lol how is my calculation wrong fark! Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean its wrong I would bet my $5k to you $1000 that i am right.

2-1 is 33% and 33% is 2-1 there's no if and buts

What is the difference if you have money invested on a sports team or in the pot its the exact same thing

1 - If Hero folds which he has the option to he loses the money he has invested

2 - if Hero wants to win the money in the pot ott which is $69.83 he has to work out if he is getting the right odds to continue, so if he needs 33% (which is 2-1) he needs there to be $94.90 in the pot to make this bet +EV.

$47.45 x 2-1 or 33% which is the same thing = $94.90

I think you guys are saying the same thing, "sort of."

Hero has to call $34.60 to win an existing pot of $69.83. That is essentially 2-1 odds. To calculate the % one would simply divide $34.6 by (34.6 + 69.83) or 1 by 3.
Wolf says:" he is risking $34.60 to win $69.83."
That is true and means 2 to 1 odds.

Ivan says 34.6/104.43=33%. Same thing.

But Wolf makes the mistake saying later on that, "2 - if Hero wants to win the money in the pot ott which is $69.83 he has to work out if he is getting the right odds to continue, so if he needs 33% (which is 2-1) he needs there to be $94.90 in the pot to make this bet +EV."

That is incorrect and it conflicts with his statement earlier that he is risking "$34.6 to win $69.4."

So Wolf in this case the pot odds for a call are 33%.

Ok now i must be getting leveled but if not lets try again

If someone offers you 2-1 on a bet and you invest $47.45 you need to win of him $94.90 not $69.83 this is much less than 2-1 or 33%

Simplest form 1-1 or even money you place $1 you win $1 profit but at 2-1 you place $1 bet you win $2 profit not sure how to explain it any simpler or I'm just getting leveled here which i honestly think i am not.

lol this is amazing

but in the case this isnt a massive level and you are just a misguidedly arrogant

you are calling 34$ vs villains bet of 34$, into a previous pot of 34, therefore getting 2-1 or 33.3%

the difference in poker vs sports betting, is that in sports betting there is no pot, no reason to bet. In poker you have previous bets, called pot which are essentially dead money people battle for

basically your elementary level math failed you

The money you put in the pot in previous betting rounds is no longer yours.

Llort trela.

MP has Hero covered Hero is not folding on the river with what's left behind both players

your so wrong here its amazing

I have to admit the situation where a bunch of top regs/posters try to explain 4th grade math to a rude random is pretty amazing

its like 2009 again

Good to have a frisson of contention in the threads. Nothing like a bit of disagreement for disagreement´s sake.

yeah nice way to avoid admitting that you were wrong here wp

this is where you are wrong

yes tactically because i was using total stacks thinking Hero is gii, but is Hero really just calling turn instead of getting it all in and leaving $12.85 behind when the pot is over $100.

and yes, i like myself some wolf here and there

Wolf the odds are 33% is it is a pot sized bet. i knew it was more than 30% but didn't want to make sure that villian did not underbet the pot before I pointed out this mistake as I'm lazy. The odds are clearly around 1:2 just by looking, and 1/3 equity is needed. I don't get why you are arguing so much about this stuff. Villain does not need to be putting this money in, you are playing against the pot and the deck, villain is just a middle man who might add some money into the pot. Dead money still accounts towards pot odds.


Even after I made the mistake in missing the stupid hypothetical posited, this is argued. If you know villain has 35 and you call turn your not calling river without a hand that beats 35.

Wolf i think you will have a very steep leaning curve if you stick around , eventually all your fallacies will be squashed. But you must drop the 'I'm right attitude' because it's not even arguable some of the things you say and this is coming from someone who can argues like its a past time... it is.

Interesting hand (and comments lol)

I feel like more often than not, in this case, he knows you have aces and is playing back at you vs him having 35. Based on your bet on the turn, I think he sensed weakness and thought he could bet you off of one pair. Little did he know you had a monster. Not sure if this logic makes me a fish or not lol but I'm still learning PLO so the comments are interesting to say the least.

Back to your follow up question though. If I know he has 35 I still call based on the amount of money in the pot and the equity you picked up on the turn.