Implied Odds

There's $150 in the pot. It's $30 to you. So, the pot is currently laying you 5-1. Many players consider the quality of their hand, the size of the pot, and the chance that their hand is good. If they think their hand is no good, they assess whether or not their hand has a better than 5-1 chance to improve on the next card, and they make their decision based solely on that information.



But that process is conceptually incorrect, and fails to take important variables into account. The equation is much more complicated than that. You also must consider any additional value, blending both the positive and negative future value of your holding if you make your hand. The positive is defined by any additional bets that you would gain if your hand wins. The negative is a function of the cost of proceeding if you either fail to improve or improve and lose.



This concept of"implied odds" has huge application in no-limit hold'em games, where deep stack sizes and oftentimes small initial bets create huge variances between the actual odds the pot currently offers and the potential value of a big hand against opponents who have deep stacks and a propensity to call the large late-street bets that are often prevalent in no-limit games. You can take a lot of small negatives if you get to stack them now and again. Of course, however, you must avoid getting stacked yourself. And like so many poker concepts that lean toward action, many are the players who take this idea too far, often putting themselves in situations in which they are taking way the worst of it.



Although implied odds are less obviously relevant in limit poker, they are in fact very important. Whereas no-limit is a game of stacks, limit is a game of betting units, and the potential to win future units is critical to limit equations.



A loose-passive woman limped in from under the gun in my $30-$60 limit hold'em game, and I limped in behind her, holding the 6 6. The man to my left, a weak-tight player who raised only premium hands preflop, hit it. Two players called the raise cold, both blinds folded, and we took the flop off five-handed.



The flop came J 7 4. The loose-passive woman checked. I checked behind her. Mr. Weak-Tight bet into the field. Ms. Loose-Passive and another player called. I thought about the equation of taking one off.



Mr. Weak-Tight's style was to check a miss with A-K or A-Q into a large field. I was confident he held a wired pair. I was 45-2 to catch a 6; 22.5-1 to make my set. The pot currently laid me 14.7-1. Could I acquire the correct implied price of more than 23-1? Since I could make my hand and still lose, I estimated that I needed to win at least $300 more than what was in the pot to make my call an overlay.



Several factors appeared positive. Since I was last to act, the pot couldn't get raised behind me; the $30 price to draw was locked in. I was also in position to check-raise Mr. Weak-Tight and trap the field on the turn for the bigger bet if I hit my 6; since a 6 would appear to be a safe card, he certainly would bet an overpair on the turn. Ms. Loose-Passive would call the turn with any pair, straight draw, or overcards. That there were no flush draws reduced the chance of making my hand and losing.



Getting the $300 I needed to make the call was close. Did I have any extra outs? If a 5 came, I would pick up an open-ender and get an overlay from the pot to draw to the straight. That added some value to my holding. I tossed $30 into the pot, thinking the bet was close to neutral, but that gambling in this spot could have future value if I sucked out, by putting my opponents on tilt and making myself harder to read in the future.



Bang! The 6 scooted right off, giving me third set. I checked, with the intent to check-raise. Dutifully, Mr. Weak-Tight bet, the caller folded, Ms. Loose-Passive called, and I check-raised. They both called. The 7 hit on the river, filling me up. I bet. Mr. Weak-Tight called and Ms. Loose-Passive folded. I turned my hand over and the dealer slid me the pot, while Mr. Weak-Tight mumbled to himself! I gained exactly $300 strange after catching the 6.



Yeah, I got lucky to spike the 6, but the play, while close, was correct. I didn't have to get $300 extra; I also could have gotten more or less. The hand speaks to estimating your implied odds and what to consider in order to accurately estimate your price.



Consider the ability of your opponents to read your hand. That incorporates both their ability to read hands and how disguised your hand is. Hands made with coordinated boards like non-gapped straights or flushes have less value, because your opponents may be scared by the card that makes your hand. Double-gutshots and gutshots are often well-disguised. With a hand like my sixes, you can catch your card and your opponents won't feel a thing!



Judge the likelihood of your opponents to call future bets – and in no-limit, the potential size of those bets. Also, however, blend into the equation the potential for you to make your hand and lose, and how much you might lose – which is reverse implied odds. Calculate an amount that you need to win above what is in the pot right now by comparing your odds of improving/winning to the price you need, and then decide if you can achieve that number.



If the play is a positive one, give it a go. It's kinda fun sucking out!



Roy Cooke has played winning professional poker since 1972, and is also a real estate broker in Las Vegas. He has been a Card Player columnist since 1992. His longtime collaborator, John Bond, is a freelance writer in South Florida. Their newest book – about the play of hands – is How to Play Like a Poker Pro, recently released by ConJelCo. Please see Roy's real estate ad on this page.