Pot odds -- a clarification

In a comment to a previous post Wayne Vinson says

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.

Conceptual errors

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. Here's some of what I say about pot odds in The Complete Book Of Hold 'Em Poker: A Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning

Money odds
The concept of money odds is often confusing to beginning poker players. It's really not that difficult: At any given point in the play of the hand there are three sources of money, and each needs to be considered separately. There's money that's already in the pot. That's called "pot odds". There's money that's going into the pot in the current betting round. I call that "bet odds". And, there's money that will be going into the pot on future betting rounds. That's called "implied odds".

Past-----pot odds
Current--bet odds
Future---implied odds

All of these money sources are important, but their importance needs to be considered in different ways.

Pot odds
Pot odds are an important consideration when you're deciding whether to call with a hand that's probably not the best hand. It has nothing to do with betting. That's Harrington's major conceptual error in the statement.

Pot odds are just the ratio of the amount of the current bet to the amount of money already in the pot.

Pot odds are about calling with the worst hand. In limit poker it's often a mistake to fail to call when you're getting a good price.

In no-limit (what the Harrington book is supposed to be about) you're seldom betting a really good price. It's not unusual in limit to be getting 10-1 on a 4-1 proposition. That's a pretty good price. It's really unusual to get that kind of price in no-limit.

And how big a mistake it is to call with the right price depends on what price you're actually getting.

If, for example, you habitually called with a 11-1 gutshot draw getting 10-1 pot odds is that a big mistake? If it's not for all your money it's not even a mistake at all, implied odds certainly make up for the very slight shortfall.

Even if the call is for all your money it's a mistake, but not a very critical one.

That's Harrington's other conceptual mistake in that sentence. He attaches way too much importance to getting the "correct" pot odds.

In no limit you're not making a huge mistake if you just don't even worry about it, just focusing on making accurate judgements about when you're beat and throwing your hand away if a better hand bets into you.

Am I being unreasonably critical of Harrington?