GAMBOOOOL

[edtost]

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, MP3 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises</font>, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP3 calls,

<font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, expecting

<font color="#CC3333">SB caps</font>.

expert play?

[private joker]

Not bad. I'm a little more comfortable with it when you have 77-88.

[edtost]

why? am i really going to the river unimproved that often? i think 44 is marginal, as combinatorically, 22 and 33 account for around 1/2 of set-over-sets.

[private joker]

Your use of the word "combinatorically" is good enough to render moot any counter-argument I could formulate.

[edtost]

well, you could argue that the higher my set, the more i lose when it loses. but somehow i doubt the truthfulness of that statement. however, do i have enough equity preflop to make that play for value is a more important question, which i don't know the answer to.

[Rico Suave]

edtost

meh.

--Rico

[sfer]

Meh.

From post 5000-6000 I will attempt to be maximally pithy. Onward and upward.

[sfer]

Damn you Rico for typing faster! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Lost Wages]

expert play?

Losing play.

Lost Wages

[MAxx]

i haven cranked out a lot of thought through it here... but is it really a losing play? or is it just a variance maximizing play? can we list out the reasons why it is a losing play?

would it kill your action if you hit a set? is it a play that wrecks your implied odds. i am just facilitating some discussion.

[edtost]

somehow, i think there is gonna be a lot of postflop action no matter what i do, but possibly more after the raise with the huge pot it generates.

[k_squared]

I like the play. That many limpers and you have to have some equity even just for the times you will hit your set because when you do hit your set you will have a large edge over the field. On the other hand it will inveitably increase your variance so hold on tight!!!

-K_squared

[MAxx]

but just think if sb leads, and noone pops his flop...... guess what bro.... you got more than enough odds to peel one off on the turn and try and spike your set... GAMBOOL

[Lost Wages]

You are getting 6:1 on your raise while being 7.5:1 against flopping a set or better. Clearly not a value raise.

Lost Wages

[sfer]

You're calling a single flop bet in most situations even without the silly 3-bet preflop.

[edtost]

what about that old hepfap concept of tying your opponents to the pot by making it big? or do my opponents here all call down with enough crap that i don't care about that? or would i rather keep the pot small so mediocre draws against my set aren't getting odds to call postflop?

in fewer words, i consider it a value raise if it raises my EV for the hand, regardless of whether or not i get that EV immediately. this condition is still probably not met, but i don't think its as simple as you make it out to be.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
Not bad. I'm a little more comfortable with it when you have 77-88.

[/ QUOTE ]


in a 7 bet, 4 way pot, is there really a big difference between 88 and 55?

[sthief09]

dead money would be nice, but it's not going to happen. it's probably close to neutral

[sfer]

I don't think it's neutral. The real benefit would be getting a free turn card, which isn't likely if you expect a SB cap.

[sthief09]

you further tie them to their hands, and you're getting 6-1 when you'll flop a set 7.5-1. at the worst it's slightly -EV. maybe I should've said "at best, it's neutral."

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]



in a 7 bet, 4 way pot, is there really a big difference between 88 and 55?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather have a 7-way, 4-bet pot, but that's another story... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

But seriously, my consideration was one for the small % of set-over-set that might occur, and in such a case 88 is better than 55. Since you're 7.5:1 to flop a set getting 6:1, you need the implied odds post-flop to make up for that -EV. I was hoping having a better set 1% of the time would do that. But I'm not good enough with this sort of math to figure it out.

[edtost]

if you and your opponent with 66 both flop sets, he can only have exactly 3 hands out of a large number possible preflop. its an insignificant difference.

[Lost Wages]

The question is; which option is better, calling or raising? Raising may be EV neutral but getting 13:1 to call with a small pocket pair is hugely +EV. Or in other words, would you rather call and get 13:1 or raise and get 25:3 = 8.3:1?

Lost Wages

[Lost Wages]

what about that old hepfap concept of tying your opponents to the pot by making it big?

HEPFAP Page 24
[ QUOTE ]
...if many pots are going to three bets or more, they (small pairs) are probably never worth playing

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, even a risk of paying 3 or 4 bets can make them unplayable. Your play ensures that you pay too much. The flop pot will already be 14SB if you just call. That is plenty big enough to ensure that your opponents will be enticed to continue.

SSH Page 67 - Small Pairs (66-22)
[ QUOTE ]
You would like to see the flop cheaply, for one, or at most, two bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lost Wages

[River2Pair]

I doubt Sklansky and Malmuth were considering games where there are seven players to the flop for four bets when they wrote that.

[Lost Wages]

Ed Miller certainly was.

Happy Birthday,
Lost Wages

[stinkypete]

i personally think raising here sucks. you might be 7.5:1 to flop a set, but your odds of winning the pot are probably significantly worse than that.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
i personally think raising here sucks. you might be 7.5:1 to flop a set, but your odds of winning the pot are probably significantly worse than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define significantly.

scrub

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, MP3 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises</font>, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP3 calls,

<font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, expecting

<font color="#CC3333">SB caps</font>.

expert play?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Not doing this &gt;&gt; doing this.

scrub

[Number4]

[ QUOTE ]
Not doing this &gt;&gt; doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - I don't like the 3-bet.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i personally think raising here sucks. you might be 7.5:1 to flop a set, but your odds of winning the pot are probably significantly worse than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define significantly.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

significantly = enough that raising here can't be correct.

[Evan]

That has nothing to do with how often you'll win the pot relative to how often you'll flop a set. Also, I don't think your odds of winning the pot are significantly (used in the traditional sense) worse than your odds of flopping a set, sets win a lot of pots.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
That has nothing to do with how often you'll win the pot relative to how often you'll flop a set. Also, I don't think your odds of winning the pot are significantly (used in the traditional sense) worse than your odds of flopping a set, sets win a lot of pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

sets win a lot of pots, but they also lose quite often to straights and flushes in super-multi-way pots (and sometimes bigger sets). sets tend to lose a lot when they're beat too. the increased implied odds that raising creates are slightly offset by the fact that reverse implied odds are increased as well. i'm not gonna run any numbers, but i'd guess that a flopped set will win less than 3/4 of the time with this many people in. and i'd consider that significant.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That has nothing to do with how often you'll win the pot relative to how often you'll flop a set. Also, I don't think your odds of winning the pot are significantly (used in the traditional sense) worse than your odds of flopping a set, sets win a lot of pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

sets win a lot of pots, but they also lose quite often to straights and flushes in super-multi-way pots (and sometimes bigger sets). sets tend to lose a lot when they're beat too. the increased implied odds that raising creates are slightly offset by the fact that reverse implied odds are increased as well. i'm not gonna run any numbers, but i'd guess that a flopped set will win less than 3/4 of the time with this many people in. and i'd consider that significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the raise makes sense even if he wins the pot almost all of the time he flops a set.

He will win a very high % of the time when he flops a set (even multiway), but that doesn't make putting more money in at 6:1 better than calling.

I'm sure if someone held a gun to Ed's head when the action got back on him and told him that he was not allowed to call, only raise or fold, raising would be preferable to folding. Calling is better than raising, though.

scrub

[AviD]

Why did you 3-bet again? You have...55.

[ QUOTE ]
expert play?

[/ QUOTE ]
Negative.

[PokerBob]

I'm not nuts about it.

[Rico Suave]

LostWages:

You pretty much echo my thoughts on this one.


[ QUOTE ]
You are getting 6:1 on your raise while being 7.5:1 against flopping a set or better. Clearly not a value raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

You gotta make up another 1.5 BB post flop for each sb you put in preflop just to break even.


[ QUOTE ]
The flop pot will already be 14SB if you just call. That is plenty big enough to ensure that your opponents will be enticed to continue.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I am not sure you really need to *further* tie your opponents to the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
Raising may be EV neutral but getting 13:1 to call with a small pocket pair is hugely +EV. Or in other words, would you rather call and get 13:1 or raise and get 25:3 = 8.3:1?


[/ QUOTE ]

Giddyup!

[bunky9590]

[ QUOTE ]
expert play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Told you you were a limit fish. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bisonbison]

I don't like.

You're thinking too hard. Right now you have incredible relative position to the raiser in a big ol' pot.

[edtost]

but how does this make me any worse than you? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bunky9590]

[ QUOTE ]
but how does this make me any worse than you?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. Take a fish to know a fish. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Just call next time

[Luke]

Looks like a case of FPS to me. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Luke

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That has nothing to do with how often you'll win the pot relative to how often you'll flop a set. Also, I don't think your odds of winning the pot are significantly (used in the traditional sense) worse than your odds of flopping a set, sets win a lot of pots.

[/ QUOTE ]



sets win a lot of pots, but they also lose quite often to straights and flushes in super-multi-way pots (and sometimes bigger sets). sets tend to lose a lot when they're beat too. the increased implied odds that raising creates are slightly offset by the fact that reverse implied odds are increased as well. i'm not gonna run any numbers, but i'd guess that a flopped set will win less than 3/4 of the time with this many people in. and i'd consider that significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because I just put pokerstove on my parents computer and was playing with it:

Board: 5s
equity (%)
Hand 1: 62.7468 % { 5h5d }
Hand 2: 05.5737 % { random }
Hand 3: 05.5815 % { random }
Hand 4: 05.5548 % { random }
Hand 5: 05.5946 % { random }
Hand 6: 05.5328 % { random }
Hand 7: 09.4157 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Thing is, a probably half of these hands wouldn't hang around to get there, so 75-80% is probably a pretty good number.

scrub

[edtost]

out of curiosity, how does equity change as the set goes up in ranks?

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
out of curiosity, how does equity change as the set goes up in ranks?

[/ QUOTE ]

My first instinct was to tell you to do it yourself, but then I decided I was curious.


Board: 2s
Hand 1: 65.4591 % { 2h2d }
Hand 2: 04.8482 % { random }
Hand 3: 04.9333 % { random }
Hand 4: 04.8528 % { random }
Hand 5: 04.9259 % { random }
Hand 6: 04.9020 % { random }
Hand 7: 10.0788 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: 3s
Hand 1: 64.5746 % { 3h3d }
Hand 2: 05.1565 % { random }
Hand 3: 05.1281 % { random }
Hand 4: 05.0612 % { random }
Hand 5: 05.1226 % { random }
Hand 6: 05.0856 % { random }
Hand 7: 09.8714 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: 4s
Hand 1: 63.6624 % { 4h4d }
Hand 2: 05.3241 % { random }
Hand 3: 05.3396 % { random }
Hand 4: 05.3150 % { random }
Hand 5: 05.3091 % { random }
Hand 6: 05.3139 % { random }
Hand 7: 09.7359 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: 5s
Hand 1: 62.7468 % { 5h5d }
Hand 2: 05.5737 % { random }
Hand 3: 05.5815 % { random }
Hand 4: 05.5548 % { random }
Hand 5: 05.5946 % { random }
Hand 6: 05.5328 % { random }
Hand 7: 09.4157 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }


Board: 6s
Hand 1: 63.7956 % { 6h6d }
Hand 2: 05.3634 % { random }
Hand 3: 05.3021 % { random }
Hand 4: 05.3319 % { random }
Hand 5: 05.3322 % { random }
Hand 6: 05.3117 % { random }
Hand 7: 09.5625 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: 7s
Hand 1: 64.7062 % { 7h7d }
Hand 2: 05.1125 % { random }
Hand 3: 05.1580 % { random }
Hand 4: 05.1391 % { random }
Hand 5: 05.1493 % { random }
Hand 6: 05.1429 % { random }
Hand 7: 09.5920 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: 8s
Hand 1: 65.6279 % { 8h8d }
Hand 2: 04.9676 % { random }
Hand 3: 04.9542 % { random }
Hand 4: 04.9188 % { random }
Hand 5: 04.9334 % { random }
Hand 6: 04.9477 % { random }
Hand 7: 09.6503 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: 9s
Hand 1: 66.5708 % { 9h9d }
Hand 2: 04.7340 % { random }
Hand 3: 04.7621 % { random }
Hand 4: 04.7051 % { random }
Hand 5: 04.7556 % { random }
Hand 6: 04.7318 % { random }
Hand 7: 09.7407 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: Ts
Hand 1: 66.7568 % { ThTd }
Hand 2: 04.5076 % { random }
Hand 3: 04.4684 % { random }
Hand 4: 04.4912 % { random }
Hand 5: 04.4643 % { random }
Hand 6: 04.4867 % { random }
Hand 7: 10.8250 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: Js
Hand 1: 70.1359 % { JhJd }
Hand 2: 04.0629 % { random }
Hand 3: 04.0292 % { random }
Hand 4: 04.0475 % { random }
Hand 5: 04.0526 % { random }
Hand 6: 04.0441 % { random }
Hand 7: 09.6277 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: Qs
Hand 1: 73.5992 % { QhQd }
Hand 2: 03.6813 % { random }
Hand 3: 03.7002 % { random }
Hand 4: 03.6482 % { random }
Hand 5: 03.6676 % { random }
Hand 6: 03.6712 % { random }
Hand 7: 08.0323 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: Ks
Hand 1: 76.9849 % { KhKd }
Hand 2: 03.4128 % { random }
Hand 3: 03.4108 % { random }
Hand 4: 03.4214 % { random }
Hand 5: 03.4272 % { random }
Hand 6: 03.3979 % { random }
Hand 7: 05.9450 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

Board: As
Hand 1: 79.6966 % { AhAd }
Hand 2: 03.5560 % { random }
Hand 3: 03.5652 % { random }
Hand 4: 03.5702 % { random }
Hand 5: 03.5529 % { random }
Hand 6: 03.5606 % { random }
Hand 7: 02.4986 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

scrub

[scrub]

I thought this was sort of interesting--when I changed the opponents' possible hands from "random" to the actual stuff that's usually out there, the equity didn't change that much at all:

Board: 5s
Hand 1: 59.1739 % { 5h5d }

Hand 2: 06.2541 %

{ JJ-22, AQs-A2s, KQs-K4s, QJs-Q8s, JTs-J8s, T9s-T7s, 98s-97s, 87s-86s, 76s-75s, 65s-64s, 54s, 43s, 32s, AQo-A2o, KQo-KTo, QJo-QTo, JTo-J9o, T9o, 98o, 87o, 76o, 65o, 54o }


Hand 3: 06.2243 %

{ JJ-22, AJs-A2s, KQs-K4s, QJs-Q8s, JTs-J9s, T9s-T8s, 98s-97s, 87s-86s, 76s-75s, 65s-64s, 54s, 43s, 32s, AQo-A2o, KQo-KTo, QJo-QTo, JTo-J9o, T9o, 98o, 87o, 76o, 65o, 54o }


Hand 4: 06.7855 %

{ JJ-22, AQs-A2s, KQs-K4s, QJs-Q8s, JTs-J8s, T9s-T7s, 98s-97s, 87s-86s, 76s-75s, 65s-64s, 54s, 43s, 32s, AQo-ATo, KQo-KTo, QJo-QTo, JTo, T9o, 98o, 87o, 76o, 65o, 54o }


Hand 5: 06.7889 %

{ JJ-22, AJs-A2s, KQs-K4s, QJs-Q9s, JTs-J9s, T9s-T8s, 98s-97s, 87s-86s, 76s-75s, 65s-64s, 54s, 43s, 32s, AQo-ATo, KQo-KTo, QJo-QTo, JTo, T9o, 98o, 87o, 76o, 65o, 54o }


Hand 6: 06.3465 %

{ JJ-22, AJs-A2s, KQs-K4s, QJs-Q8s, JTs-J9s, T9s-T8s, 98s-97s, 87s-86s, 76s-75s, 65s-64s, 54s, 43s, 32s, AQo-A9o, KQo-KTo, QJo-QTo, JTo }

Hand 7: 08.4267 % { AA-TT, AKs-AQs, AKo }

scrub

[Bob T.]

expert play?

I think its silly.

I would rather call this bet, let the SB take the lead postflop, and hopefully get to raise the whole field on the turn if I make my set.

[Bob T.]

I should have read this before I posted.

What Bison said. Uses a lot fewer electrons.

[evain]

I don't like the three bet with 55. Leave it at two bets and let's see the flop.

evain