Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?

ludo72 · #1 12-09-2005, 03:19 PM

I would avoid playing small pocket pairs against loose-aggressive players who raise a lot pre-flop, because even if they pay you with lesser holdings, they will not make a hand enough times to give you the correct implied odds. Small pocket pairs are best played against TAG's.

Leptyne · #2 12-09-2005, 04:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would avoid playing small pocket pairs against loose-aggressive players who raise a lot pre-flop, because even if they pay you with lesser holdings, they will not make a hand enough times to give you the correct implied odds. Small pocket pairs are best played against TAG's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am struggling with this question at 6-Max. Even TAGS will bring it in for a standard raise with suited connectors like JTs, or in LP with T9, or in the blinds with AQs or os. The times I hit a set at 6-Max and don't get paid makes me wonder. Of course when players fold to my raise I mark them as the player that I don't need to hit my set to win a pot. In fact I may win with 72 or my 33.

I guess I need 40,000 hands at 6-Max plus some critical analysis of my post-flop play to find the answer.

Triumph36 · #3 12-09-2005, 07:23 PM

This seems like a fallacy. If they're raising with marginal holdings all the time, can't you win a lot more often unimproved, or even more outrageously - by reraising pre-flop? Don't just play for set value - get out there and try to steal a pot away from the guy post flop.

ludo72 · #4 12-09-2005, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like a fallacy. If they're raising with marginal holdings all the time, can't you win a lot more often unimproved, or even more outrageously - by reraising pre-flop? Don't just play for set value - get out there and try to steal a pot away from the guy post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument assumed that you play your small pairs only for set value, check-folding any flop you miss. You're ofcourse correct.