Mistake in strategy article?

    • serialced
      serialced
      Bronze
      Joined: 10.02.2007 Posts: 33
      Or am i just stupid and missing something? (its late :p)

      http://www.pokerstrategy.org.uk/en/strategy/17/3/

      This piece:

      Example 2:


      A NL $100 game. MP2 holds 6c 6d and raises to $4. The button calls with As Kh and everyone else folds. The flop is Th 5d 2s. The pot is $9.50 and MP2 bets $6.

      The button realizes his opponent is probably holding a pair of kings now. However he sees a chance to win the hand with another ace or five (two pair or trips). And when assuming relatively good implied odds, you could think the button should call.

      But now let's have a look at he reverse implied odds: If the button hits an ace, i.e. one of his two pair outs, he is still behind. The ace brings his opponent an even better hand, so hitting it would mean to lose an even larger amount of money. This is a classic example for reverse implied odds
      I dont see how the button is still behind if an ace fell, and i think the K in his hand was supposed to be a 5 since the article says that another five give the button trips.

      Dont get how an Ace on the turn or river would give MP2 an even better thand than the button, since he is only holding 66...
  • 1 reply