Implied Odds?

[Woolygimp]

Well ahnuld, I played 1/2 and that qualifies for Medium Stakes Hold-em. Also, the reason for the seemingly basic questions is because I was 6.82 PTBB/100 over 47,000 hands w/ a weak-tight playstyle. Weak-tight will only get you so far, so i'm trying to change my play and get better, please bear with me.

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
My personal opinion gleaned from 2+2 is that playing the smaller sets 22-55 is questionable. Maybe a longterm (how long is that?) break-even prop. For every time you stack someone you'll get stacked with set over set. Fine for long-term, but the highest of highs and the lowest of lows the moment it happens. If there's really no plus EV to this then I limit their use to LP where I can at least play with position. Just personal taste. I really hate trying to play a difficult villain OOP, or an unknown. To me it always pays to know who I have position on, and who has position on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's a lot harder to flop set over set than set v 2-pair, set v top pair, set v. flush draws, straight draws, flush/straights that make it but you fill up, trips, etc. etc. etc.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
My personal opinion gleaned from 2+2 is that playing the smaller sets 22-55 is questionable. Maybe a longterm (how long is that?) break-even prop. For every time you stack someone you'll get stacked with set over set. Fine for long-term, but the highest of highs and the lowest of lows the moment it happens. If there's really no plus EV to this then I limit their use to LP where I can at least play with position. Just personal taste. I really hate trying to play a difficult villain OOP, or an unknown. To me it always pays to know who I have position on, and who has position on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion 22-55 need drastic implied odds to pay off for the 6 out of 7 times they aren't going to hit. Even then reverse implied odds drive them down a little more, that's why i posted this hand. So to make this play profitable you have to assume your i/o's are i$100 or greater.
77 has alot more value than 22-55 so I can see why this is an instant-call.

[yvesaint]

sets v. overpair, sets v top and bottom, sets v pair+OESD, sets v bluffs, sets v lags, sets v tilting players, sets v people who cant let go of AA/KK...

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My personal opinion gleaned from 2+2 is that playing the smaller sets 22-55 is questionable. Maybe a longterm (how long is that?) break-even prop. For every time you stack someone you'll get stacked with set over set. Fine for long-term, but the highest of highs and the lowest of lows the moment it happens. If there's really no plus EV to this then I limit their use to LP where I can at least play with position. Just personal taste. I really hate trying to play a difficult villain OOP, or an unknown. To me it always pays to know who I have position on, and who has position on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's a lot harder to flop set over set than set v 2-pair, set v top pair, set v. flush draws, straight draws, flush/straights that make it but you fill up, trips, etc. etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming these hands are going to pay you off with the odds you need, and that the draw's aren't going to suck out.

[yvesaint]

yea, i am assuming that. so what? a set is a very strong and disguised hand

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
For every time you stack someone (w/ 22-55) you'll get stacked with set over set.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know that this is either an obvious fallacy or you play against very good players, right?

Also I love having any small pair out of position - it's easier to get paid on a set when out of position. You lead out on the flop, they raise, you shove it all in. Are the players you play against laying down AA to a third raise on a 37T flop? I hope not - otherwise you're playing in the wrong game.

[Leptyne]

If you're referring to old man Lep I'm playing $200 NL and I haven't a clue what your old party name is. I also changed my name back in June so I hope noone knows me.

[Woolygimp]

If the villain is raising it 5x the BB and you have 22. To make calling worthwhile you need to be fairly certain you will get paid off with more than 7.5 * 5x the BB. Thats $75
Thats excluding reverse implied odds. Therefor I think calling is incorrect, and if it is correct it's only marginally so.

[Sephus]

i basically follow the 5-10 rule for calling a raise with 88-22 and out of 100k hands in my 2 big pt databases 88-22 are all winners.