The Math of Playing for Set Value

[SuitedSixes]

In HOH2, Dan does a good job of explaining why playing small-mid pocket pairs for set value in the yellow zone (10-20 X SB+BB) is a bad idea (p. 134-135).

As a general rule, I don't play these types of hands ever for set value, but as I progress to deeper stack SNGs and dabble more in NL ring games I am interested to know the EV mathematics behind when it is appropriate to limp these hands and what factors should be considered when deciding if I should call a raise.

I am hoping others will elaborate.

[500apm]

A general rule (for ring games) is that you should call a raise with a pocketpair for set value if the raise is less than 5% of the smallest stack of you and the raiser. If the raise is greater than 10% you should not call for set value. A raise between 5% to 10% of the smallest stack is up to your judgement to decide if you should call: if you flop your set, will he pay you of?

[Phill S]

In SnGs it can be at the higher end, if they hit they will pay you off cos either:

a, they are fish, you can work this one out yourself
b, they are relatively good, and realise you have like <100 hands to win one of these things, so you cant hand around in them

My general rule is the old 7:1 on hitting has to be half their stack or more (most people are willing to lose half their stack on top pair).

So i sometimes limp with small-medium pairs as late as 50/100.

If someone has raised early on, then calling their small raises (say the 15/30 level and a raise to 120) usually provides great results as people will be willing to risk all of their stack if they are raising preflop and hit.

Think of it this way:
a, they are fish raising KQ, AK, KJ and just want to put their stack in if they pair up
b, they are relatively good, raising AK, big PPs etc and will put their stack in if it looks good to them

I know, not math based, but this is how i look at it atm.

Phill
ps, i play the 1500 chip games, for reference.

[Big Limpin']

Also consider your table position. Obviously this will be a boon when trying to get fully paid when you spike. But also, it allows you better prospects for picking up pots where you didnt flop a set, but have reason to believe that nobody else has enough hand to call a postflop bet. Indications may be low untextured flops, and also when its checked around to you twice.

The extra (small) pots you pick up in this manner will add somewhat to the expected value of limpin "for set vlaue", and this becomes more significant when you limp them from late posion.

Just another thing to think about. You hope for a set, but sometimes dont need one to win (they will never be big pots, but can be frequent enough to add value).

BL'

[Irieguy]

I don't like the "rules" for playing small pairs based on stack percentages and whatnot. I think it's complete nonsense.

The thing that gets left out of small pair discussions is what happens when you don't flop your set. If you really believe "no set, no bet," then you shouldn't ever play any pair smaller than Jacks.

So, rather than thinking about whether you can play your pair based on stack sizes... I think it's better to decide whether or not to play your pair based on your chances of winning the pot. Being able to double through if you make your set is part of the consideration... but it should not dominate your decision making because it doesn't happen often enough. In order to play small pairs for a profit, you MUST be able to call bluffs with them, manipulate the pot correctly, and play them well when you have an overpair to a baby board.

So, sometimes I fold pocket 8's and sometimes I raise with pocket deuces. I really don't think it's a math problem.

If you want to know whether or not you should play pocket 6's from MP... ask yourself this question:

"when was the last time I won a pot with pocket 6's from middle position?"

If you can't remember, don't play 'em. By the way, most players would be better off if they just never played pairs smaller than 88. That's not to say that small pairs can't be played for a profit... it's just that most players can't do it.

Irieguy

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, most players would be better off if they just never played pairs smaller than 88. That's not to say that small pairs can't be played for a profit... it's just that most players can't do it.


[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree completely, at least at the 33's. in level 1, i think it is very profitable to limp 22 from any position and then take the following line:

- if set, do not screw around. get chips in quickly.
- if not set, check/fold.

i'd be curious to see a stat for % of times you stack somebody at the 10/15 when you flop a set. it's not that low. you don't need to try to somehow win a multiway pot when you miss.

[Big Limpin']

Dogmatic "rules" you set for yourself may keep you from getting loser on a hand you shouldnt have, but you will never realize the maximum return from your hand if your gameplan can be summarized in 2 sentences.

BL'

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Dogmatic "rules" you set for yourself may keep you from getting loser on a hand you shouldnt have, but you will never realize the maximum return from your hand if your gameplan can be summarized in 2 sentences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he was saying that was optimal play, just that it was profitable. Is your gameplan as summarized above exempt because you were able to do it in one sentence? My head is going to explode.

I think that having a more supple attitude than "no set, no bet" is good, but probably not very necessary at low buy-in games. I think it's worth considering that in Harrington's case, he might advise against playing when the stacks are that shallow because he's up against opposition that will pay him off less frequently with the set, so the implied odds aren't as good. I think in SNGs many opponents will pay off quite frequently, and thus you can probably limp profitably with smallish pairs in the ~15 BB regime still.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

So, rather than thinking about whether you can play your pair based on stack sizes... I think it's better to decide whether or not to play your pair based on your chances of winning the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you assessing your chances of winning the pot before you've seen the flop, in this case? I guess to be more accurate in what I'm thinking: how does having a small pair change your assessment of winning the pot as opposed to holding 72?

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, rather than thinking about whether you can play your pair based on stack sizes... I think it's better to decide whether or not to play your pair based on your chances of winning the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you assessing your chances of winning the pot before you've seen the flop, in this case? I guess to be more accurate in what I'm thinking: how does having a small pair change your assessment of winning the pot as opposed to holding 72?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he means factors such as your position, tightness of the players, your current image, your skill level compared to the table.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, rather than thinking about whether you can play your pair based on stack sizes... I think it's better to decide whether or not to play your pair based on your chances of winning the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you assessing your chances of winning the pot before you've seen the flop, in this case? I guess to be more accurate in what I'm thinking: how does having a small pair change your assessment of winning the pot as opposed to holding 72?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he means factors such as your position, tightness of the players, your current image, your skill level compared to the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote the original question, "how does having a small pair change your assessment of winning the pot as opposed to holding 72?" All those things are important, but they could all be used to win the pot with 72 as well.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, rather than thinking about whether you can play your pair based on stack sizes... I think it's better to decide whether or not to play your pair based on your chances of winning the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you assessing your chances of winning the pot before you've seen the flop, in this case? I guess to be more accurate in what I'm thinking: how does having a small pair change your assessment of winning the pot as opposed to holding 72?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can bust a bluff with a pair, not with 7-high.

Irieguy

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
So, rather than thinking about whether you can play your pair based on stack sizes... I think it's better to decide whether or not to play your pair based on your chances of winning the pot. Being able to double through if you make your set is part of the consideration... but it should not dominate your decision making because it doesn't happen often enough. In order to play small pairs for a profit, you MUST be able to call bluffs with them, manipulate the pot correctly, and play them well when you have an overpair to a baby board.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different than playing AK when it misses?

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, rather than thinking about whether you can play your pair based on stack sizes... I think it's better to decide whether or not to play your pair based on your chances of winning the pot. Being able to double through if you make your set is part of the consideration... but it should not dominate your decision making because it doesn't happen often enough. In order to play small pairs for a profit, you MUST be able to call bluffs with them, manipulate the pot correctly, and play them well when you have an overpair to a baby board.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different than playing AK when it misses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because a pair will beat the donkey who doesn't know how to play AK after the flop when it misses.

Irieguy

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, rather than thinking about whether you can play your pair based on stack sizes... I think it's better to decide whether or not to play your pair based on your chances of winning the pot. Being able to double through if you make your set is part of the consideration... but it should not dominate your decision making because it doesn't happen often enough. In order to play small pairs for a profit, you MUST be able to call bluffs with them, manipulate the pot correctly, and play them well when you have an overpair to a baby board.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different than playing AK when it misses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because a pair will beat the donkey who doesn't know how to play AK after the flop when it misses.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

So the point is, seek donks, avoid good players when you dont have a significant edge (position is usually a good one) and life will be peachy? This game sounds pretty easy /images/graemlins/wink.gif