# Confused With Pot Odds Concept Here

• Bronze
Joined: 18.10.2011
Hello,

I subscribed to a SNG training site called sitngogrinders (not advertising). In a video by tigerbalm, he is confronted with an all-in bet. He has pocket deuces 2 2 and the flop is 7 4 Q

His opponent is first to act and he goes all in.

The pot before the all in: 36492
The pot + All in: 68665

Therefore, he would have to call 36492 in order to win 68665.
Which is like 1.9 : 1 odds

Tigerbalm then said "so I need..34% to make this hand profitable in the long run, so am I going to win this pot 34% or better? or let's call it 40% because we want to make some money".

So I don't understand where the 34% came from?

I have a theory and that is including his money into the pot which is 34.7%. If that is the case then I guess I got it down on pat then and if not, feel free to reply back. I am willing to learn

Thanks,

Maythany
• 2 replies
• Silver
Joined: 17.01.2011
Originally posted by maythany
I have a theory and that is including his money into the pot which is 34.7%. If that is the case then I guess I got it down on pat then
yes, or kinda. a little something:

Originally posted by maythany
The pot before the all in: 36492
The pot + All in: 68665
if that's it, then what he has to call is 68665-36492 which is... 32173? but that way we don't get ~34% so i think you meant the pot before shove was 32173 actually.
in any case having a look at the general formula should get it in your head. ask if you have questions, this is just a sketch:

EV = pot*win% - call*lose% (EV = 0 for breakeven)
0 = 68665*w - 36492*l
68665*w = 36492*(1-w) (lose% = 1 minus win%)
68665*w+36492*w = 36492
w = 36492/105157
w = 0,347 or 34,7%

[edit: just added some very quick commentary in italics]
• Bronze
Joined: 18.10.2011
Sorry, you are probably right. The total pot was too blurry for me to really get a number so I could be off a little and the same thing with the all in push. I was able to put the pieces together, but I figured I should post on here if I missed something or was wrong. Thanks again!