Dichotomy of Betting and Odds

[Thunder]

One of the earliest things we learn is to assess our odds for continuing to stay in a hand and if the odds are not favourable then we exit. Then we learn about implied odds and so to me, there is a dichotomy at play.

Let's say you have KQ diamonds and the action, after the pot had been raised pre flop, is 3 way and the flop comes down Ad 5h 5d. Villain one bets the pot and villain 2 reraises. Both seem to have hit whilst you have missed completely.

At this stage, general theory would tell us to make a sharp exit but the very fact that there is action leads us to the assumption that this activity will continue thus giving you massive implied odds should you hit your hand (in this case, a flush).

So on the one hand, we should leave pretty damn fast but on the other, it's likely that one - or both - is willing to go broke and continue betting.

Now I won't hang around with my KQ diamonds but the example is correct, is it not? And that there exists the paradox of betting offering insufficient pot odds actually increases implied odds. And that as the implied odds increase, our chances of emerging the victor drop dramatically.

[spoonitnow]

One of the earliest things we learn is to assess our odds for continuing to stay in a hand and if the odds are not favourable then we exit. Then we learn about implied odds and so to me, there is a dichotomy at play.

Let's say you have KQ diamonds and the action, after the pot had been raised pre flop, is 3 way and the flop comes down Ad 5h 5d. Villain one bets the pot and villain 2 reraises. Both seem to have hit whilst you have missed completely.

This is being a little nit-picky but knowing specifics of the betting and stack sizes in play is sort of important here, but I'll elaborate on that in a moment.

At this stage, general theory would tell us to make a sharp exit but the very fact that there is action leads us to the assumption that this activity will continue thus giving you massive implied odds should you hit your hand (in this case, a flush).

In the type of hand you've brought up, there is a lot more that determines our decision, like position, whether we have someone left to act behind us, and so on. The paired board also kills our odds and makes this an easy fold in the vast majority of spots.

So on the one hand, we should leave pretty damn fast but on the other, it's likely that one - or both - is willing to go broke and continue betting.

If your approximation of your implied odds is correct then it's perfectly fine to go broke in a single hand if you're getting the implied odds to call. You'll still make a profit.

Now I won't hang around with my KQ diamonds but the example is correct, is it not? And that there exists the paradox of betting offering insufficient pot odds actually increases implied odds. And that as the implied odds increase, our chances of emerging the victor drop dramatically.

Learning about implied odds is mostly geared towards playing draw hands. On the other hand, learning about regular pot odds is important for a lot more than calling down with draws. This is why you're taught both.

[Pythonic]

Have to proceed with caution with pair on the board. I may just fold the flop.

[Chopper]

i think i see where you are going. an "inverse relationship," if you will. and, you are correct....to a point.

yes, your chances of being BEST go down. the strength you will need to win goes up. and, your chances of stacking someone with a very strong made hand definitely go up when there is plenty of action suggestion draws and hands protecting their pot.

but, you cant simply stack off saying, "i hand implied odds." youre right, there IS a middle ground. and, its not always easy to determine.

how deep are the stacks? is it worth the price to call? how strong is your draw/made hand right now? will it improve to a possible 2nd best hand thereby launching your REVERSE implieds?

a paired board should slow you down...when there's action in front of you. you may likely be using your implieds to price you into a drawing dead situation. and, therefore, need to discount some of those outs when figuring your price.

its all yin and yang. but, i see where you are going with your question. there just isnt a simple answer to justify ALWAYS stacking off when implieds make it correct to stay in the hand.

[euphoricism]

Villain one raises, villain two reraises, you can't call because villain one could easily push. Further, your hand is face up, its obvious youre drawing and theres an obvious draw out there.

[Thunder]

Thx for the responses.

TBH, I didn't think too much about the flop, I just wanted to get out a flush draw. The paired board wasn't intentional. Chopper got it on the head with the "inverse relationship".

It just hit me the other day when I was on a nut flush draw and at first I was to much my hand but then thought that should I get the flush then I will be paid off handsomely as either someone else is on a lesser flush or is paying no heed to the flush possibility and is pushing on with 2 pair regardless.

Out of curiosity, why should the paired board slow you down - risk of a full house?