked satellites. ;)
pkrfce9
TimmyX;161565 wroteI think it's a major fallacy to derive the pot odds from the single call amount compared to the full pot amount. As I showed, the math clearly indicates some big losses doing that. How did anyone ever think that made sense? Actually, it's probably best that nobody here agrees with me. That makes me the only player on Earth who won't be giving back all the money that the flawed pot odds players will be losing to me.
what you have said is completely ridiculous. did you even bother to read and try to understand the responses? go ahead and fold all those aces PF if that is the way you make your decisions.
Milo
Timmy, I'll just paraphrase Blondefish's tagline and tell you that:
If you think the math is wrong, you're using the wrong math.
in short, you are wrong, and "the book", not to mention the various posters, is correct.
Damn, forgot to do the doggerel bit. Crap.
Milo
You STILL seem to be labouring under the idea of counting ALL the money you have put into a pot. You can only look at each bet/street as an individual wager, SEPARATE from previous wagers. That is what you seem to be stuck on, imo. If I am reading your last post incorrectly, I apologize, but that is the impression I am left with.
TimmyX
Okay, calm down all of you who correctly said that I was wrong in my first posts. I admit that I made a mistake but the actual explanation for why the pot odds method works is not what you think it is.
I have now tried all possible bet combinations for a limit game, at pre-flop, flop and turn stages, and although you always lose money whether you call or fold you always lose less by calling with the correct pot odds based on the last call as specified in the books, or folding when pot odds are insufficient. Either way you never make a profit unless the hand winning odds are better than the number of opponents (like 3:1 odds with 5 opponents), you just lose less by calling or folding based on the pot odds as the books say. Of course, in poker taking the route that results in the lowest loss is the best course of action if you will lose either way anyhow. If you don't believe that you will lose either way try it yourself, and I mean lose based on the actual total amount of money you put in the pot in relation to the total amount put in by the opponents.
I don't know if this works out the same with no limit type betting but it always works with all limit type betting possibilities. I say this because it's not actually exact, because when you use exact hand odds with the exact same pot odds the losses don't come out exactly even when folding or calling. You actually still lose less calling than folding with the exact odds. So this is a bonus. But the fact that it's not exact suggests to me that with infinitely variable betting as in no limit there may be a point where this method is not entirely in your favor. Probably is, but you'd have to check it out to be absolutely certain. It also probably doesn't work out perfectly if you just use the odds of hitting a certain hand rather than the precise hand win odds, because you don't know for sure if the hand you're trying to hit will be the winner, unless it's a monster and practically certain to win, meaning full house or better.
So that's why this method has worked all these years, not because you profit by it but because you lose less by it than you would otherwise. A rather surprising outcome, I must say. As far as I know, this is the first time anyone has actually worked this out and found that this is why the pot odds method works. It works in the long run by minimizing losses but you won't make money directly from doing it as the books seem to suggest. The only time that will happen is when the hand win odds are greater than the number of opponents, as I said earlier. Live and learn, huh? I just figured something out that Brunson and Sklansky didn't even know. Not bragging, just pointing it out. Anyone is welcome to try to disprove what I have stated here.
Thanks to everyone who answered my posts.
Hobbes
This must be HOF worthy.
pkrfce9
TimmyX;161608 wrote I just figured something out that Brunson and Sklansky didn't even know.
it is rare for someone to make such a valuable contribution to the poker world with a mere few posts. you have achieved the unthinkable.
i hunger to learn more of this incredible wisdom. the forum needs more advanced thinkers like you. please continue to share.
i look forward to sitting across from you at the poker table where i can profit firsthand from your amazing insights.
in the meantime, prepare to take your place amongst poker's all-time greatest strategists.
800OVER
I just figured out something that God doesn't know....
I look forward to the new line of TimmyX poker books coming to a Chapters near you. The only thing I don't get is someone who is obviously making millions of dollars playing poker (his edge is above those of the best pros) whose wasting his time teaching us schleps here at pokerforum. A true humanitarian to be sure.