Playing for Set Value

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
Worrying about set over set in your typical short stacked sng is ridiculous. If you flop a set, prepare to put your entire stack in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most cases, if your set is beat and you haven't lost a good piece of change, you're not playing correctly -- but it sure sucks when it happens.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I agree with all that, but I can't figure out your working.

Its surely easier as (52/52)*(3/51) = 1/17

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah of course you are right, its habit for me to explain every number.

Mack

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
You're dealt a pocket pair like 1 in 8 or so times. (I'm embarassed, I can't remember this AM, is it 1 in 6?) Damn it, now I got to go look it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, figured out where I went wrong. 6% of the time I was thinking. LOL. (At least I said I didn't know... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img])

[mcpherzen]

[ QUOTE ]


1) Is it a leak to limp with small pockets in an unraised pot early in an SNG?

2) Do you think that limping with small pocket pairs is positive, negative or neutral EV?

3) Will this introduce more or less variance in my results?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the answers here really are "it depends" in many situations, but here are my thoughts for generally NOT playing 22-77 for a limp in levels 1-3. Philosophically, I avoid most low PP's because I think playing many of them will create many situations when you are getting the correct price to do something, yet you are still a big favorite to lose the hand.

First, my experience is that many pots at the $33 level are raised pre-flop, and calling any raise with a low PP in levels 1-3 is definitely going to be -EV over time (it may improve your pot-odds, but it really kills your implied odds). So I don't like to limp from middle position with a low pair because of the likelihood I'll have to fold to even a min-raise when it comes. How many people limp with 55, get 2 other limpers behind them, the SB completes, and then see the BB raise just slightly more than a min-raise, and they call with their 55? This is a huge leak.

Second, are you always able to get away from the pot if you don't flop a set? Anyone can fold 33 if the flop comes A-K-Q, but what if you start with 77 and the flop is 2-3-6? What if you start with 55 and the flop is 3-4-6? Someone may bet an amount such that the pot is laying your the correct odds to take a card off and see the turn, but I really think that even though this play is technically "correct," this is where the true leak comes from starting with a low PP.

Finally, a good poker player isn't really worried about going broke to set-over-set on the flop. He's just worried about going broke when his flopped set is no good, period, once all 5 cards are dealt. Losing to a higher set is a possibility, and so is losing to the flush or a straight. When you start with a low pocket pair and make your hand on the flop, you many times will get a lot of action because opponents think their overcards are outs. 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.

So, here's my best attempt at answering your questions.

Yes, it is a leak and -EV if you did it every single time early in a SNG. That said, if you pick your spots well (late position, you're pretty confident the 2-3 players acting behind you won't raise, you don't have too many opponents, and your small PP is on the bigger side like 77 or 66), I think you can turn this into a very positive EV play and your variance will only be mildly affected by it.

--mcpherzen

[nokona13]

[ QUOTE ]
in sum, my advice is to pick and choose the PPs you limp with. if I havent flopped a set in the last two S&Gs you limped w or folded your small pok pairs, i tend to play them more. its a matter of feel, and of course luck, i suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but this is just stupid. Whether you've hit a set on your PPs in the past couple SNGs should have absolutely no effect on how you play them, unless, of course, you're always playing with the same people, and you've shown down a bunch of sets and think they're now less likely to pay off. Since this isn't the case on line, this is just bad advice.


[ QUOTE ]
but golden rules (always play 88, never play 44, etc), aren't in your best interest. good luck

[/ QUOTE ]

This, however, is good advice. But as has already been said, you need to base it not upon "feel" and how many sets you've hit recently, but upon position, stack sizes, and the play at the table. If the table's full of passive calling stations, then I play all PPs, knowing that my limp is less likely to be raised and at least one or two of the numerous limpers will hit a pair and pay off my set a lot of the time. If it's super tight, I might not play <= 77. And if I'm in early position and there's aggro players behind me, I'll only come in with maybe 99+.

[ds914]

Steve - just to reiterate what others have said.

Originally, I was a big, big believer in limping with just about any pair at anytime in the early levels (so long as it didn't require more than 5-7% of my stack). I had some early success doing this, largely because I was playing on ideal tables (as someone else mentioned, it was passive pre-flop and ultra-aggressive post-flop). I doubled and tripled up numerous times and would soon limp without a second thought.

Eventually, however, I started running into problems. Big raises behind me -- and even worse -- small raises behind me (which tempted me to call them even more) had me leaking small amounts of chips often. And I'd sometimes get promising flops (I'd hold 44 and get a flop of 2-3-5), but I was completely out of position to do anything except check-fold.

I now realize that limping with pairs is really, really dependent on position and table conditions. If I'm playing on a tight/aggressive table with few limpers, I'm more inclined to dump the pairs. With these conditions, I almost never play anything smaller than 77 from early position because of potential raises after me or little action even if the flop does hit me. However, if 5-6 people are seeing the flop and we've gone 10-20 hands with little or no pre-flop reraising, I'm more inclined to call.

Again, just really keep an eye on your position and the current table conditions, and it'll be easier to make a decision. I hate to say "it depends" to your original questions, but well, it really does depend. And when you take that kind of stuff into consideration, limping with pocket pairs can be quite +EV.

[UMTerp]

Some of the comments (and most of the math) in this thread are embarrassing.

And FWIW, I think the "playing low pairs early" concept is one of the biggest differences there is between Party's and Stars' structure.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
your thinking is both wrong and irrelevant. the more people with PPS the MORE likely they become...take a 8 carded deck 4 As and 4Ks. if two people have KK then obviously the other two hands are AA...just a simple example to show you why it is MORE likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's consider the 8 card deck example... With a deck of 4 Kings and 4 Aces, what is the probability of dealing a pocket pair?

(2*(4C2))/(8C2) = 12/28 = .43

Now that I've been dealt a pocket pair, what's the chance that someone else is dealt a pocket pair out of the remaining deck?

(1+(4C2))/(6C2) = 7/20 = .35

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
(1+(4C2))/(6C2) = 7/20 = .35

[/ QUOTE ]

That's wrong.

[lorinda]

If you have red kings:

Other hand combinations:

Ah Ad. Ah Ac. Ah As. Ah Kc. Ah Ks
Ad Ac. Ad As. Ad Kc. Ad Ks.
Ac As. Ac Kc. Ac Ks.
As Kc. As Ks.
Kc Ks

= 7/15 (Which would make sense for a six card deck) = .47

Lori