Should you play low PP's early in $10/$20's?

[swiftrhett]

I'm going to rehash this debate since I recently decided to swtich and not play low PP's to trap for trips early on anymore. To summarize, in the last debate, it was very close. Playing 22-66 may give you a slight +ChipEV, but it seems that it gives you a slight -$EV when you use ICM. The other issue is that having a big stack may give you an added advantage if you know how to use it.

[DMACM]

I'd like to hear opinions on this. I play them and was considering adding more than just small pairs axs, suited broadways, k9o(jk). If playing the small pairs is debatable axs probably isnt a good idea at all?

i limp, but either i get raised and fold, or miss my set and fold. seems pointless.

[xJMPx]

I limp small-mid pair from LP with other limpers in ahead of me. I like to pot to be a large family pot so I'm more likely to get paid of if I hit my set. Also, they are easy to get away from, miss your set and your done with the hand.

Axs, and higher suited connectors are different. You are going to flop a flush or a straight <2% of the time, other wise it could cost you a lot chasing draws. Also, if you make top pair with your hand, it can be very difficult to play.

[1C5]

I always play them and will even call a 3-4X BB raise in level 1 with them sometimes.

The upside is huge, too huge to turn down.

[FlyWf]

The upside is ~800. No way you're stacking opponents when you hit enough with 22-77 to make coldcalling 60 worth it.

[ChoicestHops]

I play them in any position. If I get raised after I limped in, it depends on how many other callers there are. At these limits you can have 4 people seeing a flop when it's raised 3-5x the bb in level 1 and 2. This is screaming implied odds if you hit your set.

[1C5]

Won't usually cold call 60 but if 5 people in front on me call for 60, I am calling also if in LP.

[swiftrhett]

None of this is really helping. I was agreeing with most of you. But the point of this was for you to look at your stats and see if this play is actually making you money. My guess is that if you have enough stats, you'll see it isn't helping you much, if at all.

[valenzuela]

The answer is clearly yes, its +EV to play pocker pairs early on.
Why? because u can stack your oponents..or even if u dont stack them u win lots of chips.
For instance:
level 2: u limp , 4 ppl see the flop.
U see the flop, u hit ure set, u bet 90 u get 2 callers. U fire again at the turn and they fold, guess what u won 270 chips. Trust me even if u dont stack an oponent with your set you will still win some chips.

Pesky sets is another topic altogether( like with a flush on the board)..but my chips are usually in anyway on a pesky flop( fh odds If im accidentally behind).

[swiftrhett]

What is so great about this situation? You hit your set 11.8% of the time. In this case, +270 chips adds 0.0298 $EV according to ICM (of the prize pool). When you don't hit the set, losing 30 chips costs you 0.0044 $EV.

So, 0.0966*(100-11.8)/100+0.1298*11.8/100 = 0.100518 $EV for making the move, as opposed to 0.1 that you have for folding.

So, assuming it works out just the way you planned, you're gaining 0.5% equity by making the move.

At the beginning of a $10 sng, this is like saying your equity is worth $10 if you fold, and $10.05 if you want to play this game with your pocket pairs.

A few things to keep in mind though: I'm assuming it works out exactly as you planned on average. I believe that this is generous, and it does not ALWAYS work out as great as you described. If it works out that great 90% of the time, this is -$EV. Also, you are gaining $EV in these tournies by just folding early on. When the game becomes 9 players, and you have 800 chips, you have gained $EV from the 10 player start.

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is clearly yes, its +EV to play pocker pairs early on.
Why? because u can stack your oponents..or even if u dont stack them u win lots of chips.
For instance:
level 2: u limp , 4 ppl see the flop.
U see the flop, u hit ure set, u bet 90 u get 2 callers. U fire again at the turn and they fold, guess what u won 270 chips. Trust me even if u dont stack an oponent with your set you will still win some chips.

Pesky sets is another topic altogether( like with a flush on the board)..but my chips are usually in anyway on a pesky flop( fh odds If im accidentally behind).

[/ QUOTE ]

[tigerite]

0.05% you mean. 0.5 would be pretty big.

[swiftrhett]

0.1005/0.1 = 1.005. This implies your gain is 0.5%, no?

[tigerite]

I'm too tired to work it out right now, but, I'm not sure that's the right way to work out the % as it's too confusing compared to the EV Min Edge thing that SNGPT has.

[swiftrhett]

I think I'm doing it the same way that SNGPT does it, and the default setting for the min edge where it will even display the arrow on something is 0.5%. So, I'm making some assumptions with this guy, and barely getting the min edge where you should even consider the results meaningful.

My point from the beginning is that right now I think it is just about 0 $EV to play these, which is what I'm still seeing. So, I don't know why everyone believes that they are +$EV.

[tigerite]

Nah it just adds the min edge to the fold ev, basically. At least as far as I understand it.

Anyway, I agree with you, but people just love to hit sets. There are still quite a few occasions when you should call with small pairs too of course. Just not really limping EP and calling raises with them (unless it's a family pot)

[jeffraider]

I've been thinking about this recently. I've been limping them for 15 chips in Level 1 but folding 77 and worse in level 2. I think that's okay, but I've noticed some of my favourite posters saying that they should be folded.

[swiftrhett]

I just tried it. It only affects the arrow. If push and fold are within 0.5% of each other, it says, "It's close enough that pushing and folding are both reasonable plays". The point is that ICM is not even accurate to 0.5% probably.

[swiftrhett]

I'm folding 66 and worse. I think 77 is ok. Obviously, there are still a lot of times I play them, shorthnaded and on the blinds. I may limp with small pairs on level on, then give up limping 22-66 on level 2.

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about this recently. I've been limping them for 15 chips in Level 1 but folding 77 and worse in level 2. I think that's okay, but I've noticed some of my favourite posters saying that they should be folded.

[/ QUOTE ]

[DMACM]

[ QUOTE ]
None of this is really helping. I was agreeing with most of you. But the point of this was for you to look at your stats and see if this play is actually making you money. My guess is that if you have enough stats, you'll see it isn't helping you much, if at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has helped me a lot. Youll never get a clear answer because there are so many different situations. But I liked the idea of playing them more in the first level and I will be playing them a lot more carefully from now on.

[ QUOTE ]
What is so great about this situation? You hit your set 11.8% of the time. In this case, +270 chips adds 0.0298 $EV according to ICM (of the prize pool). When you don't hit the set, losing 30 chips costs you 0.0044 $EV.

So, 0.0966*(100-11.8)/100+0.1298*11.8/100 = 0.100518 $EV for making the move, as opposed to 0.1 that you have for folding.

So, assuming it works out just the way you planned, you're gaining 0.5% equity by making the move.

At the beginning of a $10 sng, this is like saying your equity is worth $10 if you fold, and $10.05 if you want to play this game with your pocket pairs.

A few things to keep in mind though: I'm assuming it works out exactly as you planned on average. I believe that this is generous, and it does not ALWAYS work out as great as you described. If it works out that great 90% of the time, this is -$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, sometimes you get more than 270 chips, right? I think the person who posted this scenario was just saying that even when you don't stack someone, you can gain chips.

(I'm not offering an opinion about playing mid or low pocket pairs. I play very few, but I wouldn't be surprised if I should be playing more.)

[swiftrhett]

Sometimes you get less. Even when you hit your set. Does no one want to post some real results here?

[ QUOTE ]

Well, sometimes you get more than 270 chips, right? I think the person who posted this scenario was just saying that even when you don't stack someone, you can gain chips.

(I'm not offering an opinion about playing mid or low pocket pairs. I play very few, but I wouldn't be surprised if I should be playing more.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Does no one want to post some real results here?

[/ QUOTE ]I imagine the sample sizes are pretty small. For instance, I set up filters to show hands where I held 22-99, I was between 0 and 4 positions off the button, there were 8 or 9 players at the table (PS) and at least 3 players saw the flop. Only 80 hands meet those criteria. I'm a net loser on those hands (4180 chips over 80 hands). In looking over the hands, I don't think I played some of them that well, so maybe I could have turned a profit. But, I haven't figured out how often I limped and folded to a raise.

I only stacked someone once (though I probably could have gotten another with better play). I also got stacked. (I pushed 980 into a 1640 pot when a second heart appeared on the turn, got two calls and one of them hit a flush. The guy had 13 outs on the river, but he was the first caller, so he wasn't getting good odds unless he knew the 3rd player would come a long a significant portion of the time. This is not meant as a bad beat post, just pointing out that with a sample size this small, one such result can have a big impact -- if I had won this hand, I'd be a net winner of chips over the sample.)

[Ixnert]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes you get less. Even when you hit your set.

[/ QUOTE ]

And sometimes you win even when you don't hit your set. Small pocket pairs early aren't going to be profitable unless you (at least occasionally) win when you miss.

(And no, I don't have stats at hand, but the last time I looked at this particular scenario in my stats, that was indeed the only reason 44-77 were net winners for me early. With the usual caveat about small sample size, though.)

[Emmitt2222]

I'm assuming most of these responsees are almost exclusive to Party? I play at Stars where you have t1500 so I play alot looser in the earlier rounds, definitely limping with any pp. Because of the drastic increase in starting chips limping more is better at Stars correct? Or am I missing something that it is still right to be incredibly tight until the later rounds?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming most of these responsees are almost exclusive to Party? I play at Stars where you have t1500 so I play alot looser in the earlier rounds, definitely limping with any pp. Because of the drastic increase in starting chips limping more is better at Stars correct? Or am I missing something that it is still right to be incredibly tight until the later rounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, you're right, limping any PP and even calling raises after you've limped is much less borderline and much more +$EV with a T1500 stack than a T800 stack.

At party I usually dont "open limp" smaller PPs, I wait for someone else to make a move before me because:

1. You get a better estimate of how many people youre gonna share the pot with.

2. It usually takes a bigger hand to raise lots of limpers than to raise just one limper or open raise, thus you are more likely to get to see your flop without being reraised.

Why does no one say anything about the players at the table? If you are at a very passive table, where there are frequently 5 players or more seeing the flop, and people don't mind going to showdown with bottom pair, your small pp's are great.

If you are at a table where the average player is TAG, few people seeing the flop, and often for a raise and where people don't 'chase', they are not as good.

This is true right? Then doesn't that mean that you should limp less with low pp's as you go to higher buy-ins? It would be nice if some g00t player made everything clear. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Insty]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing 22-66 may give you a slight +ChipEV, but it seems that it gives you a slight -$EV when you use ICM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?
What do you mean by "when you use ICM".

[valenzuela]

in low buy-in sngs we usually have family pots and passive players. Calling raises and seeing a flop with 3 other players seems fine to me, btw none of us is talking with empirical advice...does anybody have some?

[1C5]

let me know what filters to use, i will tell me stats good or bad, have 2500+ tournaments in my PT...

[RobGW]

Well, if you play them in the right spots they are hugely +EV, played in the wrong spots they are -EV. So if you indiscrimatly play them all the time maybe they are breakeven or maybe even -EV. The problem with your question is that you seem to be asking whether its right to even play them at all early in a SNG. Well each situation is different. At a passive table I'll limp in in EP. In an aggressive table I'll fold. If someone raises, I look at my pot odds, implied odds, position, type of opponents, etc. to decide what to do. That's basic poker. I don't need PT, SNGPT, or ICM to tell me that.

[swiftrhett]

You can not tell if a $10 table is passive or aggressive in the first few hands. If you are not treating all $10 tables the same in the first few hands, you are fooling yourself and wasting too much brainpower.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you play them in the right spots they are hugely +EV, played in the wrong spots they are -EV. So if you indiscrimatly play them all the time maybe they are breakeven or maybe even -EV. The problem with your question is that you seem to be asking whether its right to even play them at all early in a SNG. Well each situation is different. At a passive table I'll limp in in EP. In an aggressive table I'll fold. If someone raises, I look at my pot odds, implied odds, position, type of opponents, etc. to decide what to do. That's basic poker. I don't need PT, SNGPT, or ICM to tell me that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do for sure (although I play at 'Stars which have deeper stacks, dunno about PP). I will limp any pair or call a reasonable size raise at level 1, limp in mid-late position at level 2, limp middle pairs in late position (or after other limpers) at level 3. When the blinds get to 50/100 I do it very rarely (maybe a big family pot)

[valenzuela]

I also play at stars, but Im debating whether it should be done on party, Im sure we all agree that on stars limping is correct.

[tjh]

I would not mind seeing some PT data on PP.

I would like to add that I like Pocket pairs when the flop comes paired. A paired flop is less likely to have helped anyone so a bet at the pot can take it down. Of course this is a way ahead way behind play. Just another factor to consider.

--
tjh