Raise pocket 9's in EP?

"1. Loose where any raise will get a couple cold calls, the blind(s) and the limper. Thus I now have invested an extra bet to have a multiway pot where 20 of the 50 cards left will be dangerous to me. These kind of players will call down with any TP and even middle or bottom.
If I hit my set I may have limited the action because they fear a big hand already.

2. Tight. I get most to fold. Well I can usually pick up this pot but its a lot less than a big multiway that I can raise, ck raise, 3bet etc the TP, 2pair, draws. If I miss it only cost me 1sb. I can also spew a lot of chips trying to push out a better hand and fail."

1) I see that you play 2/4. If you hit your set, it is not true in general that you will not get action. If you get 5 callers to your raise then this is perfect. Some will get a peice of the flop some will have overs, and with the bigger pot, they will hang around for more. If you expect 5 callers to your EP raise, then I say raise 99 a lot, if not always.

2) You should be happy with this result, too, as it is profitable. 99 holds up well against 1, 2 opponents. Better to win little than lose big.

please explain why you'd want to raise if you want 5 callers. i would think that if you're expecting 5+ callers, you'd want to limp, though raising is not a bad play. 99s wouldnt' play so well against 5+ cold callers, no matter how loose they are IMO...

Careful, that's not what I said. If my goal is 5 callers, then I limp. But, if I believe that my raise will get 5 callers, then I will do so because whether limping or raising, geting 5 callers while holding 99 is +EV. I am drawing to a set in this case.

[MJL]

[ QUOTE ]
Careful, that's not what I said. If my goal is 5 callers, then I limp. But, if I believe that my raise will get 5 callers, then I will do so because whether limping or raising, geting 5 callers while holding 99 is +EV. I am drawing to a set in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reread your post as requested. Is 99 +EV here?

Assume you will need a set to win; the odds of flopping one are ~7:1. but when you get the set, you will usually win so even though you are not getting 7 opponents, one of the 5 should catch a good enough second place hand that will pay you off in later rounds, thereby giving you sufficient implied odds. So it's +EV

Additionally, you can win without flopping a set.

[MJL]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, you can win without flopping a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not often in a multipot.

Thank you for your thoughts.

I agree; that's why I left it outside the explanation of why I thought it was +EV. The situation does arrive, though, such as a rag flop especially when you have the odds to stick around for a turn card.

Warren, I read a lot of your posts and respect your knowledge, so please explain this a bit further. I agree sets win most of the time, obviously, but I question the thought that winning even without flopping the set off sets the hands that lose, even when you flop a set. I don't have any numbers, and hope someone does. Basically, I feel that the amount I win when a hand like 9-9 does not hit the set is less than the amount I lose when my set does not win. When a set loses, I'm usually going to have a pretty hefty amount of cash in the pot, because usually a set loser is due to a river card, and I was leading until then. The few hands I win without hitting the set are going to be mostly puny pots, because I can't really bet heavily with a lame hand like 9-9 (based on the odds that there will be at least one overcard on the flop). I'm trying to learn, so anything you can say to expand onthis would be appreciated.

You're right I over stated the idea of winning with a set. When I explained the 99 was +EV, etc. I based that entirely on flopping a set, then I added "Additionally one can win without flopping a set". What I meant was that there are other oddball situations that I was ignoreing, and that they are overall decent. oddball situations include: [852]r[9], [8TJ]r and [444].

I am guilty of not making it clear that I was putting little emphasis on the non-flopped-set scenarios.

ok i did not state it clearly i guess... my question is:

why would you want to raise if you believe your raise will get 5 callers? if you believe you're getting callers behind you, then ur raising for value. i agree that raising is +EV play also but isn't limping the better play?

if you limp (when you believe you'll get 5 callers behind you):
1. you can mask your set when you do hit it.
2. you save money if you dont. as 99 do not play well against 5 cold callers.

i generally do NOT want to draw to a set... hence my raise. i raise to knock the weak overcards out which would increase the 99's showdown value. am i mistaken?