Is this basic?

[Tryptamean]

opponents unknown

UTG limps, folds to Button who raises, you do what with 44 in the small blind?

I called in a similar spot last night, late in a session. Today I just folded in this spot, so obviously I played one of them wrong...

[Oink]

trivial call. Not close

[Tryptamean]

hm, lame, i guess im not playing well today.

[Oink]

naah not lame and prolly not trivial. Insta call for me I should have said

[Hobbs.]

idk, it seems fairly close without any reads. I think I'd tend to fold 22/33, call with 55/66, and 3-bet 88 and up. 44 is fringey and could probably be swayed either way and same with 77 (call/raise).

[Oink]

Calling 44 and folding 33, 22 makes no sense to me. I play mostly for set value and to continue on low ragged boards like 752. I cant see the difference in 33 and 44 here.

Besides I am fairly sure that set value is enough to play any pp here

[ZOMG_RIGGED!]

would depend on blind structure no? Big difference between a 1-3 on PS, a 1.5-3 on FT, or a 2-3 on AP

[Hobbs.]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling 44 and folding 33, 22 makes no sense to me. I play mostly for set value and to continue on low ragged boards like 752. I cant see the difference in 33 and 44 here.

Besides I am fairly sure that set value is enough to play any pp here

[/ QUOTE ]
if we're only playing for set value than it's a fold. What makes some of the low pocket pairs playable is that given some flops we will likely have the best hand and play as such. Yeah there's not really much a difference between 33 and 44, but at some point the strength of the pair does start to make some difference. I'm not sure exactly where to draw that line (55 maybe?) and that's why I'm kind of on the fence with 44.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
if we're only playing for set value than it's a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) Who said we did

b) Skalansky and Stox says otherwise. Take it up with them

[Hobbs.]

since when is 11-3 enough to play for set value?