Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="WildBullshark, post: 665909, member: 30533"] I think implied odds are very important, but [B]people often try to justify horrible plays with weak hands through implied odds[/B]. Even most professional players don't use implied odds without marginally strong or drawing hands. You would really have to be playing an extremely deep stacked full-handed game and have a lot of information on your opponent to be calling based on implied odds with a pair of fives in that spot. Especially for the play to be profitable. You would have to put your opponent on a very small range of hands if not an exact hand. Most importantly, and something practically no one does while computing implied odds, is [B]you didn't factor into your calculations that the two pair could be counterfeited or an ace hits on the river[/B] which is a close percentage to the Q5 hitting its outs in the hand anyway. The AA would be roughly [B]18.18% [/B]to win the hand after the turn, which isn't too much worse then Q5's [B]22.12%[/B] on the flop, not to mention that the Q5 is only [B]12.12%[/B] preflop (which in my opinion is a very weak call). So, a lot of mistakes were made by the Q5. Implied odds are important, but in the hand you explained for the play to be profitable, you would need an enormous bankroll to sustain hits and not drop down in levels. Which is definitely not possible if you play the hand like that and lose it 10x in a row, which is very probable since you are only winning it [B]12.12% [/B] of the time. Secondly, I don't suggest making marginally profitable plays like this in larger variance games like NLH, especially in a $1/2 game where people make so many mistakes. More ideal situations will arise than this in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us