Check my math? (bit of a read, but might be interesting)

[string4]

Hi. Quasi-newbie here, trying to learn more about figuring out this amazing skill and how to think like a winning poker player. Inspired by a couple of recent posts, I was wondering about whether it would be a positive or negative edge to always raise preflop w/ low pocket pairs. I know you experts know this immediately, but I wanted to see if my dusty math skills could be used to figure out the answer myself, so that I could also figure out other questions in the future on my own...

So, I wanted to post my analysis of this and ask: not just for the answer to whether it is wise or not to always raise pocket pairs if you are going to play them at all for some unknown reason, but is the course of this analysis accurate, and could I use this same kind of thing to figure out other hands, or are there too many variables that I'm not taking into account - making this system of figuring too inaccurate to use?

Regarding the pocket pairs: According to ITH, you are able to hit a set when holding low pocket pairs 1 in 7.5 times. This means that given 100 hands, you would hit a set 13.3 times, and wind up w/ a low pair 86.7 times.

WHEN YOU HIT THE SET: Even when you hit the set, we know that does not guarantee a win. On average in my tiny 5k hand database I win about 78% of the time when I flop a set w/ low pockets. I have weighed this average to a conservative 70% for estimation purposes, since I have so few results to go by. So, of this 13.3 hands out of 100 that you hit a set, I am figuring you will win the pot 70% of the time, or 9.3 times out of 100, and lose 3 times. Averaging my mini DB wins/losses on these type of hands, I average +7 BB on set wins, and average - 3.5 BB on losses (rounded off). So, when I hit my set and win over 100 hands, I will win 65.17 BB, and lose 10.5 bets, for a profit of 54.67 BB over 100 hands.

WHEN THE SET DOESN"T FALL: I figure to lose the 1 BB spent on the raise outright about 95% of the time (just guessing? no real way to figure this that I could find) and win the hand through some fluke or fantastic flop maybe 5% of the time. Out of 86.7 times, this would give 82.9 losses of 1 BB and 4.3 times of a win of (estimated) 5 BB (21.5 total) for a net loss of -61.4

HIT THE SET: +54.67
MISS THE SET: -61.4
NET OVER 100 HANDS: -6.73

If you would like to help please comment on:

1. Is this the process to use when deciding what plays to consistantly do or not do? If so, is this an accurate analysis, or what factors am I missing, discounting or just stupid about?

2. How does position factor into equation brainstorming like this?

3. Is my answer at all right? I know my library advises not to raise and in most situations (depending on position) to fold these hands. I assume my database results conflict with this because I played these hands before I knew better (I use SSH/ITH preflop recommendations now), or because the ultra micro limits i started with are so terribly loose?

Thanks so much. Along w/ my Sklanasky/Miller/Hilger library, this forum had taught me everything I know about this game )

[Isura]

Your analysis is fairly accurate. A few more things to consider (that make the analysis more difficult):
- Reraises preflop, which cut down your odds since the field is usually reduced.
- Times when you flop overpair, or pair higher than 2nd par (eg 66 on a J53 flop). These hands are tough to play correctly with in 3-4 way raised pots (you usually have the best hand, but have few outs and are very vulnerable).

But there is a good reason to raise PP's in LP with lots of limpers: You know you'll be getting your share of pot equity with so many loose limpers. Also, loose players won't be able to let go of mediocre hands in a bigger pot.

[cold_cash]

I think your initial numbers might be off.

The odds against flopping a set are 7.5:1, which means you will flop a set 1 time out of 8.5.

In a hundred hands then, you will do so approximately 11.7 times, not 13.3.

[string4]

OMG you're right...mistakes like these are exactly what I wanted to catch, thanks so much! Sounds dumb, but I still get odds and probability confused sometimes...

[GrunchCan]

Welcome to the forum. Nice first (4th?) post.

The problem with your analysis is it is based on your results. Therefore, any strategy formulated by this analyisis is a results-oriented strategy. This is bad becasue variance plays a big part in poker, and your database is very small.

Paying 2 SB to see the flop in EP with a small PP isn't so bad - assuming there are enough people in the pot to pay you off when you hit a set. But that's the key to playing small PPs in EP, and that's also the main problem with raising with small PPs in EP PF. You don't want to make the field smaller when you hold a small PP. You want as many people as possible out against you. (There are exceptions. See my earlier reply here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=2054208&Forum =,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=20 50754&Search=true&where=&Name=16000&daterange=&new erval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#P ost2054208) .) If you raise PF, you encourage people behind you to fold.

[jaxUp]

Let me just say that I am happy to see that you attempted to improve your game in a thoughtful process, rather than the usual: did I play AA okay? post that I usually see from you quasi-n00bs. Welcome to the forums duder. Keep up the thoughtful shizznit.