Pot odds -- a clarification
In a comment to a previous post Wayne Vinson says
He's making that comment as a result of my having said
Wayne's comment caused me to go look up how Harrington does define pot odds. My comment was about something he'd said on p.14 without having defined pot odds so I just assumed he meant the term in it's generally understood meaning.
Harrington does define pot odds later, on page 122. He says
Harrington goes on in that chapter to discuss potential changes in odds if there's a player behind you who might call or raise, and to discuss how pot odds might be modified to account for implied odds.
But there's nothing in his definition that suggests he's using the term pot odds in any abnormally broad way.
Maybe Wayne can clarify his comment?
It is true that Harrington tends to use language rather loosely. His phrase "when your opponent has put you all-in" is an example. Your opponent might have bet enough to put you all-in, but he hasn't put you all-in. He's bet enough so that if you call you're all-in. You still get to decide whether to call. That's a subtle looseness of language, but it's still an example of Harrington not getting it exactly right.
So, it's probably true that Harrington does use the term pot odds in ways outside the generally accepted meaning of the word, and outside his own definition of the term. But that just means he's sloppy with his thinking, which was my point in the first place.
Harrington uses different terminology than you do, Gary. Specifically, "pot odds" are a broader concept in the way he defines them.
He's making that comment as a result of my having said
On page 14 of Harrington on Hold 'em Expert Strategy for No Limit Tournaments, Vol. 1: Strategic Play they say
There are a variety of mistakes one can make in poker, but one of the most serious is to make a bet or call which is not correct given the pot odds available to you ...
That's just a fundamentally wrong statement that I'm not sure how a book that starts out with that idea has any credibility at all. The power of TV I guess.
The stunning error in the statement is about the idea of betting without the correct pot odds. Pot odds have nothing to do with betting. At least not your pot odds.
Wayne's comment caused me to go look up how Harrington does define pot odds. My comment was about something he'd said on p.14 without having defined pot odds so I just assumed he meant the term in it's generally understood meaning.
Harrington does define pot odds later, on page 122. He says
If your opponent has put you all-in, or has made a bet which is the last significant bet of the hand, then the pot odds are easy to calculate. Just calculate or make your best estimate of what's in the pot, and compare it to the amount required to call.While it's true that Harrington uses more words in that definition than needed, it's not a broader definition than is the norm. If anything it's a more restrictive definition than normal, not a broader one.
Harrington goes on in that chapter to discuss potential changes in odds if there's a player behind you who might call or raise, and to discuss how pot odds might be modified to account for implied odds.
But there's nothing in his definition that suggests he's using the term pot odds in any abnormally broad way.
Maybe Wayne can clarify his comment?
It is true that Harrington tends to use language rather loosely. His phrase "when your opponent has put you all-in" is an example. Your opponent might have bet enough to put you all-in, but he hasn't put you all-in. He's bet enough so that if you call you're all-in. You still get to decide whether to call. That's a subtle looseness of language, but it's still an example of Harrington not getting it exactly right.
So, it's probably true that Harrington does use the term pot odds in ways outside the generally accepted meaning of the word, and outside his own definition of the term. But that just means he's sloppy with his thinking, which was my point in the first place.
Labels: Dan Harrington, pot odds
posted by Gary Carson at 8:26 PM
3 Comments:
Gary, I like your blogs and your challenging stance but some things simply don't matter. This is one. No vagueness in Harrington's excellent books would cause a player to misplay according to Harrington.
Incidentally, you wrote in a previous reply:
"BTW, Ferguson thinks you should often underbet pots."
In the Full Tilt Poker Strategy Guide (Tournament Edition), Ferguson clearly states his preference to bet unexploitably, usually 2/3rds pot.
Underbet means to bet less than a potsize bet.
Sorry for that confusion.
Why do you think Harrington's book is excellent?
I've seen many players get confused about pot odds and bet odds and make mistakes as a result of that confusion.
I've only just started reading Craig's Full Tilt book, btw, and so far it looks better than I'd expected.
I don't think the passage you found is a definition of pot odds, merely an application of the concept.
In Harrington's terminology, odds are nothing more than a ratio. Pot odds are a ratio where one side is the size of the pot. The other side may be a bet you have to call, a bet you're going to make to try to steal the pot, your stack size, or something else. You'll see examples of each usage, and he credits the reader with a firm enough grasp of the concept that they won't get confused. Maybe that's a mistake, but if so it's a mistake of pedantry, not poker.
Harrington's usage is in my experience very much consistent with the loose way most pro gamblers use the term "odds" with respect to poker, especially gamblers who predate the more specific definitions in Theory of Poker.
You've clearly got a beef with Harrington, and I guess that's your business, but his record speaks for itself. When you've got a pair of post-boom main event final tables, a WPT win, a history of consistent cashes, a couple random bracelets, and oh yeah, a ME win then you can pick nits. Until then, realize the man is the most successful practitioner of a difficult discipline, and as such probably knows what he's talking about. If he's wrong, he's less wrong than everyone else on the circuit.
Post a Comment
<< Home