Re: Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?
 

[ 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.

Re: Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?
 

[ 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.

Re: Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?
 

[ 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.

Re: Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Get better at poker.

Re: Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?
 

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

Re: Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?
 

[/ 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.

Re: Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?
 

[ 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.

Re: Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?
 

[ 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.

Re: Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?
 

[ 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.

Re: Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?
 

[ 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.