Playing for Set Value
 

I have a question about playing for set value. In level 1 and 2, I've been limping with any pocket pair as long as the pot hasn't been raised. If my small pocket pair doesn't make a set or better, I won't play it.

It's been suggested on the forum (and in private) that I don't play pockets 22-66, only 77+. The reason for this as I understand it, is you don't want to lose your whole stack to a larger set (or trips if the board is paired). In general, I feel that a set is so strong that I'm typically ready to lose my whole stack if I flop a set, unless the board is rather scary.

Consider the following numbers.

You get dealt a pocket pair about .45% of the time (1/221).

When dealt a pocket pair, I'll make a set or quads on the flop 10.4% of the time.

It's even less likely for someone to get dealt a pocket pair AND flop their set.

It seems like I'd be ahead when I flop a set of 2's more often then not (without a scary board).

This of course doesn't represent the full picture. It seems quite possible for someone to limp with A4 and me with 22 and have the flop come A42, push all the chips into the middle and have him draw one of his 4 outs. There are countless other scenarios where I could be beat with a small set, yet win with a larger set.

So, here are my questions:

1) Is it a leak to limp with small pockets in an unraised pot early in an SNG?

2) Do you think that limping with small pocket pairs is positive, negative or neutral EV?

3) Will this introduce more or less variance in my results?

Thanks
Steve

Re: Playing for Set Value
 

[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt a pocket pair about .45% of the time (1/221).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that's how often your dealt a pocket pair ...of aces.

You're dealt a pocket pair like 1 in 8 or so times. (I'm embarassed, I can't remember this AM, is it 1 in 6?) Damn it, now I got to go look it up.

Re: Playing for Set Value
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) Is it a leak to limp with small pockets in an unraised pot early in an SNG?

2) Do you think that limping with small pocket pairs is positive, negative or neutral EV?

3) Will this introduce more or less variance in my results?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to do this, but I think your best way to learn from this is to do the homework yourself.

You have just presented a mathematical word problem (like back in grade school). If you go find a book with a bunch of odds info in it (Hilger's book has a couple of pages with nice tables to use). You'll be able to apply the math to this scenario that will give you the mathematically correct $EV calculation to solve for.

FWIW, for each question 1-3, the answers would be longer than your original post.

Finally, I'm positive if you did the work, and reposted, you'd get a lot of solid posters to give you some pointers to consider after you've done this math.

Re: Playing for Set Value
 

[ QUOTE ]
Consider the following numbers.

You get dealt a pocket pair about .45% of the time (1/221).

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's start by refiguring this number. Imagine you are dealt a J as your first card (or any other card, it doesnt really matter what you choose, because you are definitely going to get SOME card). Now, here comes your second card. There are 3 J's that will make you a pair out of 51 unseens cards. What are your chances of getting one?

Edit: Scuba posted b4 I did.

Re: Playing for Set Value
 

Yes, sorry. That's a specific pocket pair. I was thinking of a low pocket pair like 22. Poorly worded.

I'll get dealt 22 1/221 times, and only improve it 10.4% of the time. The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair (put their chance is still close to 1 out of 8 times), and even if they do, they still have to improve and beat my set.

Thoughts?

Re: Playing for Set Value
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, here are my questions:

1) Is it a leak to limp with small pockets in an unraised pot early in an SNG?

2) Do you think that limping with small pocket pairs is positive, negative or neutral EV?

3) Will this introduce more or less variance in my results?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Depends on how often you limp and you play your sets. What do you do if you hold 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and the flop comes as follows facing 5 limpers:

Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Or what do you do if pre-flop the BB reraises to 3x BB and it comes back to you with 2 folds and 2 callers?

2) Again, depends on how you play them. Check (start keeping) your pokertracker stats and filter those exact situations. That will be the only was to get a definite answer based on your skill.

3) Depends on answer to 2)

Re: Playing for Set Value
 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to do this, but I think your best way to learn from this is to do the homework yourself.

You have just presented a mathematical word problem (like back in grade school). If you go find a book with a bunch of odds info in it (Hilger's book has a couple of pages with nice tables to use). You'll be able to apply the math to this scenario that will give you the mathematically correct $EV calculation to solve for.

FWIW, for each question 1-3, the answers would be longer than your original post.

Finally, I'm positive if you did the work, and reposted, you'd get a lot of solid posters to give you some pointers to consider after you've done this math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... I started by just throwing out some disjoint thoughts with a couple numbers on the subject, hoping to get an answer more by "intuition" rather than actually solving something.

I like your idea though. I'm going to try to solve this on my own and then post again.

Re: Playing for Set Value
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this comment is absurd.

Re: Playing for Set Value
 

It's been suggested on the forum (and in private) that I don't play pockets 22-66, only 77+. The reason for this as I understand it, is you don't want to lose your whole stack to a larger set

This is why you should never read the NL-SS forum.

Lori

Re: Playing for Set Value
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) Depends on how often you limp and you play your sets. What do you do if you hold 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and the flop comes as follows facing 5 limpers:

Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Or what do you do if pre-flop the BB reraises to 3x BB and it comes back to you with 2 folds and 2 callers?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the situation I'm worried about. My intuition is that sets will lose to larger sets rarely, but it will happen. Sets will lose to straights and flushes more often - especially with crappy flops like that.

So, I'm still left with a pencil, paper and questions....

The thing I love about pockets is that they have HUGE implied odds when you hit your flop. The problems that I'm faced with is choosing which pockets are worth playing preflop, and whether pushing or folding a board like you described yeilds a higher EV.

Thanks,
Steve

ss