Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

22$ game
Seat 7 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: Dodgerdugout ( $863 )
Seat 2: CAL2003 ( $947 )
Seat 3: Super_loong ( $755 )
Seat 4: jmucardshark ( $800 )
Seat 5: gthockey6 ( $905 )
Seat 6: jasapistor ( $745 )
Seat 7: jpgumm ( $730 )
Seat 8: LongDrive317 ( $700 )
Seat 9: HERO ( $800 )
Seat 10: primerib ( $755 )
Trny:17531817 Level:1
Blinds(10/15)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to HERO [ 6h 6c ]
primerib folds.
Dodgerdugout folds.
CAL2003 calls [15].
Super_loong raises [65].
jmucardshark calls [65].
gthockey6 folds.
jasapistor calls [65].
jpgumm calls [65].
LongDrive317 calls [55].
HERO calls [50].
CAL2003 calls [50].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 3d, Qs, Qh ]
LongDrive317 checks.
HERO checks.
CAL2003 bets [15].
Super_loong calls [15].
jmucardshark calls [15].
jasapistor calls [15].
jpgumm raises [100].
LongDrive317 folds.
HERO folds.
CAL2003 calls [85].
Super_loong calls [85].
jmucardshark calls [85].
jasapistor folds.
** Dealing Turn ** [ 7s ]
CAL2003 is all-In [782]
Super_loong is all-In [590]
jmucardshark folds.
jpgumm folds.
** Dealing River ** [ Jc ]
CAL2003 shows [ Qc, Jd ] a full house, Queens full of jacks.
Super_loong shows [ Ks, Qd ] three of a kind, queens.
CAL2003 wins 192 chips from side pot #1 with a full house, Queens full of jacks.
CAL2003 wins 2050 chips from the main pot with a full house, Queens full of jacks.
Super_loong finished in tenth place.
Super_loong has left the table.

Maybe I'm just mad because I haven't been hitting many sets lately, but it seems like I frequently end up making a call like this for set value and then finding myself a little bit more shortstacked than usual... and If I make two calls like this and I'm card dead until level 4 I tend to be kind of desperate when it comes time to steal. People who get mixed up in raised pots with QJo tend to be hard to steal from too.

So should I not be calling here with 66? What if the hand after this hand someone raises to 65 and 3 people call before me... should I call? How many people do you need to be in to call a raise to say 65 or 75 for set value, assuming they will probably pay you off well if they hit top pair?

PS: Ironically I'm on the bubble right now(at level 3), and the QJ guy is on my right. I'm very scared to push into him (not that i need to at level 3)

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

With how few chips you start with on PP I wouldn't be calling a raise to 65 with pocket sixes, but I would call a raise to 30 or maybe even to 45 if I was late position or closing the action and a lot of people had called. I think 1/12th of your stack is just too much to pay on the chance that you hit a set, playing pocket pairs early is a good idea but you have to put a limit on the price.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

You can use the rule of thumb of calling if the bet is 5% of your stack or less, fold if 10% or more, and use your judgment if in between. If you're closing out the action, you can take more risk. This would be pre-flop.

Once the flop hits, you only have about a 4% chance of hitting your card on the turn, so the stacks would have to be huge relative to the bet to play on. So if you follow the strategy of just trying to hit the flop and giving up if you don't, that will work fine, since your stack will never be large enough to call, unless the bet is absurdly small.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

At this early stage with this many players calling the raise in front, and only one player to act behind, you're easily getting the odds to call. The main concern is the possible reriase by the open limper, but with this much money in the pot I'd call every time.

If you hit the flop you've got a great chance to make it to the money.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Fold all of your low pps early in Party STT play - raise or not.

Yugoslav

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Here's something everybody forgets about implied odds(for the sake of this exercise only, assume you both have 800 chips and you can stack the villain every time you make your set). Level 1 blinds.

1. Folded around to the SB, he completes. You check your pair:
implied odds: infinite

2. Folded around to you in the SB, you complete for 5, BB checks:
implied odds: 160 to 1

3. You limp your small pair, folded around to the BB who is the only caller:
implied odds: 53 to 1

4. Folded to LP who minraises, you call 30 from the button and the blinds fold:
implied odds: 27 to 1

5. You limp from MP, folded to button who raises to 60. All fold to you and you call for 45 more:
implied odds: 18 to 1

Forget about the exact numbers, just look at the order of difference between the examples.

You are getting around 9X the implied odds limping from the SB compared to calling a standard raise after limping... yet completing, limping, and calling a small raise with lil' pairs are often clumped together as subjects of discussion.

Calling a "small" raise is nowhere near the same as limping with pair when you are talking about implied odds. If you are prepared to call raises with your small pairs after limping, you would be correct to adjust your percieved implied odds accordingly.

This adjustment, combined with an adjustment to account for the fact that when you make your sets you will sometimes fail to stack someone and sometimes lose your whole stack yourself, makes the play of small pairs early in a SNG clear in my mind.

Irieguy

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

bump...excellent post Irie

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

If you have seven players seeing a flop for a 3xBB raise, you should be more likely to double up if you hit your set than in a button minraises/you call-situation.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you have seven players seeing a flop for a 3xBB raise, you should be more likely to double up if you hit your set than in a button minraises/you call-situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will also be more likely to lose your stack to a bigger set or straight when you hit.

It's very difficult to calculate your implied odds equity with small pairs for this reason (and many others.)

The best evidence to help with this is to look at your PT data with regard to your small pairs. You are likely to find that you are either losing a little, or making a little with them in the first 3 levels with the former being much more likely when you get below 77.

That information, which is similar for several pros that I know, leads me to believe that the implied odds for these hands are quite poor once you account for all considerations.

This is an age-old argument: "play your pairs early, the implied odds are great" vs. "small pairs are garbage hands." Thanks to pokertracker and all of the experienced players on this forum, we have the benefit of knowing something about the play of these hands early: they are not making anyone very much money.

So, I fold them. If you want to limp some with them... that's fine. But if you are routinely calling raises with small pairs in levels 1-3, you are leaking chips. This isn't really a matter of opinion, just look at your own data or ask somebody with a bajillion hands played how much they are making with pocket 6's in level 1.

Irieguy

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have seven players seeing a flop for a 3xBB raise, you should be more likely to double up if you hit your set than in a button minraises/you call-situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will also be more likely to lose your stack to a bigger set or straight when you hit.

It's very difficult to calculate your implied odds equity with small pairs for this reason (and many others.)

The best evidence to help with this is to look at your PT data with regard to your small pairs. You are likely to find that you are either losing a little, or making a little with them in the first 3 levels with the former being much more likely when you get below 77.

That information, which is similar for several pros that I know, leads me to believe that the implied odds for these hands are quite poor once you account for all considerations.

This is an age-old argument: "play your pairs early, the implied odds are great" vs. "small pairs are garbage hands." Thanks to pokertracker and all of the experienced players on this forum, we have the benefit of knowing something about the play of these hands early: they are not making anyone very much money.

So, I fold them. If you want to limp some with them... that's fine. But if you are routinely calling raises with small pairs in levels 1-3, you are leaking chips. This isn't really a matter of opinion, just look at your own data or ask somebody with a bajillion hands played how much they are making with pocket 6's in level 1.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that you shouldn't call raises with small pairs unless the situation is right. If I am on the button in level 1 and six players are in for 45 chips I will call every time.

If there are two players I will fold. But I agree that they probably will be losing hands if you routinely call raises with them.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Good odds to call preflop, easy fold postflop.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Let me just quickly put this into further perspective by how many additional chips you MUST win on average after you hit your set:

[ QUOTE ]
1. Folded around to the SB, he completes. You check your pair:
implied odds: infinite

[/ QUOTE ]

0 chips from his stack on average. Easiest.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Folded around to you in the SB, you complete for 5, BB checks:
implied odds: 160 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

55 chips from his stack on average. Pretty easy to do. If he has a hand every once in a while you'll make it up for a decent amount. If we're looking beyond the simple math equation for hitting a set, you should be able to win a few extra pots without hitting.

[ QUOTE ]
3. You limp your small pair, folded around to the BB who is the only caller:
implied odds: 53 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

165 chips from his stack on average. This guy has to have something strong to build the pot from 45 chips to 330 (he has to be able to handle almost 2 pot-sized bets). And that's on average. He will rarely do this with a hand he didn't raise with.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Folded to LP who minraises, you call 30 from the button and the blinds fold:
implied odds: 27 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

330 chips from his stack on average. That means you'll be playing a 660 chip pot with a LP minraiser who will almost always have trash to begin with. Not happening. Probably profitable against a very TAG EP raiser.

[ QUOTE ]
5. You limp from MP, folded to button who raises to 60. All fold to you and you call for 45 more:
implied odds: 18 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

660 from his stack. Impossible. Essentially you must stack him everytime you go to a flop. Not only is it unrealistic someone will put the rest of their chips in everytime, they also have redraws which fix a limit on how much you can actually average taking from them.

[ QUOTE ]
You will also be more likely to lose your stack to a bigger set or straight when you hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Techincally yes. But in most situations, the number of times which you will stack someone else grows faster than the number of times someone will stack you as more people enter the pot.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Using the assumption that you will never win a hand except for when you get a set will give you somewhat unrealistic results, especially when there are only two in the hand. If for example you assume that the other guy in the hand with you will lose every time when he doesn't flop top pair or better, then the small pairs will be insanely profitable.

If the table is so tight that you will end up HU small pairs should probably be avoided.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Don't forget that from EP or MP or even LP after limping a small pp you routinely get raised. Your implied odds are much lower than anyone ever thinks, IMO. For instance, crap players love to raise like as much as the top 20% of hands from LP and then not pay off unless they hit. So when those 3 players have limped already and you limp there is a significant chance the pot will get popped up to a hefty raise that you can't call profitably.

Even from LP with limpers (and then no one raises), getting paid off for sets is difficult. Quite a few of the hands that *do* pay you off on a flop where all the chips get in are often ones that can bust you too (bigger sets/flush draws/str8 draws).

Yugoslav

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using the assumption that you will never win a hand except for when you get a set will give you somewhat unrealistic results, especially when there are only two in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. I even mentioned that somewhat in my analysis. But you're missing the point if you're looking at it for hard, precise numbers. Irie pointed out how the general behavior works; I tried to clarify it as it tends to be more clear with numbers people can relate to.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Of course. I even mentioned that somewhat in my analysis. But you're missing the point if you're looking at it for hard, precise numbers. Irie pointed out how the general behavior works; I tried to clarify it as it tends to be more clear with numbers people can relate to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that many players tend to overrate the profitability of small pairs. Perhaps it has something to do with how we learned to play them in limit cashgames.

I think Iries suggestion to look at PT stats is much better than to create hypothetical situations with non-realistic assumptions.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that many players tend to overrate the profitability of small pairs. Perhaps it has something to do with how we learned to play them in limit cashgames.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think much of the advice originally leaked over from cash game players who are used to playing with deeper stacks, where the set is considered the classic "stacking" hand. However, they probably were inexperienced with how much stack size actually changes hand values and strategy and still played their normal cashgame game.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The best evidence to help with this is to look at your PT data with regard to your small pairs. You are likely to find that you are either losing a little, or making a little with them in the first 3 levels with the former being much more likely when you get below 77.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong, but I don't see anyway to filter the stats in PT for to filter for x number of callers? I'm sure calling without enough callers in front is wrong, but is it still wrong with this many?

Thanks for taking the time to reply in this thread Irie, I always enjoy your posts.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Yes but Irie

Simply going chips won - chips lost = whatever is not going to give the true picture in relation to equity gained.

To see my arguements why plese refer to to Durrons thread on how much to raise. It 1:20 am on saturday night and getting the post out in Durrons thread taxed my booze addled mind to the limit having to repeat, modulate and adjust those arguements is beyond my curent capacity.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this issue.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

I've been playing low pairs for a long time, and now I'm convinced to stop playing 66 and lower. The chip EV is very close to 0. Winning a big stack every once in a while, and losing 15-50 chips most of the time is -$EV at that stage, I believe. On top of that, it is extra effort to play these hands.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

This is very interesting, but I have one other question. Let's say you lose 100 chips 9 times, but another time you win 1,000 (not saying with the specific situation of a pp, but just a hypatehtical). By PT it would apprear that the net ammount of chips won/lost is zero. But in relation to SNGs, which is more profitable to us? Which will get us ITM more, and which will help us win more? I'm not actually sure myself, but ICM should be able to tell us. But I'm pretty sure the odds are not exactly the same. Instinctively, that's why I'd call with p pairs even if overall they are break even. Because it feels like the time I double up I gain more than the many times I lose 30-50 chips out of my thousand. But I don't have any data to back this up. Can anyone help me out here?

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

I played around with this: http://sharnett.bol.ucla.edu/ICM/ICM.html

And it seems like playing low PP's to hit sets is really close to 0 $EV as well as 0 EV. I neglected that you gain a lot of ICM value when you stack someone in a tournument due to eliminating him from the tournument. Assuming one guy takes your 15-30 chips, or you have 1600, and everyone else has 800 in the last case:

Chips $EV
785 0.0983
770 0.0966
1600 0.1844

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is very interesting, but I have one other question. Let's say you lose 100 chips 9 times, but another time you win 1,000 (not saying with the specific situation of a pp, but just a hypatehtical). By PT it would apprear that the net ammount of chips won/lost is zero. But in relation to SNGs, which is more profitable to us? Which will get us ITM more, and which will help us win more? I'm not actually sure myself, but ICM should be able to tell us. But I'm pretty sure the odds are not exactly the same. Instinctively, that's why I'd call with p pairs even if overall they are break even. Because it feels like the time I double up I gain more than the many times I lose 30-50 chips out of my thousand. But I don't have any data to back this up. Can anyone help me out here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, whether or not having a big stack helps you incrementally more than losing chips hurts you has been up for debate for quite a while (see Gig's block threads). But ICM isn't the place to go to support that argument.

According to ICM in a percentage-payout tournament, doubling your stack does not double your EV, and losing half of your stack does not cut your EV in half.

So losing chips hurts worse than gaining chips helps. That is the underlying reason why your chips are "worth more" the shorter your stack is.

Irieguy

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Thanks. The other factor that ICM doesn't account for is that GOOD players can use a big stack to gain more chips, which could shift the balance towards good players taking this =EV situation and in actuality making a little money off of it. But that's probably a small factor.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks. The other factor that ICM doesn't account for is that GOOD players can use a big stack to gain more chips, which could shift the balance towards good players taking this =EV situation and in actuality making a little money off of it. But that's probably a small factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is talked about a lot.

I believe I handle my big stack pretty well and will pwn under the right circumstance.

I KNOW damn well, I handle my small stack A LOT better than the average tilty steamed up little stack.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

If anyone that played poker ever knew PostgreSQL, we could query PT to find out what your true $EV seems to be when you double up early.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone that played poker ever knew PostgreSQL, we could query PT to find out what your true $EV seems to be when you double up early.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm using mysql with pokeroffice and was just in there doing queries trying to figure out how I'm doing with PPs in early levels. I'm doing fine, but not nearly enough data to say much as I haven't been using Poffice very long.

Trying to figure $EV imperically, I think, would take an insane amount of data, but perhaps a question as simple as $EV if you double in the first orbit could be reasonably addressed by someone with a fairly large database.

If someone with more data wants to take a look at this, I'd be happy to help with the database queries.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Why the change to PokerOffice? I paid for it a long time ago, so I could switch back if you have a good reason. MySQL is almost enough for me.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Something to think about: if we are not calling with low pairs then shouldn't we also fold pairs as big as 9,9, since, just like lower pairs, we can't play them after the flop unless we hit a set?

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

I've never really used PT. I looked at the demo a long time ago and didn't like it that much, although that was probably more because I didn't know what I was looking at rather than PT's fault.

I've had POffice for about a month and like it so far. It doesn't have a replayer, but they say they are working on it.

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Something to think about: if we are not calling with low pairs then shouldn't we also fold pairs as big as 9,9, since, just like lower pairs, we can't play them after the flop unless we hit a set?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Think about why.

Then think harder.

Yugoslav

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

this early..not a big raise..yea call and fold to a reraise.
your trying to hit a set and double up or better..you have to pay a little...just be VERY careful esp if tables reraising a lot..you are making a small investmetn for a big reuturn..not trying to put your tourny on the line.
brian

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

Can we agree that small pocket pairs in level 1 are potentially more profitable at Pokerstars, where the starting stack sizes are much bigger? (1,500 chips)

Re: Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?
 

This one is real close. We need some more expert opinions. No hearsay.