I\'ll Just Spell It Out...
 

Hey all,

Sorry for the tone of my last post; it probably wasn't very helpful. Here's my point...

[ QUOTE ]
So it seems as though your mission has to be to make 210 bucks or so to justify your preflop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with the statement is twofold. First, the 7-1 rule exists in limit because, when you call a raise with a pocket pair, flopping a set is usually going to be the only way to win a multiway pot. Against typical opponents, you aren't going to be able to run a scratch bluff or win unimproved.

Compare this with no-limit. When you are in position, your opponents are often at your mercy. What if Bruiser called with 44 here and the flop came A63? Instead of auto-mucking because he missed his set, he should play the hand the exact same way that he did when he flopped his set. He gets the pot on this hand regardless of whether or not he actually flopped his set. In NL, your steal equity in position is a HUGE factor in determining the value of your hand. This is why, in big-bet with relatively deep stacks, it can become correct at times to see a flop with ANY two cards on the button, even in a raised pot (this idea should not be overblown, though).

The second problem with the statement is that, as posters have alluded to, making or not making at least $210 on this particular hand would have no bearing about the correctness of the preflop call, even if a "7-1" rule existed. The key is to average more than $0 on the hand in all the instances that it is played. In limit, you probably won't show an overall profit with pocket pairs unless you are making at least 7-1 on sets, because you will be folding most other flops. But, just because you don't make 7-1 EVERY time you flop a set doesn't mean that you should have folded your pocket pair.

Make sense?

ML4L

Re: I\'ll Just Spell It Out...
 

good post mike. against opponents who think and generally play well, steal equity goes way up and showdown value goes way down. in other words, if bruiser's opponents generally will not pay him off if he plays a set a certain way, then bruiser should play other hands that way until they feel obliged to start calling him down, whereupon he must adjust his game.

what a dance, what a game.

--turnipmonster

Re: I\'ll Just Spell It Out...
 

hm, good point turnip

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

good post.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

That's assuming that you're not going to be able to take down pots on appearance alone. If the board comes scrambled, you feel he's weak, then you're going to take down what's in the pot as is... This also doesn't account for those golden hands where you are going to make up to several grand on a thirty dollar pre-flop call. I'm not really arguing with you on the overall ratio in order to justify a call for profit, I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily need to be all at once. If a player has a semi-weak ace, a lot of mid level players will call down just because. If he has a strong ace, or two pair, he probably will. In this situation, if I feel he's weak, I prefer to wean what I can out of him. If I feel he's strong(but not stronger...) I'll try to double through.
Again, this is just a personal preference. If other players find that this manner doesn't suit them, that's fine, I'm just saying that this is how I handle the situation.
E