Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
I suppose the problem is rooted in the misconception that reverse implied odds make bluffcatchers expensive. This isn't true. Either a bluffcatcher is profitable or it's unprofitable. Reverse implied odds simply cut into this profitability. When these reverse implied odds become so great that your hand becomes unprofitable to continue with, you no longer hold a bluffcatcher; your hand is junk and thus you should fold.
That does make sense, but it still seems to me that RIO is "a thing", right?
Why would it be the case that a hand like 98s could easily be more profitable than a hand like KJo in some specific scenario?
There are factors that make a hand profitable or not, in my view (and you can watch my vid on the factors of hand value on my youtube ch "Navonod on NLH" where i get into this at length) but i think the factors of hand value are;
Domination,
Nut potential,
Show down value,
and
Synergy/connectivity
Really it seems to me that implied odds and reverse implied odds and, more specifically, the ratio between the IO and RIO of a hand are what add or subtract value from the hand.
For instance; KQ is objectively not as strong as A5, I mean that KQ is a small dog to A5 in pure hot n cold equity. So why does KQ play better than A5? Why is it more valuable in most situations? Or why is ANY hand more valuable than any other hand for that matter?
And I think a lot of comes down to RIO vs IO. There are other things like show down value (the ability of a hand to win some small pots unimproved and how well it races all-in) and Connectivity or synergy that can just allow you to play the hand profitably on a variety of board textures and can allow you to flop draws to big hands that can be played specifically in ways that take max advantage of your opponents' tendencies but with hands like AK, AA, AQ, KQ, and JJ much of the value in these hands comes from the ability to make a strong hand when your opponent makes a strong second best hand so they have better implied odds than reverse implied odds.
hands like small pocket pairs and to a lesser degree Axs, and to a slightly lesser degree still the medium suited connectors and the suited broadways get some (and in the case of small pairs A LOT) of their value from the times when they make a very strong hand that is not easy to see when they're opponent makes a good second best hand, especially a hand that will beat other good hands.
You can think of it however you want to but to me this is very obviously and efficiently described and thought of as a ratio between implied odds and reverse implied odds.
Does this make sense?
Are these top players saying that the idea of reverse implied odds is just over used and taken too far or are they maybe trying to just use some sort of higher order thinking where concepts such as implied odds and reverse implied odds just sort of break down or are revealed to be simple aproximations of some deeper truths?