Collin Moshman
Poker Expert
Silver Level
Question about this rule of thumb that stood out to me as well though:
I noticed that in the pdf we calculated implied odds as ratio of our opponent's stack to our amount needed to call (which was $5,000: $80). I understand that this is merely the definition for how implied odds are calculated, but I ask: "why do we use opponent's entire stack for this calculation - wouldn't it make more sense to use the amount we think we can successfully extract from them?"
Just because I hit a set of deuces here, that doesn't mean I can get Villain to shove all-in against us. So are we really getting $5,000: $80, or about 63:1 here? Obviously, this is way better than the 20:1 rule of thumb given, but I feel that Reverse Implied odds would lower us to less than 63:1 since getting Villain to shove into our potential set is not 100% or am I misinterpreting something?
In this example, I'd probably at least see the flop with our pair of deuces, but in similar situations I'd be hesitant about even playing this hand at all preflop. Is this also acceptable from a theory perspective?
Great question Phoenix. The reason it's done this way is because we're not assuming we will always stack our opponent when we connect. If we're getting 10:1 implied and know we'll always get a full double when we connect, that's plenty to call with 22. But we fold because some of the time we won't hit our set.
So the idea is that we calculate implied odds this way and then only call to set-mine if we're getting much better than we "need" since a lot of the time we won't stack our opponent when we connect.
Hope that makes sense the way I'm explaining it here, if not just let me know!