|
|
#21
08-09-2007, 10:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A little theory: you standard-raise from MP1. and...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Assuming 100BB stacks, we raise to 4BB and get reraised to 12BB. So it's 8BB more for us to potentially win another 88BB. Isn't this still marginally profitable to be set-mining with any pocket pair? [/ QUOTE ] Not unless you are capable of getting away from set over set. [/ QUOTE ] Set over set shouldn't be your biggest concern here (as others have said, if you flop your set and go broke then you played the hand well)... position should. My arguement for not calling oop with the smaller pocket pairs (up through 99+) is that its a lot tougher to stack a thinking opponenet when you're out of position. The 88BB left in your stack means you correct to call from an implied odds standpoint ONLY if you think villain will give you all of those chips when you hit. In position (if I raise 4BB from mp2 and get reraised to 12BB by the SB) I'll call with any pocket pair provided villain has another 80BB or so, simply because, on most flops, its so much easier to take his entire stack when you're in position. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, this is a very good point. 
|
|
#22
08-09-2007, 10:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A little theory: you standard-raise from MP1. and...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Assuming 100BB stacks, we raise to 4BB and get reraised to 12BB. So it's 8BB more for us to potentially win another 88BB. Isn't this still marginally profitable to be set-mining with any pocket pair? [/ QUOTE ] Not unless you are capable of getting away from set over set. [/ QUOTE ] Set over set shouldn't be your biggest concern here (as others have said, if you flop your set and go broke then you played the hand well)... position should. My arguement for not calling oop with the smaller pocket pairs (up through 99+) is that its a lot tougher to stack a thinking opponenet when you're out of position. The 88BB left in your stack means you correct to call from an implied odds standpoint ONLY if you think villain will give you all of those chips when you hit. In position (if I raise 4BB from mp2 and get reraised to 12BB by the SB) I'll call with any pocket pair provided villain has another 80BB or so, simply because, on most flops, its so much easier to take his entire stack when you're in position. [/ QUOTE ] you missed the point what he meant was that calling 12:1 implied odds with a pp is neg ev because even though you flop a set 1:8 times, you still lose the showdown to worse sets/etc 20% of the time.
|
|
#23
08-09-2007, 10:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A little theory: you standard-raise from MP1. and...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 3)If calling 99-JJ for set value, why not call down with all pairs if it's only 12xbb for set value? I'm honestly asking here . . .this may be a huge hole in my game. Also, what % of the time does this villian C-bet here? [/ QUOTE ] Ah I was being a little trite when I said just for set value. These are still strong hands anyway, so there's a little hand strength value in there. One of the reasons I started this thread is up until recently I did indeed call a RR with any pair, but I feel it's a big leak. I don't think calling w/JJ-99 is a leak (or at least it's a smaller one), but I do know for flops like Q83 say, I'm happier to push back with 99 than 22. [/ QUOTE ] given that you both have 100+BB dont the implied odds make a call correct with 22 - 77?
|
|
#25
08-09-2007, 10:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A little theory: you standard-raise from MP1. and...
One could certainly disagree about the fact if 1:13 odds are enough to setmine, I think it is really opponent dependent. What I don't understand is what TT makes so different from 33? Doesn't it depend on our opponents threebetrange whether we are playing TT mere for setvalue or for other value also? Besides if we raise with like 66 and call his reraise, he might be more suspicious if a T falls of then if a six falls off (because a lot opponents will think no he couldn't have called with 66 here or raised with it preflop).
|
|
#26
08-09-2007, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A little theory: you standard-raise from MP1. and...
TT is different from 33 because if you are autocalling 22+ to a 3bet then he can just bet flop shove turn automatically and win money from you since you don't ever have anything. Its a matter of frequency.
|
|
#27
08-09-2007, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A little theory: you standard-raise from MP1. and...
[ QUOTE ]
TT is different from 33 because if you are autocalling 22+ to a 3bet then he can just bet flop shove turn automatically and win money from you since you don't ever have anything. Its a matter of frequency. [/ QUOTE ] You fold flop if you don't hit, there's no more money involved.
|
|
#28
08-09-2007, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A little theory: you standard-raise from MP1. and...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Assuming 100BB stacks, we raise to 4BB and get reraised to 12BB. So it's 8BB more for us to potentially win another 88BB. Isn't this still marginally profitable to be set-mining with any pocket pair? [/ QUOTE ] Not unless you are capable of getting away from set over set. [/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't worry about that. If you score your set, the chance of villain scoring his is pretty low. [/ QUOTE ] This is flawed thinking. While I agree that you shouln't WORRY about a higher set if you flop a set, the bottom line is that you WILL lose to a higher set some of the time, and this should be taken into consideration when calculating your implied odds. Set-mining against a 3-bet OOP is just a bad play, unless villain makes a tiny raise (to 10BB or less).
|
|
#29
08-09-2007, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A little theory: you standard-raise from MP1. and...
[ QUOTE ]
TT is different from 33 because if you are autocalling 22+ to a 3bet then he can just bet flop shove turn automatically and win money from you since you don't ever have anything. Its a matter of frequency. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry Renton, I don't follow this, could you go through it again? Also, what odds do you feel comfortable setmining with? 1/15?
|
|
#30
08-09-2007, 11:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A little theory: you standard-raise from MP1. and...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Assuming 100BB stacks, we raise to 4BB and get reraised to 12BB. So it's 8BB more for us to potentially win another 88BB. Isn't this still marginally profitable to be set-mining with any pocket pair? [/ QUOTE ] Not unless you are capable of getting away from set over set. [/ QUOTE ] Set over set shouldn't be your biggest concern here (as others have said, if you flop your set and go broke then you played the hand well)... position should. My arguement for not calling oop with the smaller pocket pairs (up through 99+) is that its a lot tougher to stack a thinking opponenet when you're out of position. The 88BB left in your stack means you correct to call from an implied odds standpoint ONLY if you think villain will give you all of those chips when you hit. In position (if I raise 4BB from mp2 and get reraised to 12BB by the SB) I'll call with any pocket pair provided villain has another 80BB or so, simply because, on most flops, its so much easier to take his entire stack when you're in position. [/ QUOTE ] you missed the point what he meant was that calling 12:1 implied odds with a pp is neg ev because even though you flop a set 1:8 times, you still lose the showdown to worse sets/etc 20% of the time. [/ QUOTE ] Lets see if I can put some numbers to this. We will run the trial 1000 times. Both players start with 100BB. We open from MP1 to 4bb with 55 and are reraised by MP3 to 12bb. First lets make an assumption that he always stacks off when we hit a set. Over 1000 trials we will invest another 8000bb. We will flop a set ~125 times. Over these 125 times we will win 104bb each time we win, however even if you don't consider the possibility of him flopping an overset we only have ~89.5% equity if he has AA on 952 flop: 990 games 0.078 secs 12,692 games/sec Board: 5s 2h 9d Dead: equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 10.505% 10.51% 00.00% 104 0.00 { AcAd } Hand 1: 89.495% 89.49% 00.00% 886 0.00 { 5c5d } Therefore, as opposed to winning 104bb, we are only winning 93bb on average. 16bb of this is already in the pot, so you are only standing to win another 77bb on average (as opposed to 88bb). Now if we consider the possibility of oversets on the flop and assuming that we never fold an underset, our opponent will also make a set on or before the river ~20% of the time. So 20% of the time you make a set, your opponent will also make a set by the river, so now instead of winning a 104bb pot, we are looking at an 83bb pot, of which 16bb are alreay in, so we are standing to make another 67bb by set mining. Here we are getting just over 8-1 implied odds, which makes it very close if Villian always has an overpair and always stacks off with it. If he gets away from his overpair occassionaly when you hit your set, or if he doesn't always have an overpair here and occassionaly bluffs you off of the best hand when he c-bets the flop and you miss, or you don't get his entire stack in the pot when you flop your set, then you aren't getting the correct odds to set mine. Notice how this whole analysis would change if you open to 3bb and villian reraises to 9bb. Even considering the 20% if the time that you make a set, you will lose, you are still getting 12-1 implied odds as opposed to 8-1. When raising small PPs in EP-MP I think that a 3bb raise is much better than a 4bb raise. The downside to the 3bb raise with small PP is that it is harder to stack your opponent in an 18bb pot on the flop than it is in a 24bb pot on the flop.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
