Preflop - folding small pairs

[Dave H.]

In mid or late position (or even early position at a loose table), SSH says to call with any pocket pair and, if it's raised, to play it for one more bet. Let's assume you have a pair of threes in the pocket.

What if it's raised, and then reraised and you're at a very LAG table? Would you call (assume 3 others still betting)?

If you did continue, and it got capped, would you call again?

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
In mid or late position (or even early position at a loose table), SSH says to call with any pocket pair and, if it's raised, to play it for one more bet. Let's assume you have a pair of threes in the pocket.

What if it's raised, and then reraised and you're at a very LAG table? Would you call (assume 3 others still betting)?

If you did continue, and it got capped, would you call again?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I would not open-limp a small pair in late position. I'd probably fold it.

2) In general, any hand you decide to play for one bet you should also play for two bets.

So, if I decide to limp 33 and it's raised and then re-raised by LAGgging types and I decide to call AND then it's capped, then obviously, you should call (since you'd be getting 11:1 on your call, at worst, and you're 7.5:1 to flop a set or better).

[Dave H.]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, any hand you decide to play for one bet you should also play for two bets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understood your response except for the above. Isn't playing for two bets similar to cold calling, which seems to be frowned upon by SSH? How does the fact that you have already called one bet change that caution?

Thanks!

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
In mid or late position (or even early position at a loose table), SSH says to call with any pocket pair and, if it's raised, to play it for one more bet. Let's assume you have a pair of threes in the pocket.

What if it's raised, and then reraised and you're at a very LAG table? Would you call (assume 3 others still betting)?

If you did continue, and it got capped, would you call again?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're referring to pre-flop, SSH says that if you have called and you are raised, you should call to see the flop. However, if someone raises before you have called, you should muck. If the pot is raised and re-raised after you've called, chances are the re-raiser has a high pair, and you are a huge underdog with your low pair. I'd call one raise to see the flop, but not a re-raise (unless the re-raiser was a total maniac).

If you don't flop a set, or an open ended str8 draw, you would normally fold your low pair if an opponent bets after the flop.

[kowboy]

your small pair only has value if you hit your set post flop. It depends on if your gambling or not. Many will fold small pairs with action while some choose to gamble. If you do hit your set expect to get paid off by any high pair. It comes down to how you feel at the time. If you have already put money in and dont like to leave your soldiers go ahead and try and make your set. Just remember when you try and cold call a raise or limp in with multiple opponents you are taking a gamble with small pairs. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In general, any hand you decide to play for one bet you should also play for two bets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understood your response except for the above. Isn't playing for two bets similar to cold calling, which seems to be frowned upon by SSH? How does the fact that you have already called one bet change that caution?

Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll rephrase; I apologize - I worded that rather poorly. Any hand you are willing to play for one bet you should play for one more bet.

There - I got it that time.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
It comes down to how you feel at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn't. It should be 90% pot odds and 10% post flop style of the other players. Argue about the percentages by all means, but "how you feel" should stay at 0%.

[gaming_mouse]

I understood your response except for the above. Isn't playing for two bets similar to cold calling, which seems to be frowned upon by SSH? How does the fact that you have already called one bet change that caution?

If, when you called the first bet, you knew for certain that it would be raised behind you, you would not make the original call to begin with. So when you limp with pocket pairs or suited connectors, you generally are hoping no one raises behind.

However, if they do end up raising, you almost always should call the single additional bet, since now you have very good pot odds on that call.

On the other hand, if you limp and it is 3-bet behind you, you should often be folding since:

1. The pot odds are not as good since you have to pony up 2 bets instead of 1.
2. The 3-bet means there is an excellent chance you are up against an overpair.

The exception to this is a very loose game in which many people have already called the 3-bet. In this case, your implied odds will justify your attempt to flop a set.

HTH,
gm

[Dave H.]

PERFECT!...thanx gm

[shummie]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The pot odds are not as good since you have to pony up 2 bets instead of 1.
2. The 3-bet means there is an excellent chance you are up against an overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would call in many of these "raise-re-raise" situations for almost the same reasons.

1) You have better pot-odds than if you cold-called to begin with since there is more money already in the pot.

2) Since people are raising preflop, your implied odds for hitting a set are better.

I've made this fold a bunch of times, and I feel now that it's good to "gamble" in these spot if there are going to be at least 3 people calling the preflop cap. Only 2 more people (the raiser and the re-raiser) and I'm more inclined to fold.

- Jason

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. The pot odds are not as good since you have to pony up 2 bets instead of 1.
2. The 3-bet means there is an excellent chance you are up against an overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would call in many of these "raise-re-raise" situations for almost the same reasons.

1) You have better pot-odds than if you cold-called to begin with since there is more money already in the pot.

2) Since people are raising preflop, your implied odds for hitting a set are better.

I've made this fold a bunch of times, and I feel now that it's good to "gamble" in these spot if there are going to be at least 3 people calling the preflop cap. Only 2 more people (the raiser and the re-raiser) and I'm more inclined to fold.

- Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

The point to playing small PP's is that you won't win often with them, but over the long haul you'll hit enough sets so that it is +EV. Generally (but nowhere near always), when you hit a set you have the winning hand. You can bet aggressively with your set (or check-raise) so the pots you win will be quite large. Most of the pots you lose with small PP's will be for one bet only, as you would normally be folding after the flop if you didn't hit your set.

[Durs522]

[ QUOTE ]

1) I would not open-limp a small pair in late position. I'd probably fold it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read this a few times and I still question why this play is right. Any explanation?

Thanks,

Dave

[JinX11]

Open-limping in late position is just a bad play in general...the hand you're holding is irrelevant. Do you enjoy giving the blinds a free/cheap look?

[Durs522]

[ QUOTE ]
Open-limping in late position is just a bad play in general...the hand you're holding is irrelevant. Do you enjoy giving the blinds a free/cheap look?

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically is a better to fold than raise situation?

[Seether]

His original question didnt say that he was open limping, there wasnt any discussion of players limping or folding before him.

[odellthurman]

I also fold small pocket pairs from EP in some cases. However, they have more value than simply the possibility of hitting a set. You may win with them when nothing but rags come on the board, or when the flop comes paired.

[JinX11]

In general, I'd open-raise from mid-late position with 66 or 77 and above (others may have higher/lower standards here). 55 and below, I'll likely fold depending on my opponents left to act. If the rest to act are likely to fold, then yes, I'll raise below that. With 55 and below, I'd be quite happy with .75BB/hand.

[shummie]

[ QUOTE ]

The point to playing small PP's is that you won't win often with them, but over the long haul you'll hit enough sets so that it is +EV. Generally (but nowhere near always), when you hit a set you have the winning hand. You can bet aggressively with your set (or check-raise) so the pots you win will be quite large. Most of the pots you lose with small PP's will be for one bet only, as you would normally be folding after the flop if you didn't hit your set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your "point of playing small pairs". I don't understand why this argument is attached to a quote of my post.

I don't feel that my post goes against the grain of playing small pairs only for set value. We know we'd like to see the flop cheaply. The scenario given though is that you've been raised and re-raised behind you. If you expect this behavior from your opponents, you should fold small pairs in early position. However, since we've gotten ourselves into a pickle, I suggest that you call the two bets back to you and get ready to call a cap.

Calling the raise and reraise may not always be a good move based on pot odds alone. However, I suggest that (1) the pot odds are better than if you initially called two cold and (2) you have great implied odds for when you do hit that set since at least two of your opponents seem to like there hands preflop. (2) means that you are less likely to hit your set, bet the flop, and have everyone fold. Instead your likely to have the action capped on the flop and get at least a BB or two on the turn and river. So this is a perfect time for you to "gamble", where gamble means ignore the current pot odds.

I am by no means saying that you are better off paying 4 bets rather than 1 bet to play your small pairs preflop.

Regards,

- Jason

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
Open-limping in late position is just a bad play in general...the hand you're holding is irrelevant. Do you enjoy giving the blinds a free/cheap look?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the poster said he'd fold it. Raising a PP if the table is open and you're in late position is generally a much better play. If you're in late position and no one has bet before you, you'll generally have a 50/50 shot at winning the hand if you're called by one of the blinds and you go heads-up to the river (of course, if the caller has a higher pair, your odds are now 4:1 against). However, the fact that the blinds will usually fold to your pre-flop raise makes this play +EV.

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
His original question didnt say that he was open limping, there wasnt any discussion of players limping or folding before him.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there wasn't any discussion of players limping or folding before him. The OP stated:

[ QUOTE ]
In mid or late position (or even early position at a loose table), SSH says to call with any pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]

...and I am simply making a distinction that open-limping any pocket pair (i.e. calling with any pocket pair) is a bad idea. The parallel shouldn't be that difficult to understand, I don't think.

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the fact that the blinds will usually fold to your pre-flop raise makes this play +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumption is extremely situation-dependent.

I think if you always open-raise low pocket pairs in mid-late position, you will lose a lot of money if you are not cognizant of the tendencies of your opponents left to act. I would consider it extremely bad advice to tell others to open raise 22 or the like in mid-late position. You are simply not gambling with the best of it and that is what being a tight-aggressive gambler is about. In this situation, you are at best a coin-flip and at worst a huge dog. This is NOT where you want to be wagering your money.

A thread was started in Small Stakes a few days ago about this topic; many who posted there agreed folding small pocket pairs in this situation was an appropriate play.

[luckycharms]

[ QUOTE ]
and you're 7.5:1 to flop a set or better).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your math might be wrong here. Can you justify it?

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]

I understand your "point of playing small pairs". I don't understand why this argument is attached to a quote of my post.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I wasn't disputing what you posted, I must have hit "Quote" on the wrong post when I went to reply to someone else's question.

That being said, I generally don't like the idea of calling two raises with small pairs. On a tight table, if you've been raised and re-raised and are seeing the flop against 2 or 3 opponents, even if you hit your set you have a good chance of losing. Your opponents will generally be re-raising with hands like AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, AQs, AJs, etc... and they'll probably call all the way to the river. A flop like A /images/graemlins/spade.gifK /images/graemlins/spade.gif5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif where you're holding pocket 5's would be hard to lay down. With multiple opponents, someone will have made a higher set, or a flush, or straight by the river. In these instances, it's almost worse to flop your set of 5's because it will be hard to fold it and you'll dump a lot of money into the pot -- only to lose to one of the hands I mentioned.

The odds of "making my set but still losing the hand" need to be taken into account in these instances.

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and you're 7.5:1 to flop a set or better).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your math might be wrong here. Can you justify it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty sure this is correct - unless I'm caught in the twilight zone, I'm pretty sure I've read this about a bizillion times.

I'll attempt the mathematics...anyone is welcome to correct.

Odds of flopping a set or better = 100% - the odds of NOT hitting a set or better.

100% - (48/50)*(47/49)*(46/48) = 11.8%.
100%/11.8% = 8.506944 or 7.506944:1

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, the fact that the blinds will usually fold to your pre-flop raise makes this play +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumption is extremely situation-dependent.

I think if you always open-raise low pocket pairs in mid-late position, you will lose a lot of money if you are not cognizant of the tendencies of your opponents left to act. I would consider it extremely bad advice to tell others to open raise 22 or the like in mid-late position. You are simply not gambling with the best of it and that is what being a tight-aggressive gambler is about. In this situation, you are at best a coin-flip and at worst a huge dog. This is NOT where you want to be wagering your money.



[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your statements, with the caveat that I raise in late position with low PP's if the table is open. I call with a low PP in late position if I have been bet into. However, as in every situation, it all depends on the tendencies of my opponents. I'm more likely to raise against a weak-tight player than a loose-aggressive one. I want to be heads-up with someone who I know will bet if he makes top pair after the flop, and will check if he doesn't and then fold to me when I bet. I don't want to be heads up against a maniac who will check-raise me with nothing after the flop.

[cpk]

...and I am simply making a distinction that open-limping any pocket pair (i.e. calling with any pocket pair) is a bad idea.

In really loose games you must open-limp with small pairs. You give up EV by either raising and folding, and decpetion is utterly irrelevant in such games. In tougher games open-limping invites isolation from a tough player, but in loose games you don't have to worry about it.

[JinX11]

Sorry - meant open-limping any pocket pair in mid-late position, which is where the thread was heading.

Thanks for the catch! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[cpk]

In a game full of LAPs, I would cold-call for 3 bets if I know the flop will go six handed or more. In late position, I would cap the flop myself.

The implied odds of small pocket pairs in such games are absolutely gigantic and make up for the relatively small deficit in immediate equity, if any. In such large pots you will receive odds to continue drawing to hit your set even if you miss on the flop. This narrows the gap in equity significantly and obliterates it entirely for pairs larger than 33. Once you pile the implied odds on top of that, you are giving tons and tons away by laying these small pairs down.

If you're worried that this makes you loosey-goosey, realize that pairs represent only 5.8% of all starting hands. Since you were thinking of playing the medium pairs (77+) anyway, you're only adding 2.3 points to your VP$IP. This stat should go up in LAGs anyway.

[cpk]

This makes more sense, though a game where you even have such an opportunity becomes at least NA rather than LA. /images/graemlins/smile.gif