[dumbndumb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The "implied odds", which is really the implied expectation, are what you expect to win if you hit, multiplied by the percentage that you hit. It's really that simple. And flopping a set or better is 7.5:1...


[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean if villain had you covered you would call mostly any amount as long as there were 7.5:1 ratio of what you can win and how much it is to call? This can't be right.

I am trying to develop a shorter hand way of figuring out when to call with small pairs for set odds (I only play live so don't fiddle w/numbers as much as I should). How does your stack and villain's play come into this equations (I realize with smaller stacks and w/a villain that won't stack off w/1 pair calling is less desirable, but how do you account for them mathmatically?).

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to your question is no. You have to make an assessment of "what you expect to win", not "what you can win", which is an assessment of many factors, including the depth of the stacks, the strength of your opponent's hand and his ability to get away from a big hand. I don't believe hard-and-fast rules are achievable given the number of variables involved. Obviously, if you cannot win better than 7.5x your risk, you should not call for the sole purpose of flopping a set. And anything close to 7.5x undoubtedly isn't worth it either. In Shannon's hand, the Villain raised the UTG raiser, which indicates that he has a very big hand, which signals that he's probably willing to put a lot more chips in the pot postflop. Set mining against people who have made a standard postflop raise from middle or late position is almost invariably a mistake, since there's no reason to think their hand is very strong. Of course, there are often many reasons to call with a pair other than just set mining.

Here are two examples from the Caesar's $10K event I just busted out of which show my thought process in two set-mining hands. First, blinds 50/100, very laggy player raises UTG to 250, UTG+2 calls 250, MP1 who's been very active raises to 1250 (this shows he has a big hand since he's putting in a 3bet of a UTG raise, albeit from a laggy player, with many people yet to act behind him), CO calls 1250, Button calls 1250, I look down at 22 in the SB. Since UTG is super laggy in opening but has never 4bet, I don't give him credit for much of a hand and I'm not very worried that he's going to reraise everyone. I figure if I call, the pot will be so big that UTG and UTG+2 will call as well. At that point, the pot will have 7600 in it. Someone is going to have to bet at least 3-4K into a pot that big to try to take it down, so I figure the minimum I will win if I flop a set is 9500 (10600-1250) or so, and there's a good chance of winning a lot more since MP1 has a hand he might not be able to fold. Everyone has at least 13K to start the hand. So I called, UTG and UTG+2 did not, which means I was overly optimistic. Flop: K Q 2, two spades, I checked, checked around to CO who bet 2K, I moved all in for about 12K more, everyone folded, CO thought forever and made a terrible call with AK, I doubled up.

Second example: 100/200, loose EP limps, loose MP limps, button who has about 27K raises to 1000, I look down at 55 in the BB with 25K. This was again a situation where I thought the two limpers would follow if I called, since they had done so in similar situations, which would create a big bet on the flop, so I called. Neither limper had limp/reraised all day, so I wasn't worried about that. Additionally, the Button had shown a tendency to stick with big hands rather than folding them, which is what you want. The 2 limpers both folded, so much for my analysis, making me overly optimistically wrong again. Flop: J 5 3, two hearts. I check, Button bets 1500, I raise to 4500, he raises to 12K, I move allin, he instacalls and turns over JJ. GG me.

I think the preflop call in the second hand is marginal, the one in the first hand is the type of call I think you have to make in playing to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post Todd, addresses many of the issues I have been thinking about and further confirmation that I set-mine too much. BTW, I really don't think you were "wrong" in first post about UTG and UTG+2 not calling - that had to be a mistake on their part given pot odds. Maybe hand 2 is less more marginal call.