T1B

So I've been reading "Harrington on Hold 'Em" and a lot of his strategy is based on pot odds. I get the general concept, but what kind of confuses me is how he never accounts for how much of the pot was contributed by you. In his (unspoken) view, any bet that you've made that was subsequently called is no longer your money. I guess this is technically true, but it seems like it could lead to some deceptive pot odds.

For example, let's say the blinds are 50/100 and you're the small blind. It folds around to the button, who raises to 450. You call and the big blind folds, so the pot is now 1000. After the flop, you check and the other guy bets 100. Now according to Harrington, you are getting 11 to 1 pot odds to call here. It seems to me that since 450 of the 1100 in the pot is from your stack, the actual "pot odds" would only be slightly better than 2 to 1. Then again, I'm not an expert poker player who is good enough to write a book about the game. Am I missing something?

Obviously, a lot more needs to be factored into any given betting situation, but I was just wondering how much credence you guys put in a concept like pot odds...

I look at how much I have invested, and how much I can win, and where I will be if I don't win. I agree with Harrington, once your chips are in the pot, they are not yours anymore.

That's pretty much what I do too. Like in my example above, if I had a mid-size stack, that extra 100 seems like a decent bet. If I'm down to a couple hundred chip, I might just tuck tail and run, pot odds be damned.

Pretty much what Doug said -- once they hit the middle, they're not your chips any more, so your pot odds are based on what you have to put in to keep playing, rather than how much you're already in.

Dinsdale wrote:Pretty much what Doug said -- once they hit the middle, they're not your chips any more, so your pot odds are based on what you have to put in to keep playing, rather than how much you're already in.

I second the motion...