Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?

[Woolygimp]

Due to their strength and inconspicuous nature, Sets are by far and large the cash hand in No-Limit holdem. However, do we overestimate their implied odds?

It is common belief that it is standard to call a large raise
with small pocket pairs, betting that your opponent will pay with his entire stack should you hit (as long as it obeys the 5/10 rule). If so, is it also standard to call large raises with small suited connectors? They work on the same basic concept.

Very few people are capable of playing small PP against their opponent unimproved (a pre-flop raiser), profitabily.
They can only do so with multiple solid reads, something most of us online types don't have the pleasure of having.

That said, we are relying only on the equity that will come from our hand should we improve.
We will improve 1 in 7.5x, against an opponent who will improve around 1 in 3 (AQ/AK/KQ) OR 1 in 7.5x like us.

So to call a 5x BB raise PF, we will need to make 7.5 * 5 or 35 BigBlinds on average each time we do hit. At a 1/2 game, thats about 70 dollars.

It is my opinion that 35 big blinds or more everytime you hit is unsustainable. That's without factoring reverse implied odds. I don't know the chance of a person raising with 99-AA, but I'm sure one of you could post it in a reply. He also has 1:7.5 to improve and assuming he's raising with a pocket pair, 2% of the time he's going to stack with his higher set you unless you hit quads (%5 of that time).

Thats not including the times you hit your set and he folds because he missed. Sure you're going to take down his pot (and continuation bet) when this occurs, but your still not getting your +35big blinds on average that you need to make a profit.

This is going to happen when an ace hits vs his 1010-KK, and he doesn't make a pair with this overcards.

However this all said, I do think its profitable to call a large raise should there be around 2 or more callers in front of you.

I'm not that great of a mathematician so someone else could probaly crunch the numbers better than I.

(Edit)
To everyone who points to the PT stats of 22-77 being in the green, You're forgetting about the times that you play these hands with limps/in blinds/smaller raises.

[Bukem_]

They might like this in ssnl.

That thread about set of deuces already got way too much attention.

[Woolygimp]

I'd copy it over, but I always thought double posting was against the forum rules.

Also what thread about the set of deuces?

[Leptyne]

You should expect a return of 10X your pre-flop call. In your example this means 50BB or $100. This makes up for those times you don't hit, or hit and lose, fold at the turn, etc.

The odds of flopping a draw are 8.1 and 8.5 for flush and oesd. then you're a 2-1 dog to hit, and may not win if you hit.

With pp you want to play HU v. an opponent that has a stack big enough to pay you off. With sc you want a multi-way pot because you only playing for a draw when you hit the flop.

Profitability depends on how well you can extract value from an opponent those times he has a good 2nd best hand.

[ludo72]

I would avoid playing small pocket pairs against loose-aggressive players who raise a lot pre-flop, because even if they pay you with lesser holdings, they will not make a hand enough times to give you the correct implied odds. Small pocket pairs are best played against TAG's.

[lehighguy]

If he is the kind to curl up into a ball with KK-TT when an ace hits the flop, this presents another opportunity for you to bluff him out provided your in posistion. If I have a good read I often bluff the ace.

You don't always need to have it. If they are weak-tight take advantage of it.

[trevor]

[ QUOTE ]
However this all said, I do think its profitable to call a large raise should there be around 2 or more callers in front of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a pretty important factor. Getting in multi-way w/ the small pairs rather than HU will make up for the equity or lack of it you are talking about. Not saying I 'never' play a hand like this HU but depending on how deep the table sits is the most important factor IMHO. More deep = more I gamb000000000le.

Also bad for your image to keep calling raises and folding to the continuation bet (which you'll have to do quite a bit HU).

[Leptyne]

[ QUOTE ]
I would avoid playing small pocket pairs against loose-aggressive players who raise a lot pre-flop, because even if they pay you with lesser holdings, they will not make a hand enough times to give you the correct implied odds. Small pocket pairs are best played against TAG's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am struggling with this question at 6-Max. Even TAGS will bring it in for a standard raise with suited connectors like JTs, or in LP with T9, or in the blinds with AQs or os. The times I hit a set at 6-Max and don't get paid makes me wonder. Of course when players fold to my raise I mark them as the player that I don't need to hit my set to win a pot. In fact I may win with 72 or my 33.

I guess I need 40,000 hands at 6-Max plus some critical analysis of my post-flop play to find the answer.

[Triumph36]

This seems like a fallacy. If they're raising with marginal holdings all the time, can't you win a lot more often unimproved, or even more outrageously - by reraising pre-flop? Don't just play for set value - get out there and try to steal a pot away from the guy post flop.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
If so, is it also standard to call large raises with small suited connectors? They work on the same basic concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Calling PFR's with small PPs is basically playing poker on auto-pilot. Hit a set or don't. It's very simple. With SCs, you flop tons of draws, possibly 2 pair, trips, etc. They can get you into lots of trouble that set mining with PPs won't. Definitely much harder to play.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If so, is it also standard to call large raises with small suited connectors? They work on the same basic concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Calling PFR's with small PPs is basically playing poker on auto-pilot. Hit a set or don't. It's very simple. With SCs, you flop tons of draws, possibly 2 pair, trips, etc. They can get you into lots of trouble that set mining with PPs won't. Definitely much harder to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are ignoring the entire point of my post.

[ludo72]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like a fallacy. If they're raising with marginal holdings all the time, can't you win a lot more often unimproved, or even more outrageously - by reraising pre-flop? Don't just play for set value - get out there and try to steal a pot away from the guy post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument assumed that you play your small pairs only for set value, check-folding any flop you miss. You're ofcourse correct.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are ignoring the entire point of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are ignoring the entire point of mine. They don't hinge on the same concept, IMO, is what I am trying to say. Thus, your statement is incorrect, once again, IMO. That's all.

[Big_Jim]

[ QUOTE ]
Very few people are capable of playing small PP against their opponent unimproved (a pre-flop raiser), profitabily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get better at poker.

[yvesaint]

yea basically your post has been assuming you cant play post-flop poker. what if you can? what if you can push your opponent off hands? what if you can snap off a bluff? what if you flop 346 w/ 55?

not only that, but with capped 100 bb stacks, you have to take in the advantage of stacking someone and having a 200 bb stack to cover everyone possible

[Niwa]

[/ QUOTE ]
You are ignoring the entire point of mine. They don't hinge on the same concept, IMO, is what I am trying to say. Thus, your statement is incorrect, once again, IMO. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

brief and correct, just the way we like them.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very few people are capable of playing small PP against their opponent unimproved (a pre-flop raiser), profitabily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get better at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


My point is that you can't say, Well I "THINK" this guy is continuation betting so I'm going to raise him with my 22.
I'd love it if some idiot raised my flop bets with an underpair... Thats why I said this is a read dependent play-- and people don't call large PF raises with small PP's with the intention to snap off continuation bets from an unknown. You knew what I was trying to say but you still felt inclined to ignore what I was saying completely.

I am only talking about the implied odds of hitting a set , and if the implied odds make the call profitable.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
I am only talking about the implied odds of hitting a set are, and if the implied odds making the call profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are way too many variables to figure this out.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am only talking about the implied odds of hitting a set are, and if the implied odds making the call profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are way too many variables to figure this out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats why I wanted to discuss it.

[Big_Jim]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that you can't say, Well I "THINK" this guy is continuation betting so I'm going to raise him with my 22.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure I can.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love it if some idiot raised my flop bets with an underpair...

[/ QUOTE ]
No you wouldn't. You would fold all sorts of hands to that raise.

[ QUOTE ]
Thats why I said this is a read dependent play-- and people don't call large PF raises with small PP's with the intention to snap off continuation bets from an unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I've seen, this is the first time you've mentioned anything about reads.

[ QUOTE ]
You knew what I was trying to say but you still felt inclined to ignore what I was saying completely.

[/ QUOTE ]
I knew what you were trying to say, but I felt inclined to disagree with you, because you're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I am only talking about the implied odds of hitting a set , and if the implied odds make the call profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
They do, and part of those implied odds is your ability to play well post flop.

But seriously... get better at poker.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
But seriously... get better at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey jim; I hope no one killed your dog recently or anything. simmer

[Big_Jim]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey jim; I hope no one killed your dog recently or anything. simmer

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps that comment was uncalled for...

Perhaps not.

<begin simmer>

[Woolygimp]

This reminded me of a hand I played yesterday. I raised to 12 with JJ with a deep stack and got called two ways.

Flop came down j 3 8 rainbow. All of us went all in, someone showed 33 and someone showed 88 for a massive pot. You guys are brushing off reverse implied odds like they are nothing. He's less likely to get stacked by your set with an overpair or a pair, than you are with your lower set to his higher should they both hit.

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
This reminded me of a hand I played yesterday. I raised to 12 with JJ with a deep stack and got called two ways.

Flop came down j 3 8 rainbow. All of us went all in, someone showed 33 and someone showed 88 for a massive pot. You guys are brushing off reverse implied odds like they are nothing. He's less likely to get stacked by your set with an overpair or a pair, than you are with your lower set to his higher should they both hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm, man maybe i should fold low pockets??? i guess they arent profitable to raises??? can you post all your examples of set over set over set so i can compare them to my samples of set over set over set and see what im doing wrong???

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This reminded me of a hand I played yesterday. I raised to 12 with JJ with a deep stack and got called two ways.

Flop came down j 3 8 rainbow. All of us went all in, someone showed 33 and someone showed 88 for a massive pot. You guys are brushing off reverse implied odds like they are nothing. He's less likely to get stacked by your set with an overpair or a pair, than you are with your lower set to his higher should they both hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm, man maybe i should fold low pockets??? i guess they arent profitable to raises??? can you post all your examples of set over set over set so i can compare them to my samples of set over set over set and see what im doing wrong???

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres no need for your stupid ass sarcasm, as theres nothing wrong with discussing it.

Lets say you and villain are sitting on 10x buy-ins (2000) at a NL game and he raises 25x the BB preflop. According to your 5/10 rule this is an easy call.

I don't think it is...

[xorbie]

I think it is an easy call and with 10x buyins I can also fold a set postflop, I can take down a pot postflop with out improving and moreover villain is probably not just raising with AA and KK.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is an easy call and with 10x buyins I can also fold a set postflop, I can take down a pot postflop with out improving and moreover villain is probably not just raising with AA and KK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so you plan on taking a 100bb ($200)pot down postflop w/o improving with 22. So i suppose you pot it or, after he pots it you raise to 800? commiting half your stack.

Get real this isn't going to happen and even if it did, its not profitable. This pot is FAR too large, and you lose almost no equity just mucking it.

Edit: You can't honestly beleive calling a 25x BB PFR with 22 is the correct play. Sorry I didn't catch on to your OBVIOUS sarcasm xorbie.

[yvesaint]

since it looks like no one can convince you that some of us can play post-flop poker that includes bluffs, why are you continuing to argue? i know ive stopped trying

[Woolygimp]

One of the fundamentals of NL is pot control, A 100bb pot on the flop is not something you want to mess around with bluffing etc. You lose 0.00001% equity folding and then you have a chance to lose half your stack [censored] around with someone who put in a MASSIVE pf raise.

[yvesaint]

1000 BBs behind, 25 BBs is not a massive pf raise at all....

[yvesaint]

oh, and with a 25 BB raise, the pot is only 50 BBs on the flop. you doing some addition wrong or something?

[Woolygimp]

You know the only incentive to play any hand PF except AA is blinds? So when you talk on a structure of raising that discludes blinds you have to understand you aren't losing ANYTHING folding PF.

Other than image why don't you [censored] call every PF raise with rags (since your so good at postflop play)...

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
oh, and with a 25 BB raise, the pot is only 50 BBs on the flop. you doing some addition wrong or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, i'm trying to post and six table at the same time...

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
You know the only incentive to play any hand PF except AA is blinds? So when you talk on a structure of raising that discludes blinds you have to understand you aren't losing ANYTHING folding PF.

Other than image why don't you [censored] call every PF raise with rags (since your so good at postflop play)...

[/ QUOTE ]

because a set is strong, well-disguised, and the "incentive" to call any hand pf besides AA (lol) is that i can win the other guys money because our opponents are worse than us

so with a structure w/o blinds, youre saying fold every hand but AA pre-flop? whats your strategy then, just get AA and push pre-flop? yeah, i think ill fold 22 when you do that.

now what happens if you raise and i call? flop comes 973, you bet, i raise, are you folding AA cause its not the nuts anymore? what if im bluffing? this, my friend, is called post-flop play

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know the only incentive to play any hand PF except AA is blinds? So when you talk on a structure of raising that discludes blinds you have to understand you aren't losing ANYTHING folding PF.

Other than image why don't you [censored] call every PF raise with rags (since your so good at postflop play)...

[/ QUOTE ]

because a set is strong, well-disguised, and the "incentive" to call any hand pf besides AA (lol) is that i can win the other guys money because our opponents are worse than us

so with a structure w/o blinds, youre saying fold every hand but AA pre-flop? whats your strategy then, just get AA and push pre-flop? yeah, i think ill fold 22 when you do that.

now what happens if you raise and i call? flop comes 973, you bet, i raise, are you folding AA cause its not the nuts anymore? what if im bluffing? this, my friend, is called post-flop play

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming your playing an opponent that is worse than you. Even bad players are capable of picking off poorly timed bluffs.

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]

You're assuming your playing an opponent that is worse than you. Even bad players are capable of picking off poorly timed bluffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm is it that reasonable to assume my opponents are worse than me? if they werent, i probably wouldnt be playing

poorly timed bluffs? hey, what about well timed bluffs? what about the times they try to pick off my "poorly timed" bluffs, they turn out to be sets? hmm?

[ QUOTE ]
This reminded me of a hand I played yesterday. I raised to 12 with JJ with a deep stack and got called two ways.

Flop came down j 3 8 rainbow. All of us went all in, someone showed 33 and someone showed 88 for a massive pot. You guys are brushing off reverse implied odds like they are nothing. He's less likely to get stacked by your set with an overpair or a pair, than you are with your lower set to his higher should they both hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You, my friend, were very very lucky to have this happen to you.