Set mine in multiway pot

[ImsaKidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Taylor,

Thanks for taking your time to post this, as it is a super common situation that many people(in your opinion) play wrongly. What pair would be big enough for you to call here, and how deep would stacks be, optimally? By your logic, it seems as though 99 and 22 would be a nearly identical hand here(the exception being that we won't get stacked set under set vs. the bb as often). Not trying to be sarcastic in the least - this is a situation that I never got completely clear on in my transition from limit to NL. I also assume that you are folding 89s here? Or would you prefer a suited connector to a tiny pair in this spot. Would love to hear anyone's insight here. Thanks for any help!

James

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 98s is way worse because the "good" flops for it are not as high equity as a set, rather they are things like combo draws and 2 pairs.

[Dale Dough]

Then again, you get to semibluff when you flop something, so you're not solely relying on stacking someone to break even.

[creedofhubris]

Probably obvious, but if you can't play 22 here to a reraise then you sure as hell shouldn't be opening with it UTG.

[luegofuego]

what? what does that have to do with anything? are u saying that everything u open from EP should withstand a reraise? thats silly.

[SeriAce]

ssnl?

[jfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Taylor,

Thanks for taking your time to post this, as it is a super common situation that many people(in your opinion) play wrongly. What pair would be big enough for you to call here, and how deep would stacks be, optimally? By your logic, it seems as though 99 and 22 would be a nearly identical hand here(the exception being that we won't get stacked set under set vs. the bb as often). Not trying to be sarcastic in the least - this is a situation that I never got completely clear on in my transition from limit to NL. I also assume that you are folding 89s here? Or would you prefer a suited connector to a tiny pair in this spot. Would love to hear anyone's insight here. Thanks for any help!

James

[/ QUOTE ]

[Greeksquared]

"you only need to make 400 more to make this profitable"

You are assuming that you win 100 percent of the time here when you flop a set. I think it's much closer to 80% equity here if you get it all in. Set over set is a fairly big concern here especially if UTG+1 calls.

I usually make it a rule to always get at least 10:1 implied odds when set mining. In your case you need even more implied odds because it will most likely be 4 handed. You are basically calling 100 to win 1300 more so you can make a case for calling but it is very marginal either way.

You flop a set 2/15 assuming all your 2's are live so the math follows as such assuming you never bluff.

13/15 * -100
+
2/15 (.8(1300) - .2(1000))

= 25

pretty simple but also fairly accurate I believe

500 more and this is an easy call

[slik]

Thanks, this super clarifies.

[cts]

[ QUOTE ]
Then again, you get to semibluff when you flop something, so you're not solely relying on stacking someone to break even.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't have it both ways. youre "putting him on AA so you can flop a set and stack him always so ur pf call is breakeven" or youre "putting him on AA and going to semibluff him off of it when he's already got half his stack in!"

mathematically this is a clear fold but it's certainly not an egregious mistake and maybe gives you more of a gambly image.

98s is far worse of course

[duh]

Just to clairfy:

Are we folding because the reverse implied odds negate the juicy PF pot odds?