Playing for Set Value

[sofere]

[ QUOTE ]
You get a pok pair 5.88% of the time (.45% * 13). That pok pair sets on the flop roughly 1/8 times. So, you flop a set about .7% of the hands you play. (not counting when you have A9 and 2 9s flop of course).

given the scarcity of this and the chip/blind structure at Party, I feel that limping every pok pair you have is a waste of chips, for in the long run, your 22-88s will not set and overcards will flop instead, giving you a crappy hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you hit a set .7% of the time you are dealt a hand is absolutely irrelevent. I take that back...its actually more of a reason TO LIMP small pockets. The fact is, you already know you have pockets, so that 5.88% you were using turns into 100%. You will hit a set ~12.5% of the time and someone else will have a set ~0.7% of the time (using your calculation above), so you almost definitely have the best hand (barring straights and flushes).

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to be an ass but I can't possibly understand how someone could spend this amount of time thinking about a proof which is so obviously wrong and makes no intuitive sense and be a winning poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well my recommendation then would be not to post stuff that makes you sound like an ass!

If you must know, I spent a whole 20 seconds on it while simultaneously working out a multi-sensor data fusion algorithm from multiple radar sources and clearly made
several stupid mistakes. I didn't have time to "spend this amount of time thinking about a proof" because I'm at work and can only spend a few minutes per day doing this stuff. I'd like to spend the day playing/learning poker, but I can't. Quite frankly, I'm not an expert poker player, and I'm probably not as good as you or half the people in here. I'm posting to learn, not to be berrated. If you want to question whether I'm a winning player, then fork out a couple bucks, get a subscription to poker prophecy and look up 'se2schul' instead of insulting me.

Now I'm going to go back and read over some of the more useful posts in this thread.

Thanks
Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

not to speak for fermat...and I not to get into a flame war (i should just let this thread die), but I think he was confused as to how you even ARRIVED at the idea of working that out without first thinking about the absurdity of the logic. This is often the case for those who use a "bottom up" approach to solving problems and is a sign of an overdependance on formulas for problem solving instead of your own noggin...which you later proved by that pretentious nonsense about sensor data algorithms (which you clearly know you wrote only to impress). No offense...but there was no need for that tidbit...im sure we all do admirable work outside of poker.

[DrPhysic]

OK, Lori
I'll stick my neck out and prepare to get it chopped off like everybody else here.

IMO, because the probability of hitting the set is only ~10%, a less than hollywood PP cannot stand the raise. Therefore I have been playing itsy bitsy pairs in LP only and only in an unraised pot. (Limping most of the time.) I am playing medium pp 77,88,99 in MP or LP again only in an unraised pot. (Again limping most of the time.) Larger pp can be played from pretty much any position although I will usually pass on TT UTG.

How any pp is played from CO or Button depends entirely on the read of the two or three hands behind me. I will raise any PP from these positions in a weak or passive game, and limp or fold mid to smaller pairs if I have a maniac behind me.

Obviously this all varies with the playing situation, and varies just because I vary it intentionally to some extent. At Stars, I loosen a bit with large stack early, but probably about as above when blinds reach 100/200. In any case, when I hold 99 and smaller I almost always will fold if no set. Larger pairs... depends on the sit again.

Now, Please critique the above to your heart's content. I would appreciate the feedback, and I have had my head handed to me often enough on poker theory that it doesn't even hurt anymore.

Doc [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Maulik]

good responses, I just started SNGs and the not playing low pocket pairs was intuitive for me in relation to the chip count.

P.s. I stole your avatar.... (sorry)

[The Yugoslavian]

I think it's worth mentioning in addition to your fine, fine post that to make it worth playing for set value in the first place you have to get paid off a lot of the time. Many of the hands you get paid off by *do* have outs.

So, most of the time you're not hitting your set....fine, you lose a small amount. But a lot of the time when you do hit, you only win a smallish or medium pot (meh says I). The times you win a large pot you will likely be faced with a similar situation to the example Zen uses:

[ QUOTE ]

As an example, say you start with 66 and the flop is 6-9-10. Bad players playing KQ and KJ like to call here thinking their K,Q, and J are outs. Add in the guy calling on the flop with A-8, and the joker with 10-7 who isn't going anywhere with top-pair, and you have quite a few cards to dodge to win this pot. Personally, I think this scenario illustrates the biggest problem with playing small pocket pairs.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're not really playing purely for even implied odds since they aren't paying you off all the time and you're not even winning all the time when you're ahead. The higher the pp you limp with the fewer bullets you may have to dodge later and the more flops you can perhaps do some manuevering on even if you miss your set.

Yugoslav

[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]
Defense Applications of Multi-sensor Suites and Data Fusion
Antisubmarine warfare
Tactical air warfare
Ground battlefield warfare
Military data fusion architecture


Ok, you win.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Thesre are all interesting computer game titles. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]