Raising low pp PF for value

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
however, i didn't mention this before, but the presence of the lag in the hand should make OP more confident that he can make up additional bets postflop so i think we're ok with being short on immediate odds (using 10:1)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, see my edit about this. This should've been a new post. I actually think it should be a new thread since it's come up a couple times for me recently; I might try to start one later on, but I'm interested about how you feel it applies to this hand.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
this may be way off base -- but usually i assume a set is good enough to win 100% of the time in an unraised pot. when i'm thinking about raised pots, i start thinking about being up against stronger hands and needing 10:1 instead of 7:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is debatable, because we'll see the same fraction of bigger pairs and overcards (to our 33) in a raised or unraised pot. But regardless, this is a raised pot.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this may be way off base -- but usually i assume a set is good enough to win 100% of the time in an unraised pot. when i'm thinking about raised pots, i start thinking about being up against stronger hands and needing 10:1 instead of 7:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is debatable, because we'll see the same fraction of bigger pairs and overcards (to our 33) in a raised or unraised pot. But regardless, this is a raised pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. yeah. i know. realized i should have been more specific. when the action comes to us the first time, we are (i was) talking about an unraised pot. here, i tend to think less about needing 10:1 (since the pot is unraised) -- this is probably wrong on my part, however, i think it is an acceptable simplification since we have other advantagees in the hand such as ultimate position and might get a free card...etc. so i think an initial raise is good on the button against 6 likely opponents, one of whom is a lag.

anyway,ok, so now specifically about the pf 3-bet.

in our favor:

7 opponents (giving us a lot of immediate value in a raise)
a LAG (giving us more confidence we can make up the bets postflop that we are short now)

against us:

poor poor poor relative position to the LAG. he might cap pf, and everyone could fold (or at least some of them could fold - and that will drastically reduce the value of our raise).

so i am rethinking whether a limp-reraise is great here.

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
this may be way off base -- but usually i assume a set is good enough to win 100% of the time in an unraised pot. when i'm thinking about raised pots, i start thinking about being up against stronger hands and needing 10:1 instead of 7:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

My PT stats show that an unimproved 3 of a kind wins 68% of the time for me, but this includes trips and trips on board. They also improve fairly often: they boat up 20% of the time and improve to quads 6.7% of the time (mathematically speaking--they never do that for me [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] ) so I think it's reasonable to say we have somewhere between 70-90% equity (in a nightmare monotone-flop scenario we have 58% equity vs 4 random opponents). Even so, this is enough to make it even more difficult to raise a low PP like 55 for value, since we're folding on the flop if we don't make our set.

Edit: Even with a 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] board Hero only has 82% equity vs 4 opponents holding any two.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
but this includes trips and trips on board.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know what you are saying, but it's just not even in the same ballpark.

it's like asking how often AA holds up UI and including the times that AA is on the board.

having a set (pair in hand, one on board) is much more profitable than having trips (one in hand, pair on board).

you know this...i'm just venting.

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
having a set (pair in hand, one on board) is much more profitable than having trips (one in hand, pair on board).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but for equity considerations they're nearly equal (about 7% difference in the uncoordinated flop scenario above even with a 2 kicker, and even slightly more equity if we held A5s on a 59K rainbow). It's the implied odds that make a set more profitable, since no one's going to suspect you hold 55 until it's way too late [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

The point being, sure when we flop a set we'll always have enough equity to value jam the living crap out of the pot, but until we flop that set we can't, again presuming 55 is folding U/I on the flop.

And you know this as well, I'm just venting.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
...sometimes you'll even get a free card on the flop and see the turn...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you raise the first time around and everybody calls (14SB), and you don't hit your set but the flop is low-raggy (say, J73r) and it's checked to you, don't you bet, and try to take your freebie on the turn if needed?

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...sometimes you'll even get a free card on the flop and see the turn...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you raise the first time around and everybody calls (14SB), and you don't hit your set but the flop is low-raggy (say, J73r) and it's checked to you, don't you bet, and try to take your freebie on the turn if needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have my doubts as to whether or not a free card play would work often enough against 5 opponents to make the extra 4.5% chance to river a set we gain worthwhile, particularly after factoring in the (admittedly small) chance that we could be checkraised. Not saying that it's absolutely not worth it, but I have my doubts. If someone wants to quantify this go right ahead, but I'm heading out right now [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Redd]

I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

Let's say we flop quads, and you and the LAG cap it 7-handed on every street. Does that make our pfr any more profitable? It certainly makes our flop, turn, and river caps more profitable but we already account for that in the (trivial) equity calculations for the postflop streets. If we counted this profit into our pfr equity, would we not be double-counting the profit?

[magates]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

Let's say we flop quads, and you and the LAG cap it 7-handed on every street. Does that make our pfr any more profitable? It certainly makes our flop, turn, and river caps more profitable but we already account for that in the (trivial) equity calculations for the postflop streets. If we counted this profit into our pfr equity, would we not be double-counting the profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Raising vs. multiple opponents pre-flop with a pocket pair increases your implied odds if you hit a set because people are more likely to give you action in a large pot. With a small pot, you're less likely to get action when you do hit a set (or better).