|
|
#1
11-01-2007, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
A question about Harrington\'s Workbook
He gives a sample hand in problem 11. Basically, there are a couple limpers in a pot, then it comes to you, with 44. You call the $200. Then the BB raises $2,700, making the pot $5,700. Everyone up to you folds. The question is do you call or fold?
Now, I would fold here, but Harrington recommends calling. He says that the reason for calling is that pot is giving almost 2-to-1 pot odds. What I don't understand is why that is so enticing. I thought the whole 'point' of playing low pairs was to try to hit a set, and since the chances of hitting a set on the flop are 1 in 8, don't you need 8:1 pot odds to call a raise like that?? Isn't that how pot odds work or do I totally have this concept wrong? 
|
|
#3
11-01-2007, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question about Harrington\'s Workbook
What are the stack sizes? It might be that he has decent implied odds if he flops a set to go along with his 2:1 pot odds.
It might also make sense if he plans a stop-n-go where he calls the raise, then makes a 3/4-pot bet on any flop hoping that he either has the best hand vs missed overcards, or else he has a lot of fold equity when an overcard hits vs whatever pair the raiser might have. Otherwise, if I can't call for set value because of the stack sizes (medium-to-short without being in the "red" zone), and if I'm not planning a stop-n-go, then I'd fold too.
|
|
#5
11-01-2007, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question about Harrington\'s Workbook
Okay, then I'm not nuts. His workbook is based on getting points for certain choices, and folding here gets no points, while it seemed to me pretty reasonable, if somewhat tight. This is a fairly common situation for me, so to be just told that it's 'wrong' without a better explanation seems a little hard.
|
|
#6
11-01-2007, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question about Harrington\'s Workbook
Isn't the pot heads up now? Heads up, he's only a big dog to an overpair. Against anything other than overpairs he's either a slight favorite or a slight dog; in other words, it's a race. In other words, he's about a 4-1 dog against an overpair but 1-1 against two overcards; when he weighs these ranges he should have the equity he needs. He's getting 2500 to 5700 to make the call which is better than 2-1 on his money. Also, he's in position.
As far as playing low pocket pairs I think generally it's true to limp in when the table is loose and passive but they're quite powerful heads up, especially when you're getting better than 2-1 on your money and you could be facing overcards, making you a slight favorite and giving you a huge overlay.
|
|
#8
11-02-2007, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question about Harrington\'s Workbook
Good point about the pot being heads-up, but is the field narrowing down from nine people to two the same as a heads-up hand? I see true heads-up as being two random hands. Here, the BB is one of 8 other random hands, and he says he has something. Not quite the same as being dealt 44 against one other hand.
|
|
#10
11-02-2007, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question about Harrington\'s Workbook
This is situational and depends on how much you expect to get paid off if you hit . I believe the decision to be pretty close although I lean towards calling .
It is very possible for one-third of the flops to be favorable to you . Suppose 50% of the time he has overcards and 50% of the time he has a higher pocket pair . So he misses the flop 1/2*2/3 or one-third of the time . However , you hit a set an additional 11.5% of the time which will almost certainly be the best hand otf . This overlay imo makes calling slightly better than folding pre-flop .
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
