66 in MP?

[CCass]

I don't usually play shortstacked, it just kinda crept up on me. I am not playing $2/$4 fulltime yet, and am still trying to determine my comfort level.

[hansarnic]

[ QUOTE ]
150 is too short stacked to try and hit the set here. With about 280+ it's an easy call. Perfect position on flop and deep enough stacks = good implied odds.

Although it's 7-1 to flop a set, you usually need about 10-1 implied odds to play. Rule of thumb for me is to consider trying for set if it's less than or equal to 10% of relevant stacks to call, (given 1 or 2 opponents).

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't call with 280. On the face of it this situation looks great with 400 as you only call 32 with over a grand to play for, but even calling with 400 is marginal IMO.

It really depends on your opponents, but as the action went I'd be concerned that I may be up against three over-pairs. In which case I go bust a good proportion of the time when I hit my set. Equally if an A flops with my 6, I won't get action from KK-JJ. Basically my chances of getting paid depend on the flop only hitting me and being up against a big overpair that doesn't hit on 4th or 5th.

If they have looser calling standards I may be up against mainly high cards. But here my earning power when I hit is more far more limited, especially as it's 4-way, so there will be some caution post-flop.

Not saying a call with 400 isn't profitable, just that it's not clear cut.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
150 is too short stacked to try and hit the set here. With about 280+ it's an easy call. Perfect position on flop and deep enough stacks = good implied odds.

Although it's 7-1 to flop a set, you usually need about 10-1 implied odds to play. Rule of thumb for me is to consider trying for set if it's less than or equal to 10% of relevant stacks to call, (given 1 or 2 opponents).

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't call with 280. On the face of it this situation looks great with 400 as you only call 32 with over a grand to play for, but even calling with 400 is marginal IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an extra 28 for him to call. So for me 280 would be the borderline to consider the possibility of calling to flop a set.

[ QUOTE ]
It really depends on your opponents, but as the action went I'd be concerned that I may be up against three over-pairs. In which case I go bust a good proportion of the time when I hit my set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it's a good proportion of the time. It's a consideration, but more so as the money gets deep enough not to be allin by the river.

[ QUOTE ]
Equally if an A flops with my 6, I won't get action from KK-JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically my chances of getting paid depend on the flop only hitting me and being up against a big overpair that doesn't hit on 4th or 5th.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the time you check-raise allin on flop, a draw will be committed to calling, as will a lot of hands that a set of sixes bury.

If you really think you will get so little action to a check-raise allin on flop, then you should be making that play quite often to steal big pots on flop. Even if you only do this with draws rather than outright bluffs, your opponents will soon have to start calling you with hands that 66 buries.

[ QUOTE ]
If they have looser calling standards I may be up against mainly high cards. But here my earning power when I hit is more far more limited, especially as it's 4-way, so there will be some caution post-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not on this depth of money. Bet, raise all-in. That's it. Not enough room for that much caution. Not enough room for the betting to say a lot of hands we bury are beat. A lot of hands will be tempted to call our check-raise allin due to the money ratios. Lot's of situations on flop where the psychology mixed with money ratios will tempt action from hands we bury.

[ QUOTE ]
Not saying a call with 400 isn't profitable, just that it's not clear cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put yourself on the left of raiser so we're in the middle and I'd agree.

[hansarnic]

[ QUOTE ]
It really depends on your opponents, but as the action went I'd be concerned that I may be up against three over-pairs. In which case I go bust a good proportion of the time when I hit my set.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it's a good proportion of the time. It's a consideration, but more so as the money gets deep enough not to be allin by the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try working out the odds of the other two flop cards not hitting the other three overpairs when you hit your 6. Then add in the odds of a big over-pair hitting on 4th or 5th.

What you'll find is that 25% of the time you hit your set, someone hits a higher one. Furthermore, when you hit yours and get your chips in vs. an overpair 10% of the time they improve to take your stack on 4th or 5th.

So when you hit your set and the money goes in, you lose your stack one time in three.

[JohnG]

I think putting every player on an overpair is a little extreme. Besides which, being a 2-1 favourite to win all the chips whenever they go in seems pretty good to me.

I think you are seeing monsters under the bed. Your numbers would only be a concern to me if the money was much deeper, where there would be room for betting on all streets. In which case the difficulty of doubling through against a hand we bury would be much harder, and the punishment for being on the wrong end of set over set would be much more severe. Not to mention the test we could be put to on the turn or river.