Mind Over Poker

The school of thought on pot odds ranges from those who advocate going with the odds 100 percent of the time to Phil Hellmuth's famous declaration that "pot odds are for suckers." While I think that pot odds are definitely a factor and should always be taken into account, I don't necessarily think that they should be the controlling factor. In this column, I'm going to try to make the case against pot odds as the sole determining factor in no-limit hold'em tournaments. The analysis presented is limited to those situations in which you are contemplating calling a significant portion, or all, of your chip stack because you have favorable pot odds in a tournament. (I think the justification for pot odds in cash games is more compelling. Also, using pot odds to price your opponent out of a call - or make it a mistake for him to do so - is solid poker.)

Making decisions based purely on pot odds assumes that the chips in a poker tournament have a constant value. That's not true. Let's take a look at a starting stack of 5,000 that represents an amount equal to 100 times the big blind at the start of a tournament. Four hours into a tournament, that same 5,000 may represent only five times the amount of the big blind. That 5,000 is now worth much less in terms of your flexibility in how you can play and the power it has to manipulate your opponents and control the game. On the first hand of this tournament, I wouldn't be willing to risk my entire stack on a coin flip, even if I was getting slightly positive expected value (EV). Four hours into the tournament, I would welcome the opportunity to double up, even if I was getting slightly negative EV.

Conversely, if you are at the final table of a major tournament, your ultimate goal may well determine how much you want to play the odds. If each player elimination brings a significant increase in cash that is important to you, you probably want to decrease your chances of elimination, even if it means avoiding some positive-EV situations when they could cost you your entire stack.

The biggest reason I'm against using pot odds as the sole determining factor in deciding whether or not to call in no-limit tournaments is that it is so contrarian to some fundamental poker principles. The worst thing a poker player can be is a calling station. Poker chips have much more value when used aggressively. Every time you bet or raise, you have two chances to win. You can force your opponent(s) to fold or you can end up with the best hand. Every time you call, you give yourself only one chance to win. That is, you must have the best hand.

When you call because you're getting pot odds, you must end up with the best hand even though you are an underdog to do so. Pot odds should be the determining factor if you are a calling station. If you're going to call, at least make sure that you're getting the correct odds to do so. For calling stations, we are truly comparing apples to apples. For the rest of us, however, I'd argue that we're comparing apples to oranges. Those chips do not have a static value. They have more value when used in situations in which you can force your opponents out or value-bet strong hands.

Of course, not all players are of equal skill. Chips in the hands of better players are arguably worth more than those in the hands of inferior players. It follows, then, that any calculation of pot odds would have to take that into account. If you have an edge and you're up against a weak player, why call an all-in bet just because you are barely getting good pot odds? The chips in your hands are more valuable than those in your opponent's hands. Wait for a better chance to get those chips.

David Apostolico is the author of numerous poker-strategy books, including Tournament Poker and The Art of War. He is available for poker lessons, and you can contact him at [email protected].