Dumb question about IO MW
How do you calculate implied odds MW? I try to use the 15/25/35 rule HU on the fly but lets say the following situation arises, lets say this is 1/3 for simplicity:
Ex 1 ---
You open 77 LJ to 10 off 800$, CO 3-bets to 35 off 200$, BTN cold calls 35 off 700$ and it folds around to you...
Your IO is 5.7 with CO and 20 with BTN.
Ex 2 ---
You open 77 MP to 10 off 800$, LJ calls off 200$, CO 3-bets 35 off 200$, BTN cold calls 35 off 700$ and it folds around to you...
Your IO is 5.7 with CO and 20 with BTN. LJ hasn't acted yet and can re-raise but assuming he calls you have 5.7:1 IO with him.
-----
Which situation is better for your hand? Do you want more players in so when you hit a set there's more money to be won? Do you calculate IO this way (Ex1 there's a total of 900$ to win at a cost of 35$? while Ex2 there's a total of 1100$ to win at a cost of 35$?). But also the probability of set-over-set increases the more MW it is...
For instance I understand hands like AJo go down in value the more MW it is because of the RIO go up (more people with AQ AK that can take money from you post-flop).
-----
To make a more extreme comparison, you open 77 UTG and are 3-bet by UTG+1. Would you rather be super deep (say 1000$ eff) with UTG+1 HU or 200$ eff with UTG+1 but have LJ, HJ, CO, and BTN cold call the 3-bet behind (each with 200$)?
6 Replies
Both of those examples are folds and not even close. Going off 10x with pocket pairs to set mine in 2025 is extremely bad.
But to answer the question I like situation 1 better because you're closing the action.
There are no dumb questions, only stupid bananas.
As acescracked alluded to, in theory, there is not some magical IO benchmark where you'll make money so long as stacks are deep enough. There is only equity and equity realization.
In practice, players can be bad enough that you get implied odds off of the EV donations they'll make when you hit a big hand. I tend to think this effect is easily overrated in any game where your HH doesn't start with "The two opponent's in this hand are blackout drunk" or "I'm in an insane invite-only game" or "This hand came up when I was teaching my buddies poker."
To the extent that practice diverges from theory, well, that's where reads and ranges come in. The cold caller is SUPPOSED to have the strongest range and so you would want them to be the deepest, but in the real world you USUALLY prefer the 3bor to be deeper. Even when the cold caller is a whale, that usually just means they're calling pre with garbage and aren't necessarily looking to play for stacks post barring a big cooler.
Both these scenarios seem pretty unattractive regardless, facing pot sized raises, OOP with just one ancillary player being deep enough for you to even be thinking about set mining. Like, you're just calling on a wish and a prayer that you hit your set AND you face significant action from one particular player.
I will say the more your odds are coming from being deeper and/or more players seeing the flop, the more important the card rank of your potential set is. At least you chose 77 as your example hole cards, so you're not fishing exclusively for bottom set, though you'll still get coolered against even higher sets in a 3bp.
Getting good direct odds is a much more reliable source of EV that doesn't over-rely on edge cases that can easily be vitiated by other edge cases.
IO also suck against the deeper stacks in these situations because the shorty will mostly be all-in postflop and thus protect the pot from being bluffed by us and the other guy. So if we make our hand in the protected all-in pot and the other guy still wants to get in all his chips, we'll often be in trouble (although, as mentioned above, at least 77 is ~borderline for set-over-set cases).
GcluelessIOnoobG
Not for nothing, but if you raised bigger than $10 at 1/3, you'd get 3B less, and have less to think about when you get 3B, because the IO are going to be less when the stacks are shallower and we'll have a lower SPR going to the flop.
Example 1 - you open to $15, the CO flats off $200, because his hand is only worth $35, not $45, and the BTN comes along because he's on the BTN and he's calling wide IP.
Or the CO 3B's to $45, the BTN cold calls, and you call because you'll be in good relative position to the PFR and the bigger stack post-flop, and your middling PP's play well enough multi-way.
Or the BTN 3B's to $60, and you fold because you know he's not 3B'ing light over the CO's flat when the CO is short-stacked, and you'll be in the worst relative position post-flop.
I'm not sitting there with a mental abacus, trying to figure out my IO when we're multi-way against all different stack sizes. I'm over-folding OOP and against short-stacks, and over-calling IP and against bigger stacks.
It's nice when we're in good relative position on the deeper stacks, or in a splashy game where someone will pay us off when we flop a set. It's easier to know what to do pre if we've been paying attention and know how our opponents play post-flop.
If the situation seems too ambiguous to know what to do, we should probably just fold and take some mental notes on what our opponents do post-flop, what they show down, etc.
IO obviously matters here but 77 has some SDV here even three ways. I’m not turbo folding every flop without a 7.
Honestly given rake (unless you're in Texas or Nevada or something) you shouldn't be opening to $10 at 1/3. I'd be going minimum $15. You gotta beat the rake. Just open less hands.
