Playing for Set Value

[se2schul]

I have a question about playing for set value. In level 1 and 2, I've been limping with any pocket pair as long as the pot hasn't been raised. If my small pocket pair doesn't make a set or better, I won't play it.

It's been suggested on the forum (and in private) that I don't play pockets 22-66, only 77+. The reason for this as I understand it, is you don't want to lose your whole stack to a larger set (or trips if the board is paired). In general, I feel that a set is so strong that I'm typically ready to lose my whole stack if I flop a set, unless the board is rather scary.

Consider the following numbers.

You get dealt a pocket pair about .45% of the time (1/221).

When dealt a pocket pair, I'll make a set or quads on the flop 10.4% of the time.

It's even less likely for someone to get dealt a pocket pair AND flop their set.

It seems like I'd be ahead when I flop a set of 2's more often then not (without a scary board).

This of course doesn't represent the full picture. It seems quite possible for someone to limp with A4 and me with 22 and have the flop come A42, push all the chips into the middle and have him draw one of his 4 outs. There are countless other scenarios where I could be beat with a small set, yet win with a larger set.

So, here are my questions:

1) Is it a leak to limp with small pockets in an unraised pot early in an SNG?

2) Do you think that limping with small pocket pairs is positive, negative or neutral EV?

3) Will this introduce more or less variance in my results?

Thanks
Steve

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt a pocket pair about .45% of the time (1/221).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that's how often your dealt a pocket pair ...of aces.

You're dealt a pocket pair like 1 in 8 or so times. (I'm embarassed, I can't remember this AM, is it 1 in 6?) Damn it, now I got to go look it up.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Is it a leak to limp with small pockets in an unraised pot early in an SNG?

2) Do you think that limping with small pocket pairs is positive, negative or neutral EV?

3) Will this introduce more or less variance in my results?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to do this, but I think your best way to learn from this is to do the homework yourself.

You have just presented a mathematical word problem (like back in grade school). If you go find a book with a bunch of odds info in it (Hilger's book has a couple of pages with nice tables to use). You'll be able to apply the math to this scenario that will give you the mathematically correct $EV calculation to solve for.

FWIW, for each question 1-3, the answers would be longer than your original post.

Finally, I'm positive if you did the work, and reposted, you'd get a lot of solid posters to give you some pointers to consider after you've done this math.

[ColdestCall]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider the following numbers.

You get dealt a pocket pair about .45% of the time (1/221).

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's start by refiguring this number. Imagine you are dealt a J as your first card (or any other card, it doesnt really matter what you choose, because you are definitely going to get SOME card). Now, here comes your second card. There are 3 J's that will make you a pair out of 51 unseens cards. What are your chances of getting one?

Edit: Scuba posted b4 I did.

[se2schul]

Yes, sorry. That's a specific pocket pair. I was thinking of a low pocket pair like 22. Poorly worded.

I'll get dealt 22 1/221 times, and only improve it 10.4% of the time. The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair (put their chance is still close to 1 out of 8 times), and even if they do, they still have to improve and beat my set.

Thoughts?

[e_fermat]

[ QUOTE ]
So, here are my questions:

1) Is it a leak to limp with small pockets in an unraised pot early in an SNG?

2) Do you think that limping with small pocket pairs is positive, negative or neutral EV?

3) Will this introduce more or less variance in my results?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Depends on how often you limp and you play your sets. What do you do if you hold 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif and the flop comes as follows facing 5 limpers:

Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif J /images/graemlins/spade.gif 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Or what do you do if pre-flop the BB reraises to 3x BB and it comes back to you with 2 folds and 2 callers?

2) Again, depends on how you play them. Check (start keeping) your pokertracker stats and filter those exact situations. That will be the only was to get a definite answer based on your skill.

3) Depends on answer to 2)

[se2schul]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to do this, but I think your best way to learn from this is to do the homework yourself.

You have just presented a mathematical word problem (like back in grade school). If you go find a book with a bunch of odds info in it (Hilger's book has a couple of pages with nice tables to use). You'll be able to apply the math to this scenario that will give you the mathematically correct $EV calculation to solve for.

FWIW, for each question 1-3, the answers would be longer than your original post.

Finally, I'm positive if you did the work, and reposted, you'd get a lot of solid posters to give you some pointers to consider after you've done this math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... I started by just throwing out some disjoint thoughts with a couple numbers on the subject, hoping to get an answer more by "intuition" rather than actually solving something.

I like your idea though. I'm going to try to solve this on my own and then post again.

[e_fermat]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this comment is absurd.

[lorinda]

It's been suggested on the forum (and in private) that I don't play pockets 22-66, only 77+. The reason for this as I understand it, is you don't want to lose your whole stack to a larger set

This is why you should never read the NL-SS forum.

Lori

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Depends on how often you limp and you play your sets. What do you do if you hold 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif and the flop comes as follows facing 5 limpers:

Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif J /images/graemlins/spade.gif 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Or what do you do if pre-flop the BB reraises to 3x BB and it comes back to you with 2 folds and 2 callers?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the situation I'm worried about. My intuition is that sets will lose to larger sets rarely, but it will happen. Sets will lose to straights and flushes more often - especially with crappy flops like that.

So, I'm still left with a pencil, paper and questions....

The thing I love about pockets is that they have HUGE implied odds when you hit your flop. The problems that I'm faced with is choosing which pockets are worth playing preflop, and whether pushing or folding a board like you described yeilds a higher EV.

Thanks,
Steve

ss

[mackthefork]

You get a pocket pair ((52*51)/2)/(6*13)=1 in 17 times I don't know how anyone who doesn't know this can play poker at all.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
It's been suggested on the forum (and in private) that I don't play pockets 22-66, only 77+. The reason for this as I understand it, is you don't want to lose your whole stack to a larger set

This is why you should never read the NL-SS forum.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand your frustration, this is about the worst advice I ever heard, they should rename it the weak tight forum.

For anyone whos interested, the chances of you being behind on the flop to a better set if you flop bottom set (say 3 see the flop) is around 101-1, how can anyone scared of those odds get it all in with AA.

Mack

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this comment is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have a pocket pair, it reduces the number of pocket pairs out there. It also reduces the chances that someone gets the same pocket pair that I have and bluffs me out of the pot (which, to quote Sklansky, is a mathematical catastrophe).

Is my thinking wrong, or just completely irrelevant to the problem at hand?

I was just throwing out random thoughts and consisderatins on the topic of playing for set value since I haven't actually figured out the best way to play them, and suspect that I may have a leak in my game.

[bookish]

Well I agree with all that, but I can't figure out your working.

Its surely easier as (52/52)*(3/51) = 1/17

[e_fermat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Depends on how often you limp and you play your sets. What do you do if you hold 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif and the flop comes as follows facing 5 limpers:

Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif J /images/graemlins/spade.gif 4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

Or what do you do if pre-flop the BB reraises to 3x BB and it comes back to you with 2 folds and 2 callers?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the situation I'm worried about. My intuition is that sets will lose to larger sets rarely, but it will happen. Sets will lose to straights and flushes more often - especially with crappy flops like that.

So, I'm still left with a pencil, paper and questions....

The thing I love about pockets is that they have HUGE implied odds when you hit your flop. The problems that I'm faced with is choosing which pockets are worth playing preflop, and whether pushing or folding a board like you described yeilds a higher EV.

Thanks,
Steve

ss

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, facing 5 limpers I still push this. No one under the $50's limps with pocket JJ and definitely not QQ so I would push and expect to be called by a TPGK and maybe a 4 flush if there is one out there. Worst case scenario is I'm facing both an OESD and a 4-flush which makes me a slight dog but I've still got 7 outs to the nuts (three each of Q and J, one 4)and the pot odds to double/triple up are too high to pass up.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this comment is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have a pocket pair, it reduces the number of pocket pairs out there. It also reduces the chances that someone gets the same pocket pair that I have and bluffs me out of the pot (which, to quote Sklansky, is a mathematical catastrophe).

Is my thinking wrong, or just completely irrelevant to the problem at hand?

I was just throwing out random thoughts and consisderatins on the topic of playing for set value since I haven't actually figured out the best way to play them, and suspect that I may have a leak in my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

your thinking is both wrong and irrelevant. the more people with PPS the MORE likely they become...take a 8 carded deck 4 As and 4Ks. if two people have KK then obviously the other two hands are AA...just a simple example to show you why it is MORE likely.

It is irrelevant bc i dont think this miniscule effect on other hands based on what you have has any bearing on whether you play a PP...would you toss a KK bc it is or is not slightly more likely that someone has AA or whatever your thinking was?

I dont personally believe tossing 22-66 in levels 1-3 is always right...i decide whether to play them or not situationally...stack sizes, position, and table posture(are ppl playing loose, tight etc...)...iow, would hitting a set have huge implied odds or are ppl playing rock solid tight so far and not pay you off if you did hit a set?...

anyway,

pooh

[pokerlaw]

You get a pok pair 5.88% of the time (.45% * 13). That pok pair sets on the flop roughly 1/8 times. So, you flop a set about .7% of the hands you play. (not counting when you have A9 and 2 9s flop of course).

given the scarcity of this and the chip/blind structure at Party, I feel that limping every pok pair you have is a waste of chips, for in the long run, your 22-88s will not set and overcards will flop instead, giving you a crappy hand.

in sum, my advice is to pick and choose the PPs you limp with. if I havent flopped a set in the last two S&Gs you limped w or folded your small pok pairs, i tend to play them more. its a matter of feel, and of course luck, i suppose. but golden rules (always play 88, never play 44, etc), aren't in your best interest. good luck

[pokerlaw]

Oh, and if worrying about a higher set flopping is on your mind, i dont think poker is for you.

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Is it a leak to limp with small pockets in an unraised pot early in an SNG?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not a leak. One concern is that if you know there are multiple aggressive players left to act behind you. If this is the case, you should be hesitant to limp small pairs up front. If it's a fairly passive table, I'm limping any pocket pair at will.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Do you think that limping with small pocket pairs is positive, negative or neutral EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Positive EV for sure, if you play well post flop. And by playing well I mean you don't get cute when you miss your set.

Worrying about set over set in your typical short stacked sng is ridiculous. If you flop a set, prepare to put your entire stack in play.

[RobGW]

Is playing small PP in an unraised pot a leak? It depends on several things. What position are you in? How aggressive is the table preflop? How aggressive is it post flop? The ideal conditions for small PP is a table thats passive preflop but aggressive post flop or full of players that continue too far with poor hands which is usually the case at the lower limits. Playing small PP can be profitable in some situations but not so in others. Learn to tell the difference.

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
Worrying about set over set in your typical short stacked sng is ridiculous. If you flop a set, prepare to put your entire stack in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most cases, if your set is beat and you haven't lost a good piece of change, you're not playing correctly -- but it sure sucks when it happens.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I agree with all that, but I can't figure out your working.

Its surely easier as (52/52)*(3/51) = 1/17

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah of course you are right, its habit for me to explain every number.

Mack

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
You're dealt a pocket pair like 1 in 8 or so times. (I'm embarassed, I can't remember this AM, is it 1 in 6?) Damn it, now I got to go look it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, figured out where I went wrong. 6% of the time I was thinking. LOL. (At least I said I didn't know... /images/graemlins/blush.gif)

[mcpherzen]

[ QUOTE ]


1) Is it a leak to limp with small pockets in an unraised pot early in an SNG?

2) Do you think that limping with small pocket pairs is positive, negative or neutral EV?

3) Will this introduce more or less variance in my results?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the answers here really are "it depends" in many situations, but here are my thoughts for generally NOT playing 22-77 for a limp in levels 1-3. Philosophically, I avoid most low PP's because I think playing many of them will create many situations when you are getting the correct price to do something, yet you are still a big favorite to lose the hand.

First, my experience is that many pots at the $33 level are raised pre-flop, and calling any raise with a low PP in levels 1-3 is definitely going to be -EV over time (it may improve your pot-odds, but it really kills your implied odds). So I don't like to limp from middle position with a low pair because of the likelihood I'll have to fold to even a min-raise when it comes. How many people limp with 55, get 2 other limpers behind them, the SB completes, and then see the BB raise just slightly more than a min-raise, and they call with their 55? This is a huge leak.

Second, are you always able to get away from the pot if you don't flop a set? Anyone can fold 33 if the flop comes A-K-Q, but what if you start with 77 and the flop is 2-3-6? What if you start with 55 and the flop is 3-4-6? Someone may bet an amount such that the pot is laying your the correct odds to take a card off and see the turn, but I really think that even though this play is technically "correct," this is where the true leak comes from starting with a low PP.

Finally, a good poker player isn't really worried about going broke to set-over-set on the flop. He's just worried about going broke when his flopped set is no good, period, once all 5 cards are dealt. Losing to a higher set is a possibility, and so is losing to the flush or a straight. When you start with a low pocket pair and make your hand on the flop, you many times will get a lot of action because opponents think their overcards are outs. As an example, say you start with 66 and the flop is 6-9-10. Bad players playing KQ and KJ like to call here thinking their K,Q, and J are outs. Add in the guy calling on the flop with A-8, and the joker with 10-7 who isn't going anywhere with top-pair, and you have quite a few cards to dodge to win this pot. Personally, I think this scenario illustrates the biggest problem with playing small pocket pairs.

So, here's my best attempt at answering your questions.

Yes, it is a leak and -EV if you did it every single time early in a SNG. That said, if you pick your spots well (late position, you're pretty confident the 2-3 players acting behind you won't raise, you don't have too many opponents, and your small PP is on the bigger side like 77 or 66), I think you can turn this into a very positive EV play and your variance will only be mildly affected by it.

--mcpherzen

[nokona13]

[ QUOTE ]
in sum, my advice is to pick and choose the PPs you limp with. if I havent flopped a set in the last two S&Gs you limped w or folded your small pok pairs, i tend to play them more. its a matter of feel, and of course luck, i suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but this is just stupid. Whether you've hit a set on your PPs in the past couple SNGs should have absolutely no effect on how you play them, unless, of course, you're always playing with the same people, and you've shown down a bunch of sets and think they're now less likely to pay off. Since this isn't the case on line, this is just bad advice.


[ QUOTE ]
but golden rules (always play 88, never play 44, etc), aren't in your best interest. good luck

[/ QUOTE ]

This, however, is good advice. But as has already been said, you need to base it not upon "feel" and how many sets you've hit recently, but upon position, stack sizes, and the play at the table. If the table's full of passive calling stations, then I play all PPs, knowing that my limp is less likely to be raised and at least one or two of the numerous limpers will hit a pair and pay off my set a lot of the time. If it's super tight, I might not play <= 77. And if I'm in early position and there's aggro players behind me, I'll only come in with maybe 99+.

[ds914]

Steve - just to reiterate what others have said.

Originally, I was a big, big believer in limping with just about any pair at anytime in the early levels (so long as it didn't require more than 5-7% of my stack). I had some early success doing this, largely because I was playing on ideal tables (as someone else mentioned, it was passive pre-flop and ultra-aggressive post-flop). I doubled and tripled up numerous times and would soon limp without a second thought.

Eventually, however, I started running into problems. Big raises behind me -- and even worse -- small raises behind me (which tempted me to call them even more) had me leaking small amounts of chips often. And I'd sometimes get promising flops (I'd hold 44 and get a flop of 2-3-5), but I was completely out of position to do anything except check-fold.

I now realize that limping with pairs is really, really dependent on position and table conditions. If I'm playing on a tight/aggressive table with few limpers, I'm more inclined to dump the pairs. With these conditions, I almost never play anything smaller than 77 from early position because of potential raises after me or little action even if the flop does hit me. However, if 5-6 people are seeing the flop and we've gone 10-20 hands with little or no pre-flop reraising, I'm more inclined to call.

Again, just really keep an eye on your position and the current table conditions, and it'll be easier to make a decision. I hate to say "it depends" to your original questions, but well, it really does depend. And when you take that kind of stuff into consideration, limping with pocket pairs can be quite +EV.

[UMTerp]

Some of the comments (and most of the math) in this thread are embarrassing.

And FWIW, I think the "playing low pairs early" concept is one of the biggest differences there is between Party's and Stars' structure.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
your thinking is both wrong and irrelevant. the more people with PPS the MORE likely they become...take a 8 carded deck 4 As and 4Ks. if two people have KK then obviously the other two hands are AA...just a simple example to show you why it is MORE likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's consider the 8 card deck example... With a deck of 4 Kings and 4 Aces, what is the probability of dealing a pocket pair?

(2*(4C2))/(8C2) = 12/28 = .43

Now that I've been dealt a pocket pair, what's the chance that someone else is dealt a pocket pair out of the remaining deck?

(1+(4C2))/(6C2) = 7/20 = .35

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
(1+(4C2))/(6C2) = 7/20 = .35

[/ QUOTE ]

That's wrong.

[lorinda]

If you have red kings:

Other hand combinations:

Ah Ad. Ah Ac. Ah As. Ah Kc. Ah Ks
Ad Ac. Ad As. Ad Kc. Ad Ks.
Ac As. Ac Kc. Ac Ks.
As Kc. As Ks.
Kc Ks

= 7/15 (Which would make sense for a six card deck) = .47

Lori

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
= 7/15 (Which would make sense for a six card deck) = .47

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[e_fermat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your thinking is both wrong and irrelevant. the more people with PPS the MORE likely they become...take a 8 carded deck 4 As and 4Ks. if two people have KK then obviously the other two hands are AA...just a simple example to show you why it is MORE likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's consider the 8 card deck example... With a deck of 4 Kings and 4 Aces, what is the probability of dealing a pocket pair?

(2*(4C2))/(8C2) = 12/28 = .43

Now that I've been dealt a pocket pair, what's the chance that someone else is dealt a pocket pair out of the remaining deck?

(1+(4C2))/(6C2) = 7/20 = .35

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to be an ass but I can't possibly understand how someone could spend this amount of time thinking about a proof which is so obviously wrong and makes no intuitive sense and be a winning poker player.

[se2schul]

crap ya.

Ok, conceeded.

UMTerp: what is your logic behind not playing small pockets because of party's blinds. Is it simply to save your chips for stealing? Do you do this even at a passive table when limping costs less than 5% of your stack?

Thanks,
Steve

[UMTerp]

Honestly, I rarely if ever play Party, so I'm probably not the best person to answer this. I am aware of the blind structure though, and intuitively, I think it may be -EV to play the smaller pockets from up front, even in the first round, just because of the frequency you'll have to fold them to a raise. 800 starting chips doesn't give you much leeway, and you rarely want to put any chips voluntarily into a pot if you intend to fold to a raise. If there are several limpers, I still think it's fine to play them in late position. Or if you're certain the table it passive enough, I guess it'd be OK to play them too. I don't see how you could possibly know this that early though.

In Stars' structure, you start with 1500 chips, so in Levels 1 and 2, I think it's OK to limp up front with even the smallest pockets. If you're forced to fold them then, 1/75 of your stack missing isn't going to hurt you.

That's my rationale. Maybe someone else that plays Party more could tell me if what I said has any merit.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to be an ass but I can't possibly understand how someone could spend this amount of time thinking about a proof which is so obviously wrong and makes no intuitive sense and be a winning poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well my recommendation then would be not to post stuff that makes you sound like an ass!

If you must know, I spent a whole 20 seconds on it while simultaneously working out a multi-sensor data fusion algorithm from multiple radar sources and clearly made
several stupid mistakes. I didn't have time to "spend this amount of time thinking about a proof" because I'm at work and can only spend a few minutes per day doing this stuff. I'd like to spend the day playing/learning poker, but I can't. Quite frankly, I'm not an expert poker player, and I'm probably not as good as you or half the people in here. I'm posting to learn, not to be berrated. If you want to question whether I'm a winning player, then fork out a couple bucks, get a subscription to poker prophecy and look up 'se2schul' instead of insulting me.

Now I'm going to go back and read over some of the more useful posts in this thread.

Thanks
Steve

[lorinda]

Defense Applications of Multi-sensor Suites and Data Fusion
Antisubmarine warfare
Tactical air warfare
Ground battlefield warfare
Military data fusion architecture


Ok, you win.

Lori

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing I love about pockets is that they have HUGE implied odds when you hit your flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is your problem. Assuming that you will get your opponent's stack whenever you flop a set is not a good idea. Frequently when you hit your set in this situation, either, you bet and everyone folds or you check raise and everyone folds.

On the other hand, if you are in LP and an EP player puts in a small raise, then you are in a much better situation.

Paul

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the comments (and most of the math) in this thread are embarrassing.

And FWIW, I think the "playing low pairs early" concept is one of the biggest differences there is between Party's and Stars' structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

by this i assume you mean PPs are more playable early at Stars than at Party? (deeper stacks). Stars=limp and look for a set on flop. Party=push w/ 22 first hand.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
by this i assume you mean PPs are more playable early at Stars than at Party? (deeper stacks). Stars=limp and look for a set on flop. Party=push w/ 22 first hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they're definitely more playable at Stars. I explained my thinking a few posts up.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
by this i assume you mean PPs are more playable early at Stars than at Party? (deeper stacks). Stars=limp and look for a set on flop. Party=push w/ 22 first hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they're definitely more playable at Stars. I explained my thinking a few posts up.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah...saw that after i posted...sorry. pretty straightfoward but at the same time its good that you point this out bc u, like myself, play stars pretty exclusively and the structure really does affect early game strategy...lots of wiggle room at stars(Does more fun/better poker=less money? whatever...). I think sometimes posters are talking past eachother when one plays x structure and the other y. important to clarify...kudos.

[sofere]

[ QUOTE ]
You get a pok pair 5.88% of the time (.45% * 13). That pok pair sets on the flop roughly 1/8 times. So, you flop a set about .7% of the hands you play. (not counting when you have A9 and 2 9s flop of course).

given the scarcity of this and the chip/blind structure at Party, I feel that limping every pok pair you have is a waste of chips, for in the long run, your 22-88s will not set and overcards will flop instead, giving you a crappy hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you hit a set .7% of the time you are dealt a hand is absolutely irrelevent. I take that back...its actually more of a reason TO LIMP small pockets. The fact is, you already know you have pockets, so that 5.88% you were using turns into 100%. You will hit a set ~12.5% of the time and someone else will have a set ~0.7% of the time (using your calculation above), so you almost definitely have the best hand (barring straights and flushes).

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to be an ass but I can't possibly understand how someone could spend this amount of time thinking about a proof which is so obviously wrong and makes no intuitive sense and be a winning poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well my recommendation then would be not to post stuff that makes you sound like an ass!

If you must know, I spent a whole 20 seconds on it while simultaneously working out a multi-sensor data fusion algorithm from multiple radar sources and clearly made
several stupid mistakes. I didn't have time to "spend this amount of time thinking about a proof" because I'm at work and can only spend a few minutes per day doing this stuff. I'd like to spend the day playing/learning poker, but I can't. Quite frankly, I'm not an expert poker player, and I'm probably not as good as you or half the people in here. I'm posting to learn, not to be berrated. If you want to question whether I'm a winning player, then fork out a couple bucks, get a subscription to poker prophecy and look up 'se2schul' instead of insulting me.

Now I'm going to go back and read over some of the more useful posts in this thread.

Thanks
Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

not to speak for fermat...and I not to get into a flame war (i should just let this thread die), but I think he was confused as to how you even ARRIVED at the idea of working that out without first thinking about the absurdity of the logic. This is often the case for those who use a "bottom up" approach to solving problems and is a sign of an overdependance on formulas for problem solving instead of your own noggin...which you later proved by that pretentious nonsense about sensor data algorithms (which you clearly know you wrote only to impress). No offense...but there was no need for that tidbit...im sure we all do admirable work outside of poker.

[DrPhysic]

OK, Lori
I'll stick my neck out and prepare to get it chopped off like everybody else here.

IMO, because the probability of hitting the set is only ~10%, a less than hollywood PP cannot stand the raise. Therefore I have been playing itsy bitsy pairs in LP only and only in an unraised pot. (Limping most of the time.) I am playing medium pp 77,88,99 in MP or LP again only in an unraised pot. (Again limping most of the time.) Larger pp can be played from pretty much any position although I will usually pass on TT UTG.

How any pp is played from CO or Button depends entirely on the read of the two or three hands behind me. I will raise any PP from these positions in a weak or passive game, and limp or fold mid to smaller pairs if I have a maniac behind me.

Obviously this all varies with the playing situation, and varies just because I vary it intentionally to some extent. At Stars, I loosen a bit with large stack early, but probably about as above when blinds reach 100/200. In any case, when I hold 99 and smaller I almost always will fold if no set. Larger pairs... depends on the sit again.

Now, Please critique the above to your heart's content. I would appreciate the feedback, and I have had my head handed to me often enough on poker theory that it doesn't even hurt anymore.

Doc /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Maulik]

good responses, I just started SNGs and the not playing low pocket pairs was intuitive for me in relation to the chip count.

P.s. I stole your avatar.... (sorry)

[The Yugoslavian]

I think it's worth mentioning in addition to your fine, fine post that to make it worth playing for set value in the first place you have to get paid off a lot of the time. Many of the hands you get paid off by *do* have outs.

So, most of the time you're not hitting your set....fine, you lose a small amount. But a lot of the time when you do hit, you only win a smallish or medium pot (meh says I). The times you win a large pot you will likely be faced with a similar situation to the example Zen uses:

[ QUOTE ]

As an example, say you start with 66 and the flop is 6-9-10. Bad players playing KQ and KJ like to call here thinking their K,Q, and J are outs. Add in the guy calling on the flop with A-8, and the joker with 10-7 who isn't going anywhere with top-pair, and you have quite a few cards to dodge to win this pot. Personally, I think this scenario illustrates the biggest problem with playing small pocket pairs.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're not really playing purely for even implied odds since they aren't paying you off all the time and you're not even winning all the time when you're ahead. The higher the pp you limp with the fewer bullets you may have to dodge later and the more flops you can perhaps do some manuevering on even if you miss your set.

Yugoslav

[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]
Defense Applications of Multi-sensor Suites and Data Fusion
Antisubmarine warfare
Tactical air warfare
Ground battlefield warfare
Military data fusion architecture


Ok, you win.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Thesre are all interesting computer game titles. /images/graemlins/wink.gif