Re: Implied Odds?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My personal opinion gleaned from 2+2 is that playing the smaller sets 22-55 is questionable. Maybe a longterm (how long is that?) break-even prop. For every time you stack someone you'll get stacked with set over set. Fine for long-term, but the highest of highs and the lowest of lows the moment it happens. If there's really no plus EV to this then I limit their use to LP where I can at least play with position. Just personal taste. I really hate trying to play a difficult villain OOP, or an unknown. To me it always pays to know who I have position on, and who has position on me.
[/ QUOTE ]
it's a lot harder to flop set over set than set v 2-pair, set v top pair, set v. flush draws, straight draws, flush/straights that make it but you fill up, trips, etc. etc. etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're assuming these hands are going to pay you off with the odds you need, and that the draw's aren't going to suck out.
|