Implied odds and mid to low pairs

[Marlow]

For years now, I've been using a metric to measure whether a preflop call with 22-TT is profitable. If I figure that I am being offered at least 8 times what I'm calling, then it's a profitable call. Originally, I came up with the number 8 from the probability against flopping a set (8-1 against). After making this calculation, I'll then factor in other things such as position, player tendencies, steal equity, etc.

In other words, If I'm facing a 3BB raise with 77, I need to know that between pot odds and implied odds that I can make at least 24BB if I call (3bb x 8 = 24BB).

Anyway, I think I read somewhere recently (possibly PNLH1?) that 6 is the number that should be used for this calculation. Is 6 a standard number? If not, is there another standard number that people like to use?

[Skuzzy]

Can't do better than the 5-10 rule IMO.

As far as I can recall I've never called a raise with a small pair chasing just 8x the bet, I need a much bigger overlay to account for the times i hit and get no further action. Even against the biggest donators getting paid off with a set is often hard.

6x seems like inviting trouble, i can't see a good reason to start calling for set value with so little behind.

[Sunny Mehta]

in PNLV1 we recommend that you should be able to win 12x your preflop investment if you're planning on calling with a small pp for the sole purpose of flopping a set.....

the 5-10 rule is not optimal, and sometimes it's flat out wrong - we analyze this in detail in Volume Two....

[Skuzzy]

[ QUOTE ]

the 5-10 rule is not optimal, and sometimes it's flat out wrong - we analyze this in detail in Volume Two....

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's a teaser if ever i saw one.

For small pairs in the typical SSNL 6 max game I didn't think it could be wrong. The rule is always call for less than 5% of the effective stacks, between 5% and 10% use your judgement, over 10% just fold.

I figure 'using your judgement' covers so much ground that any calls you make that aren't correct are just a judgement failure rather than a problem with the rule itself. Most of these 'errors of judgement' will be when your calling well over 5% of your stack but the implied odds just aren't there. Such as when you have 44 in the SB vs a button raise from a very aggressive preflop player.

Any chance you could save me waiting a year for the book and just say why the rule is sometimes flat our wrong?

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]


Any chance you could save me waiting a year for the book and just say why the rule is sometimes flat our wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, sure thing Skuzzy....basically the gist of it is that "10" is way too high....wasn't totally meant to be a "teaser", just meant that a lot of it is based on math and other stuff that we'll show in detail in v.2 that's too much to write out in a forum post....

thanks...

-S

[Marlow]

Thanks for replying Sunny. Not sure how that number got cut in half in my head, but I'll start using 12 from now on.

Also, I've read the book 2 or three times now (once all the way through, and then re-reading select chapters several times), and I love it. It is forcing me to challenge and rethink many of my baseline assumptions about the game. And better still, it is prompting me to think about aspect of the game that had never really even consciously occurred to me.

Undoubtedly, the book has paid for itself 50x over by now - and I only play about 7 hours a week!

Thanks again, and I really can't wait for volume 2. (BTW, When do you expect that to be out?)

[Sunny Mehta]

thanks a lot Marlow.....hard to say wrt v.2, probably sometime next spring.....

-S