close but no cigar

[bmedwar]

Thanks for everyone's posts (save the one where my post was called "dumb"). I've certainly learned a lot, and have adjusted my play accordingly. I'd like to emphasize the following points...

1. Playing small pocket pairs is not cut and dry. As noted by other posters, plenty of murky situations come up where you don't hit your set, but you should stay in.

2. Reading the texture of a table is challenging and not dependable. The initial post said that the table was loose-passive. He calls a small pair UTG, and then pow! it comes back to him for 2 more bets.

3. Saying that 44 UTG is an easy call, but J9s UTG is an easy fold, exaggerates the difference in value of these two hands.

[afs]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you figure preflop action makes for less action on the following streets? Sounds very wrong to me, atleast on the limits I play. People tend to chase and call more on bigger pots as they feel "comitted".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, action now does indicate action later. So this helps yr implied odds. But more money in the pot now means you'll need a LOT more money later in order to stop yr implied odds from dropping.

For example -- yr preflop implied odds are better in a game in which you limped in for $.5 and the pot ends up being $7 than a game in which you call two raises preflop for $1.5 and the pot ends up being $19. (Of course this isn't really true -- we should be looking at the initial investment vs. the size of the pot MINUS all the hero's future contributions, but pot size serves for illustration.)

He probably _did_ have correct implied odds in this situation, but implied odds aren't known until after the fact; in general preflop raising at .5/1 tables reduces implied odds. I guess this is arguable -- maybe the pattern of action at this table indicates that the raises will bring an increase, rather than decrease, in implied odds in this situation. Dunno. I wouldn't want to say so w/o a read though.

[afs]

Howdy bemedwar

You echo specific phrases I used responding to you, so I'm taking this as a response. So and so --

[ QUOTE ]
1. Playing small pocket pairs is not cut and dry. As noted by other posters, plenty of murky situations come up where you don't hit your set, but you should stay in.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right -- 'cut and dry' is overstating the case a bit. Small pocket pairs USUALLY play more straight forwardly than any other hand. Yes, murky situations do come up. The one described here is as atypical as it gets.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Reading the texture of a table is challenging and not dependable. The initial post said that the table was loose-passive. He calls a small pair UTG, and then pow! it comes back to him for 2 more bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Though I think you may be over-estimating how common this sort of situation is. And how much more 'difficulty reading table texture' applies to this hand than every other hand you play.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Saying that 44 UTG is an easy call, but J9s UTG is an easy fold, exaggerates the difference in value of these two hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. J9s UTG is an easy fold 99% of the time. I don't think anyone would disagree. At the right table (>75% of online .5/1 tables) 44 is a perfectly fine call. Nothing says you _have_ to call, you don't lose much by not doing so. You do lose a little. I haven't seen any evidence that J9s utg and 44 utg are anywhere close.

[bmedwar]

worth a read...

Volume Hands: Small Pairs and Small Suited Connectors

[afs]

Nice link.

FWIW, I think illustrates how playable small pairs are utg at most .5/1 tables. Rather than how fraught with difficulty they can be, if that was what you were going for. (Not really sure.)