Playing for Set Value

[bluewilde]

I've managed to stay out of a lot of trouble since adopting the "play for set value" approach to mid and low PP. Still, I usually try and stick in a raise with 99+ if I'm in position. Today, however, I was in the first level of an $11 in the CO and everyone limped except 1 fold. I had TT and opted to limp because I doubted a raise would gain me anything. The flop came with an A and a Q, there was action and I ditched out. Is this too passive? At what point do I stop playing mid-low for set value (88, JJ?)

Can there be general rule here or can I switch it up depending on preflop action/position? Can I play for set value (i.e. limp and fold to ANY resistance/missed flop) in early position or around larger unraised pots but play them for pair value in later position against fewer opponents? Thanks for any advice,

Blue

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
Today, however, I was in the first level of an $11 in the CO and everyone limped except 1 fold. I had TT and opted to limp because I doubted a raise would gain me anything. The flop came with an A and a Q, there was action and I ditched out. Is this too passive?


[/ QUOTE ]

Standard.

[ QUOTE ]
At what point do I stop playing mid-low for set value (88, JJ?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Situation dependant. Out of position - lean towards set value. Multiway - lean towards set value. JJ is the hardest hand to make this decision with.

[ QUOTE ]

Is there are general rule here or can I switch it up depending on preflop action/position?


[/ QUOTE ]

Against the right opponents you can play for pair value heads up or *maybe* 3 way. Like 88 on a Txx board is usually good for pair value. But you have to be careful in situations like that, and there's no hard and fast rule.

What sets the best poker players apart is how they play in marginal situations. It's situations like that why writing a bot that plays well postflop is tough.

[mlagoo]

a lot of this stuff depends on the table, but in general:

a) do not fold any pair preflop from any position in the early levels. your implied odds if you flop a set more than make up for the times you limp with 33 in EP and are forced to fold when someone raises behind you.

b) I raise TT+, from any position, and raise 88+ if its folded to me in LP (note: this doesnt happen much).

c) I don't really play any pairs *solely* for set value. I evaluate the flop and the action and try to decide whether or not I have the best hand -- or, if I don't have the best, whether or not every other player is sufficiently weak that it's an easy pot to take (generally this is an LP only sort of situation). I mean, 88 on a 2-6-7 offsuit flop, or even 44 on a 2-5-8 flop. No set, but a lot of the time, the best hand.



I think I may be sounding off a bit. The answer is, as always: it depends. But don't fold a pair in an unraised pot. That's what I'm saying.

[Meatmaw]

[ QUOTE ]
your implied odds if you flop a set more than make up for the times you limp with 33 in EP and are forced to fold when someone raises behind you.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much value are you finding you are getting from your sets usually? For instance, when I have 88 and the flop is K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] , or with any draws at all, I find myself betting 1/2 to 1 times the pot depending on number of players in. Many times, I people fold and I end up getting paid off about 3-1 on this 7.5 to 1 shot. Am I playing them too aggressively? Sure there's the occasion all in double up from someone with 2 pair, but I'm curious what types of plays even up this to a better than 7.5 to 1 payoff.

[mlagoo]

Well that example is sort of a scary board where you don't want to underbet too much. But the number of times you get paid off by a KJ on a K-8-3 flop, at least in my experience over a relatively modest number of hands (relative to a number of the posters on this forum), outweigh the amount of money you leak by limp/missing with these hands. Not to mention the flops, with an 88 for instance, where you have an overpair, no one hits, and you can just take the pot down -- or get paid off by an overzealous BB who flopped top pair on a raggy board.

edit: I think I should note that I regard myself as a laggy player, possibly a bit too laggy -- but whatever amount I lose in EV/ROI, I gain in enjoyment. I sort of get a kick out of marginal situations, and trying to sort my way through them.

Anyway, just thought I should note to take my advice with a grain of salt. It may be less than optimal. It's not FAR away from optimal, but it might not be quite there.

It's 5. Gonna go home now. Take it easy folks.

[Freudian]

Level 1 I see no reason to raise. Level 2-3 taking down the blinds is ok, so I am more likely to raise with PP.

[DJ Sensei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your implied odds if you flop a set more than make up for the times you limp with 33 in EP and are forced to fold when someone raises behind you.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much value are you finding you are getting from your sets usually? For instance, when I have 88 and the flop is K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] , or with any draws at all, I find myself betting 1/2 to 1 times the pot depending on number of players in. Many times, I people fold and I end up getting paid off about 3-1 on this 7.5 to 1 shot. Am I playing them too aggressively? Sure there's the occasion all in double up from someone with 2 pair, but I'm curious what types of plays even up this to a better than 7.5 to 1 payoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same hand, lets say you have QQ-99. Make the same bet, get the same folds, and you didnt even have to flop a set! (I know, not a very specific example, but the point is that if you only bet at the pot when you hit a set, not only will you rarely get paid off by an observant opponent, but you're missing a lot of opportunities to take down a pot when you probably still have the best hand) I agree that often when you do flop a set, you arent getting paid off "in full", or 8-1 on the preflop call. But you dont always need a set to win. And can you really complain about winning a pot, big or small?

[Meatmaw]

Does this mean you virtually always bet out when the flop is 2 or 1-suited or has decent straight drawing possibilities?

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean you virtually always bet out when the flop is 2 or 1-suited or has decent straight drawing possibilities?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's one suited or three connected, I will always bet out (unless the connectors are like 3-4-5, or something similarly benign -- or if the suit is clubs. nobody plays clubs). but an 87s looks like a pot that could have connected with a lot of hands. even scarier would be, for instance, a JTs on the flop.

Again, its just situational, I can't really define a sort of function for it (if 3suited then bet 2/3 pot) -- but I'd certainly lean more towards betting, and betting with more strength, if the board was draw-heavy.

[SammyKid11]

In the lower levels, I too play low and mid PPs for set value. In the hand you mentioned, with the A and Q on board and lots of limpers -- you're definitely leaving this pot at the first sign of a bet.