Raise pocket 9's in EP?

[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.

I have a hypotheses; In a loose game where you can expect 3-5 CC'ers, I think raising loses money unless you play extremely well post flop

[ QUOTE ]
I have a hypotheses; In a loose game where you can expect 3-5 CC'ers, I think raising loses money unless you play extremely well post flop

[/ QUOTE ]

i would think it still makes money. just not as much as limping.

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.

[7stud]

[ QUOTE ]
So does this also mean that 99 shouldn't be played against 4 opponents? Seems silly. Why not say, 99 can be played against any amount of opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that there could be a certain number of opponents where 99 does not have a positive EV. A graph of the profitability curve could be at a minimum which is negative against 4 opponents, yet the profitability curve could turn upward into positive territory with 3 or fewer players as well as with 5 or more players.

Against 4 opponents the chances of 99 holding up unimproved are diminished while you may have a tough time collecting 8:1 odds on your preflop call in order to make flopping a set pay off.