|
|
#11
10-07-2004, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What\'s the most profitable way to play a flopped set?
You are 7.5:1 against flopping a set. So assuming you won every time you flopped a set you would need to make 8.5x what you put in preflop to make a profit.
You don't win every single time though, and those times that you lose are very very expensive, so people usually go with about 10-15x to cover those losses. 
|
|
#12
10-07-2004, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the most profitable way to play a flopped set?
[ QUOTE ]
You are 7.5:1 against flopping a set. So assuming you won every time you flopped a set you would need to make 8.5x what you put in preflop to make a profit. You don't win every single time though, and those times that you lose are very very expensive, so people usually go with about 10-15x to cover those losses. [/ QUOTE ] This isn't like limit though.... you can not flop and set and win the hand very very very easily. Plus usually you'd play off implied odds of flopping a set in NL.... because there is rarely 6 people to a flop.
|
|
#13
10-08-2004, 07:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the most profitable way to play a flopped set?
[ QUOTE ]
You are 7.5:1 against flopping a set. So assuming you won every time you flopped a set you would need to make 8.5x what you put in preflop to make a profit. You don't win every single time though, and those times that you lose are very very expensive, so people usually go with about 10-15x to cover those losses. [/ QUOTE ] I think this number might effectively change depending on how much you can bluff based on your own abilities and the rest of the table. I'm not entirely sure if the number of semibluffing possibilities (if such plays are warranted) such as 66 on a 854 flop are sufficient to change the effective odds of what you need to make a profit. I do confess that I like trying for a set most often against players who I read to have a premium hand, but who have failed to raise large pre-flop. Cracking aces is my hobby.
|
|
#14
10-08-2004, 07:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the most profitable way to play a flopped set?
I was just trying to be simple. But yea there are other factors to take into account. Anyone that doesn't know the odds of flopping a set is probably better off not taking those other things into account though.
|
|
#15
10-08-2004, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the most profitable way to play a flopped set?
THe 5 and 10 rule? That's what I use. IT's in ciaffones big bet book. You shouldn't call if it's more than 10% of yours or your opponents stack, and you have a clear call if itī's less than 5%. Set's are sweet, but i think lots of players call too much money off with their pps preflop.
|
|
#16
10-08-2004, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the most profitable way to play a flopped set?
The equity based on your ability to bluff off the competition is rarely more than 1/5 of the amount in the pot when you start the bluff. If it is much greater, then your opponents are way too tight and you should be cleaning them out. If that is the case, there are better places to bluff than when you hold an underpair.
Note that, in the example that you gave (you hold 66 and board is 854) just because you bet and your opponents folded doesn't mean that you successfully bluffed them. In fact, it almost certainly means that you bet for value and they folded correctly, because the flop totally missed them. This is why it is hard to count the number of times you are truly bluffing -- sometimes you would have won in a showdown, especially if you have been "bluffing" with your pocket pairs on low boards. If you take all the times you were truly bluffing, divide win or loss by the pot size when you started the bluff, subtract your losses from your wins, and then divide by the number of times, I'd be surprised if you get higher than 1/5. Part of the problem is that many bluffs require two shots, and you lose a lot more if you fire two shots and they still call you down than you usually win when the bluff succeeds. [Admittedly, you win more when the bluff succeeds on the second shot, but not as much as you risk. Consider this example: Pot is 1 unit, so you bet 1 and are called. Now the pot is 3 so you bet 3 -- your second shot. If the opponent calls you down with his stupid TPnK, you lose 4 total. If he folds to your second shot, you only win 2.] My point is that the equity from bluffing is not really significant when calculating your required return for playing small pairs preflop. It is probably more significant for the same calculation for playing medium or small suited connectors. These hands will come up with a lot more semi-bluff opportunities. Plus, they will almost certainly be true bluffs when you bet with them, because someone with just overcards will be ahead of you.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
