![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here are my pairs over 115k hands of full ring, I'm up $8,800 total so as you can see your friend is correct.
![]() Here are my hands that lose greatest $/hand (when not in a blind)
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
my set mining skillz must be terrible, I'm actually pretty concerned about my small-mid pair performance, suited connectors seem to break even at best also.
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
my set mining skillz must be terrible, I'm actually pretty concerned about my small-mid pair performance, suited connectors seem to break even at best also. [/ QUOTE ] You should definitely be turning a profit with pairs, but your sample size is too low. I think SC's are inherently -EV though. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Isn't it ok to break even on small pairs/sc's because they make you tougher to read, and give you more value on your big pairs?
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
For example raising small pairs in EP is possibly -EV, but it makes you more money when you raise EP with big hands, so thus its +EV even tho you may be break even or losing on it.
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it ok to break even on small pairs/sc's because they make you tougher to read, and give you more value on your big pairs? [/ QUOTE ] SCs yes, PPs not so much |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it ok to break even on small pairs/sc's because they make you tougher to read, and give you more value on your big pairs? [/ QUOTE ] I would have to say that would pre-suppose thinking, aware opponents. Under 100NL, those are actually fairly rare (Thank you, Water Walking Jesus!). Also, whenever I do find a player like that at one of my tables, I move. Frankly, I don't want to play against people who are even just as good as I am. And screw playing opponents who are better. That's for tournament players, not me. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
my set mining skillz must be terrible, I'm actually pretty concerned about my small-mid pair performance, suited connectors seem to break even at best also. [/ QUOTE ] I think if you broke your SC's and small PP's down by position, you'd see a major difference in win/lost $$$ |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah, it is much easier to extract from position than OOP.
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it is much easier to extract from position than OOP. [/ QUOTE ] And anyone with even a small piece of a rented brain will bet the pot when two flush cards come on the flop and it's checked to them. Chasing flushes from OOP is like burning money. Took me months the learn that, though. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|