Playing for Set Value

[se2schul]

I have a question about playing for set value. In level 1 and 2, I've been limping with any pocket pair as long as the pot hasn't been raised. If my small pocket pair doesn't make a set or better, I won't play it.

It's been suggested on the forum (and in private) that I don't play pockets 22-66, only 77+. The reason for this as I understand it, is you don't want to lose your whole stack to a larger set (or trips if the board is paired). In general, I feel that a set is so strong that I'm typically ready to lose my whole stack if I flop a set, unless the board is rather scary.

Consider the following numbers.

You get dealt a pocket pair about .45% of the time (1/221).

When dealt a pocket pair, I'll make a set or quads on the flop 10.4% of the time.

It's even less likely for someone to get dealt a pocket pair AND flop their set.

It seems like I'd be ahead when I flop a set of 2's more often then not (without a scary board).

This of course doesn't represent the full picture. It seems quite possible for someone to limp with A4 and me with 22 and have the flop come A42, push all the chips into the middle and have him draw one of his 4 outs. There are countless other scenarios where I could be beat with a small set, yet win with a larger set.

So, here are my questions:

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?

Thanks
Steve

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt a pocket pair about .45% of the time (1/221).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that's how often your dealt a pocket pair ...of aces.

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.

[se2schul]

Yes, sorry. That's a specific pocket pair. I was thinking of a low pocket pair like 22. Poorly worded.

I'll get dealt 22 1/221 times, and only improve it 10.4% of the time. The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair (put their chance is still close to 1 out of 8 times), and even if they do, they still have to improve and beat my set.

Thoughts?

[e_fermat]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this comment is absurd.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this comment is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have a pocket pair, it reduces the number of pocket pairs out there. It also reduces the chances that someone gets the same pocket pair that I have and bluffs me out of the pot (which, to quote Sklansky, is a mathematical catastrophe).

Is my thinking wrong, or just completely irrelevant to the problem at hand?

I was just throwing out random thoughts and consisderatins on the topic of playing for set value since I haven't actually figured out the best way to play them, and suspect that I may have a leak in my game.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this comment is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have a pocket pair, it reduces the number of pocket pairs out there. It also reduces the chances that someone gets the same pocket pair that I have and bluffs me out of the pot (which, to quote Sklansky, is a mathematical catastrophe).

Is my thinking wrong, or just completely irrelevant to the problem at hand?

I was just throwing out random thoughts and consisderatins on the topic of playing for set value since I haven't actually figured out the best way to play them, and suspect that I may have a leak in my game.

[/ 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.

It is irrelevant bc i dont think this miniscule effect on other hands based on what you have has any bearing on whether you play a PP...would you toss a KK bc it is or is not slightly more likely that someone has AA or whatever your thinking was?

I dont personally believe tossing 22-66 in levels 1-3 is always right...i decide whether to play them or not situationally...stack sizes, position, and table posture(are ppl playing loose, tight etc...)...iow, would hitting a set have huge implied odds or are ppl playing rock solid tight so far and not pay you off if you did hit a set?...

anyway,

pooh

[pokerlaw]

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.

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

[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])

[Scuba Chuck]

[ 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'm sorry to do this, but I think your best way to learn from this is to do the homework yourself.

You have just presented a mathematical word problem (like back in grade school). If you go find a book with a bunch of odds info in it (Hilger's book has a couple of pages with nice tables to use). You'll be able to apply the math to this scenario that will give you the mathematically correct $EV calculation to solve for.

FWIW, for each question 1-3, the answers would be longer than your original post.

Finally, I'm positive if you did the work, and reposted, you'd get a lot of solid posters to give you some pointers to consider after you've done this math.

[se2schul]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to do this, but I think your best way to learn from this is to do the homework yourself.

You have just presented a mathematical word problem (like back in grade school). If you go find a book with a bunch of odds info in it (Hilger's book has a couple of pages with nice tables to use). You'll be able to apply the math to this scenario that will give you the mathematically correct $EV calculation to solve for.

FWIW, for each question 1-3, the answers would be longer than your original post.

Finally, I'm positive if you did the work, and reposted, you'd get a lot of solid posters to give you some pointers to consider after you've done this math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... I started by just throwing out some disjoint thoughts with a couple numbers on the subject, hoping to get an answer more by "intuition" rather than actually solving something.

I like your idea though. I'm going to try to solve this on my own and then post again.