Re: Raising middle pairs
 

Hi fim,

Thanks for replying.

I wasn't stating my academic "resume," if you will, for any reason other than to show that there isn't necessarily a correlation between intelligence, level of education, or mathematical aptitude and the ability to calculate EV (because for me, my current inability to do so is the result of not knowing how to frame the problem, not a lack of understanding of high school level math). I was in no way trying to start a dick measuring contest over who's a bigger math nerd, as I'm quite certain that this English major/writer/journalist would not fare well in this regard around these parts.

I would find it rather helpful to see a general formula to use in making EV calcuations, and perhaps an application to a simple example.

Also, when I referenced playing "short," I was talking about playing shorthanded, not short-stacked. Doesn't really change a whole lot I suppose, just wanted to clarify.

-neon.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, but thats 1 in 8 times. What about the other 7 times when you miss your set, make a continuation bet, get called and have to give up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fire a second barrel? Honestly, I'm continually amazed at how often I can get people to fold hands that can beat my middle pair when I fire two healthy bets into the pot. My 88 might be well behind AJ on a KJ2 board, but someone's sure gonna have a hard time calling two big bets w/ it, no? Same w/ just about anything but AK, KJ and maybe KQ on the same board.

I think this depends a lot on how you play, and how they play, too. What works for me may not work for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Several people have mentioned playing short handed. Im assuming a full ring for this thread since thats all I play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. That does change quite a bit, but I still think there's value in raising middle pairs w/ good position at a full table.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just compare the EV's:

raising:

added EV of hitting set (easier to get stack in on bloated pot)
EV of getting to make continuation bet on flop (against certain/most opponents flop continuation bets are +EV with no cards at all)
added EV of folding best hand (you raise 44 and 55-jj play for set value)
added EV/shania of destroying implied odds with small pfrs's. (if you only have an overpair 1/3 times, someone trying to flop a set from a 4% stack raise is losing a lot of money.)

limping:

better implied odds



basically raising them, with position mostly, gets better as stacks get deeper (as do most all position raises).

FWIW you could have just done a little math on your own using your own assumptions and avoided the need for this thread entirely.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]COME ON. you think you can really compute EV like this? you have lost it. EV in these situation is completely 100% dependent on game conditions, your opponents level of play, and your abilities after the flop.
if you are not a brilliant postflop player, who plays a solid style and are playing 1/2 with donkeys, you are gonna make way more limping 77 in MP.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just compare the EV's:

raising:

added EV of hitting set (easier to get stack in on bloated pot)
EV of getting to make continuation bet on flop (against certain/most opponents flop continuation bets are +EV with no cards at all)
added EV of folding best hand (you raise 44 and 55-jj play for set value)
added EV/shania of destroying implied odds with small pfrs's. (if you only have an overpair 1/3 times, someone trying to flop a set from a 4% stack raise is losing a lot of money.)

limping:

better implied odds



basically raising them, with position mostly, gets better as stacks get deeper (as do most all position raises).

FWIW you could have just done a little math on your own using your own assumptions and avoided the need for this thread entirely.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]COME ON. you think you can really compute EV like this? you have lost it. EV in these situation is completely 100% dependent on game conditions, your opponents level of play, and your abilities after the flop.
if you are not a brilliant postflop player, who plays a solid style and are playing 1/2 with donkeys, you are gonna make way more limping 77 in MP.

[/ QUOTE ]

ever notice how the standard response to your advice is crickets chirping?

fim

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi fim,

Thanks for replying.

I wasn't stating my academic "resume," if you will, for any reason other than to show that there isn't necessarily a correlation between intelligence, level of education, or mathematical aptitude and the ability to calculate EV (because for me, my current inability to do so is the result of not knowing how to frame the problem, not a lack of understanding of high school level math). I was in no way trying to start a dick measuring contest over who's a bigger math nerd, as I'm quite certain that this English major/writer/journalist would not fare well in this regard around these parts.

I would find it rather helpful to see a general formula to use in making EV calcuations, and perhaps an application to a simple example.

Also, when I referenced playing "short," I was talking about playing shorthanded, not short-stacked. Doesn't really change a whole lot I suppose, just wanted to clarify.

-neon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look man, just give it up. Fimbulwinner is smarter than you, and it's not even close. For goodness sakes, he was PAID A LOT OF MONEY TO READ ESSAYS AND SCREEN APPLICANTS. And he's smart enough to pull off the whole "I'm ignoring you (but really I'm not and I'm quoting your posts)" routine, which I haven't seen since perhaps 9th grade. Did I mention he was PAID A LOT OF MONEY in one of his jobs? Clearly you lose the dick measuring contest.

And fimbul, awesome jab at the end of your post there. You're definitely not 12. Here's a tip: don't respond to posts if you "haven't read" them. You either come off as an immature liar, or someone who doesn't really know what the thread originally asked. And since you haven't pretended to block me yet, I might point out that this is about as far from a simple math problem as you can get. He's asking about theory here... if someone knew precisely how often a player would fold to a raise, would get stacked with top pair or top two, would get stacked against a limper, etc, then obviously this would be a simple math problem. But that's not the question. The question is asking for personal theories and heuristics to take the place of hard data in terms of the frequency of the above events. None of us knows exactly how often these things happen... so we're trying to figure out what each of us has come up with.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi fim,

Thanks for replying.

I wasn't stating my academic "resume," if you will, for any reason other than to show that there isn't necessarily a correlation between intelligence, level of education, or mathematical aptitude and the ability to calculate EV (because for me, my current inability to do so is the result of not knowing how to frame the problem, not a lack of understanding of high school level math). I was in no way trying to start a dick measuring contest over who's a bigger math nerd, as I'm quite certain that this English major/writer/journalist would not fare well in this regard around these parts.

I would find it rather helpful to see a general formula to use in making EV calcuations, and perhaps an application to a simple example.

Also, when I referenced playing "short," I was talking about playing shorthanded, not short-stacked. Doesn't really change a whole lot I suppose, just wanted to clarify.

-neon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look man, just give it up. Fimbulwinner is smarter than you, and it's not even close. For goodness sakes, he was PAID A LOT OF MONEY TO READ ESSAYS AND SCREEN APPLICANTS. And he's smart enough to pull off the whole "I'm ignoring you (but really I'm not and I'm quoting your posts)" routine, which I haven't seen since perhaps 9th grade. Did I mention he was PAID A LOT OF MONEY in one of his jobs? Clearly you lose the dick measuring contest.

And fimbul, awesome jab at the end of your post there. You're definitely not 12. Here's a tip: don't respond to posts if you "haven't read" them. You either come off as an immature liar, or someone who doesn't really know what the thread originally asked. And since you haven't pretended to block me yet, I might point out that this is about as far from a simple math problem as you can get. He's asking about theory here... if someone knew precisely how often a player would fold to a raise, would get stacked with top pair or top two, would get stacked against a limper, etc, then obviously this would be a simple math problem. But that's not the question. The question is asking for personal theories and heuristics to take the place of hard data in terms of the frequency of the above events. None of us knows exactly how often these things happen... so we're trying to figure out what each of us has come up with.

[/ QUOTE ]


where did you come from kiddo?

the swarm grows...

fim

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

i raise any pocket pair preflop for a few reasons:
1) build the pot
2) deception value
3) my hand will be good a good percentage of the time even though i don't hit my set...

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

I think it's a function of stack sizes more than anything else. with deep stacks it's fairly standard.

--turnipmonster

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is why I raise almost all small pairs (except out of the blinds and UTG with VERY small pairs. I will also limp after 2+ limpers up to JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? The second sentence seems to contradict the first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically I either want it heads up or 4+ players with pockets. The worst is to have them vs. 2 or 3 players, because you basically have to hit a set, and won't get paid much when you do.

So I like to raise in position, and outplay them after the flop. I agree that raising them with short stacks is bad, but with large stacks, and image purposes, I think its standard.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
you have to make a continuation bet every time

[/ QUOTE ]

i think your making a mistake assuming this. you may do this all the time, and for your current pre-flop game this may be 100% correct, but that doesnt imply others are or that this is the best strategy for someone who routinely raises pocket pairs.

i raise lots of hands pre-flop, including middle pairs. for me to routinely make continuation bets with all of these would be suicidal. after a pre-flop raise my bet/check ratio is pretty close to a 50-50 split. a lower % of continuation bets is a natural byproduct of raising more hands pre-flop.