🖐 Reverse Implied Odds | 1nazhdy.ru

Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days 🖐

Filter:
Sort:
BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

3) KJo is a reverse implied odds (RIO) hand and tends to lose more than it wins. But at a handed table in early position, it's terrible.


Enjoy!
How to stay motivated after your reverse implied odds backfire?
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Reverse Implied Odds

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

A slow-structured no-limit hold'em tournament isn't about pot odds, effective odds, implied odds, or reverse implied odds. It isn't about how many outs you have.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
WSOP Academy (Chapter 3) - Lesson 06 - Calculating Implied Odds

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Reverse implied odds refer to how much you stand to lose in a hand should you make your Q# What does "your reverse implied odds are terrible" mean?


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Pot Odds, Implied Odds And Reverse Implied Odds strategies [Ask Alec]

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Reverse implied odds are the exact opposite of implied odds. Instead of winning a large pot if you hit your hand, you will lose a large pot if you hit with a hand.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Pot Odds + Implied Odds - A Little Coffee with Jonathan Little, 12/13/2019

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Reverse implied odds are the exact opposite of implied odds. Instead of winning a large pot if you hit your hand, you will lose a large pot if you hit with a hand.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Cash Plays Episode 28: Reverse Implied Odds (Crush Live Poker by Bart Hanson)

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

3) KJo is a reverse implied odds (RIO) hand and tends to lose more than it wins. But at a handed table in early position, it's terrible.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Implied Odds In Poker (+THE EASY SHORTCUT!) - SplitSuit

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

This problem of having the second-best hand and being willing to put chips into the pot with it is referred to as having "reverse implied odds.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Reverse Implied Odds Poker

💰

Software - MORE
BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

While your pot odds are only to-l, your implied odds give you a solid overlay. You should call with your gutshot. Reverse Implied Odds So far we have.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Implied Odds vs Pot Odds in Poker

💰

Software - MORE
BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Implied odds obviously cannot apply when either you or your opponent is already Reverse Implied Odds Implied odds explain situations when your odds are.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Poker Pot Odds In 2020 (+EXAMPLES) - SplitSuit

💰

Software - MORE
BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

1nazhdy.ru › poker › comments › reverse_implied_odds_and_.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Pot odds, effective odds, implied odds and reverse implied odds

I made the edit. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:. The quote you provide says exactly that--he refers to his earlier definition of the term to make his present point about profitability. In the long run, you will win money. Stevage , 25 July UTC. Remove template when the article is no longer a stub. Does this mean that the person is a weak player, or that he has a weak hand? You seem to be arguing a definition of "right" pot odds, and I might not disagree with that. The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated. This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. She has 4 outs. LDC never said there was no such follow-up step BarryD is clearly correct that many players never get past the first calculation if that far , and that is always pleasant when it happens at your table, but I think LDC is also correct that Slansky et al refer to BarryD's "Return" as "Pot Odds" in preparation for then comparing to the odds of improving the hand as a SECOND calculation. Help Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Static3d , 15 August UTC. Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked. Applying this to poker, any time you get favorable odds on a bet, you are compelled to make the bet. You might want to point that out. I'd suggest you research something more reliable than the web, such as well-respected books by real experts like Sklansky, Caro, and others; they use the term exactly as it is defined here, even while they also talk about the kinds of topics you're talking about. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please stop "fixing" the math in the first paragraph that's already accurate. Try and expand any stubs to start class.{/INSERTKEYS}{/PARAGRAPH} We should have something about implied odds Evercat , 15 July UTC. This is one of the ways winners are separated from losers. It would certainly not be out of place to include in the definition a mention that the term is often used that way, and I'll add that. I consolidated implied odds and effective implied odds since they are both the same basic thing and Sklanky's convention isn't universal see Harrington on Hold'em. This is a common misconception, and I hear it often as a professional dealer, most commonly pre-flop. You will neither win nor lose money in the long run. BarryD talk , 18 September UTC The discussion at the introduction of the article seems to be mostly about probabilities of winning, not pot odds. How one uses pot odds is a considerably more complex topic, and the various articles you link to offer more or less reasonable advice on the topic, but they aren't very good at explaining the basic concepts correctly. Views Read Edit New section View history. Eclecticology talk , 8 October UTC. Would it be possible to make this intro much more focused on just pot odds, and leave any discussion of probability to a later paragraph? I'm only talking here about the first-paragraph definition of the term "pot odds" here, and Sklansky's definition agrees completely with that. And the article says pot odds are What am I missing? Expected value compares pot odds with actual probability: Pot odds greater than actual probability is positive expected value. Not sure why you didn't do it yourself Hazir talk , 8 October UTC. And I'll ignore your childish insults; that's not the way to accomplish things around here, especially when it's clear that you can't understand your own examples. The opening paragraph of this article is defining ' Return ', rather than 'Pot Odds'. We're talking past each other here. That's useful, and is something that is often compared to pot odds to make a decision, but is totally irrelevant to the concept of pot odds itself, which is nothing but a simple ratio of pot size to the size of a contemplated bet. I tried to improve the examples and make the article read easier from top to bottom. Stevage , 2 April UTC. Isn't it obvious to anyone who's not seething that BarryD is calling the "compare your call amount to the pot amount" number "Return", LDC is calling it "pot odds", and they BOTH know that in order to determine whether or not to bet, there is then the extra step of comparing that number to the odds of improving the hand? Most of your links, for example, talk about how to calculate odds of making a draw. It just seems very strange and out of the ordinary to me. This is ambiguous. Remember that " to 1 odds" means the same as "1 in ", not "1 in ". Anyone have a proper source for this? The basic example [Sklansy] uses of a coin-flip makes it easy to conceptualize Expectation - in the long run, a coin-flip is a proposition, so an even-money bet has an expectation of zero. Your interpretation of "right" pot odds being a combination of pot odds plus odds of winning is indeed a common shorthand expression, but it is not a good way of explaining the concept itself. The only potentially controversial statement I made is that the precise calculation of implied pot odds isn't well documented for hands that are not certain winners or certain losers depending on cathing an out or not. The thing I find most surprising about this exchange is that BarryD seems to imply that LDC doesn't understand the follow-on concept that takes into account the probability of improving the hand. We should add something about reverse implied odds , where your odds may appear worse than they seem. Namespaces Article Talk. {PARAGRAPH}{INSERTKEYS}I rewrote the article again. That's 6 cards. And Alice has 2 in her hand. The definition in the article is correct, and much of the information you've linked to here is misleading or just plain wrong. This is an accurate, albeit brief, example. Also, if we make him break even on his call, we aren't going to profit from our bet. But this article is about "pot odds", which is a simple term of art meaning nothing more than the ratio itself. If anyone has knows of a verifiable reference that discusses it, please contribute! For one, i've never seen anyone express their odds as 1 to anything, its always along the lines of "I'm getting 5 to 1 odds on my money". Its pretty strange to express the "win-to-loss" ratio as it is in the beginning of the page. We want him to pay too high a price, which will cause him to make a mistake and then we profit. I'm pretty well read, but I haven't read everything. Unless I'm mistaken, "pot odds" refer simply to the ratio of the pot compared to a given call or bet. Yep, I agree, but I will try to add somethig.. You first "bad" example above is actually correct--the player is getting pot odds for his call; he just doesn't realize that his chances of winning are less than the 9. In the section on reverse implied pot odds we have the expression "If the opponent is weak or bluffing" appearing twice. Download as PDF Printable version. Perhaps someone could edit the use of the word "weak". This article is supported by WikiProject Poker marked as High-importance. Now, I'm a beginner, so I'm probably making a mistake somewhere, but So 4 cards are on the table. Second, using the given formula with odds expressed that way, it gives you a lower percentage with higher odds. This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Rather than my drawing out a long explanation here, I refer to the URL at the bottom of the definition's page:.