Can anyone come up with a snappier, more descriptive or intuitive term for the effect currently described as ‘negative implied odds’?

Here is an example of the effect in question:

From a SitnGo, fairly early on. (We are assuming that survival counts for more than squeezing out max value.)

Hero raises in SB with AA and gets 2 callers who previously limped.

Flop: 555. Hero leads, one caller.

Turn X. If hero bets now, he maximises his value against a smaller full, but risks getting busted or crippled if villain is trapping with 5x. Checking now might save his tournament life.

This doesn’t seem too complicated a concept, but bring a term like NIO into it and my mind begins to wander. Can anyone think of a good term for this effect? I thought of ‘trap leverage’ or ‘trapper’s leverage’ but I'm not sure...

In the new NL era I think this is an important concept. It’s time to give it a new name. So, I thought I’d ask the forum. What do you think?

That remark indicates deep flaws in your understanding of poker. The ICM says you should be happy calling all-in on the first hand in a SNG with no dead money as a 55-45 favorite.

Now you are trying to get away from AA, heads up on an extremely favorable 555 flop. Why are you playing AA at all, then? Fold preflop, and "save your tournament life" 100% of the time. I will keep playing poker well, and winning money instead of saving my tournament life.

I think you have bigger things to worry about than terminology, and until you improve your understanding of poker, no one should pay attention to your problems with standard terms.

Thank you for your response. While I totally agree with your example, I don't think it is relevant. I think you misunderstand my point. Would you say there is no conceivable change in strategy to playing a places-paid tournament from playing a winner-take-all tournament (for example)? Wouldn't such a change in strategy follow the lines of what I said?

I didn't anywhere suggest folding. The whole trouble with this hand is that you are NOT going to fold... That is why it is a 'negative implied odds' problem. To put it simply, it could get very expensive. It may well put me out of the tournament. That is why I am considering not squeezing the last drop of value out of my hand in this somewhat extreme situation.

In a cash game I am going to make value bets all the way to the end, and still pay off a raise. In a tournament I could at least consider not value betting, in order to save my neck. But fold? No.

I do have problems with certain standard terms. NIO in my mind is an overly mathematical, even confusing term.

We are playing a game, yet we speak the language of a maths professor. Nothing wrong in that, but no harm in suggesting we do otherwise.

You should bet the turn and get all-in ASAP. And it is a very profitable situation.


I have no idea what you're babbling about.

I agree with Pzhon. you have much bigger problems than terminology. I don't mean that in a mean way, just something to think about.

Also, if you understand what implied odds means, then you should be able to understand negative implied odds (implied odds working against you instead of for you). I think it is the most logical name and isn't remotely overly mathematical.

Negative implied odds is more like calling a a raise preflop with KJ and then having a K come on the flop.

Hmm, no. Negative implied odds (I think I've actually usually heard it as REVERSE implied odds which makes more sense) is when you have what is probably the current winner, but your opponent will only put in future action if he outdraws you. You'll be required to call his bet on the next street, but he won't be required to call yours.

I kinda understand the OP point. The example he gave is more like a "cooler". No one is ever putting foe on quad 5's and folding AA. The flush example below is better.


"Negative implied odds mean you need to be worried about hitting your hand and still paying off an opponent who hit a better hand against you. If you bet out after making your Jack-high flush and your opponent raises behind you, you may have to pay him off even if you think he's holding a better flush. One way to handle this situation and to limit your potential losses is to think of the total pot as being worth a little less than it actually is before you consider making your call. " from fulltilt guide. Not sure who orginated the term (sklansky??). "Negative implied odds" is a bit confusing.

so in the j-hi flush example is the principle of NIO implying that it is better to check/call to minimize the loss if your opponent raises with a better flush? or is it assuming you have already bet and the NIO situation is conditional on your having lead out with a strong but vulnerable hand?

Hmm. Maybe I'm confused and negative implied odds != reverse implied odds.

• AFAIK "negative odds" is a sports betting idiom that has little to do with poker situations. Strictly speaking odds can never be negative,i.e. below zero. In poker you can have “unfavorable odds” or “negative EV” but "negative odds" doesn't seem right.
  
• The flush example illustrates potentially unfavorable implied odds or the negative implied EV(-IEV) of a bet out of position when the foe still has a chance to raise for value or for a bluff. For example, if you thought your opponent would never call your bet with a weaker hand or raise with a weaker hand then any bet would be -IEV and should not be made.
  
• I guess the concept of "negative implied odds" (NIO) is supposed be something similar to "reversed implied odds" (RIO) but I've only seen it used in a situation describing a single street of poker, the river.

"negative implied odds" and "reverse implied odds" are both the same thing - both are the opposite to implied odds thus instead of oneself being the one who are drawing to the nuts the opponent are drawing to the nuts.

One place one can read about negative implied odds is in Sklanskys "Theory of Poker".

I've heard "reverse implied odds" or "negative implied odds" described this way, which helped me get the concept a couple years ago:

You have a good hand, but not the nuts. If your bet would ONLY be called by a better hand, you have reverse implied odds. You're putting money at risk with no chance of earning anything on it, because your opponent will easily fold to the bet if he doesn't have better than you, and he'll clearly win it if he does have better than you. You don't want to make the bet in that case.

Of course in real life, you don't know for *certain* that only a better hand will call, but that is the concept.

I don't see anything wrong with the term "reverse implied odds", but "betting when a worse hand will always fold" is the idea, and only 3 times as long.

Personally, I think negative implied odds are a completely useless term.

if you were ever able to use the concept, the number would immediately drop to zero. There can't be any implied odds used against you if you are able to assess them, and trying to assess them will, in the end, ruin your EV.

This is clearly wrong, both in toy examples and in poker. If you are left with a bluff-catcher, and you do not know which cards help your opponent and which are blanks, then game theory says you may have to pay off more value bets than you will catch bluffs.

I've never heard RIO described this way and I don't think it's accurate. I was always under the impression that it broke down this way:

"implied odds" take into account the money you can expect to make on future streets when you make your hand. "Reverse implied odds" are just the money you could potentially lose when you make your hand. For example, drawing to the bad end of a straight, or drawing to a flush when the board is paired, could have significant reverse implied odds. When drawing to the nuts, your RIO are always 0 since you can never lose money after making your hand.

The OP's example seems more like the concept of pot control, which is unrelated (and irrelevant when the only thing you're afraid of is quads).

I don't see why this can't be considered a form of reverse implied odds. Implied odds just means the pot odds implied from future betting. OP figures to win less when ahead than he loses while behind. The thing is that he will probably be ahead far more often than he is behind, so there isn't really any reverse implied odds in this case.