Explain to me like a child: Factors necessary to play for set value

[SuitedSixes]

I have the basic numbers:

An underpair (pre-flop) will beat an overpair a little less that 19%.

I will flop a set with a pocket pair 11.8% of the time.

What I am lost on is the implied odds. What I am hoping someone can explain to me is:

In order to profitably play for set value (in NL), there must be A in the pot, Villain must have a stack of B, and Hero's stack must be C.

An explanation of how this differs heads-up and multiway would be helpful as well.

Thanks in advance.

[LetYouDown]

In NL, I disregard the pot size preflop most of the time, unless it's strangely large. 9 times out of 10 I'll play a small pair to a raise if I believe the original raiser has a high pair and will pay off if I hit. Assuming you're a 4-to-1 dog, you need to make sure that the bet you're calling is less than that percentage of his stack and he's likely to pay off if you hit...otherwise it's -EV. Assume the pot is empty and you both have $100. If he raises to $50 with A-A you can't have odds no matter what. If he raises to $3, and will pay off the remaining $97 if you hit, it's an easy call.

So if I'm playing $100 NL and we both have $100, if he raises to $20, there's no way for the call to be correct. If he raises to $4 and I'm 100% sure he has a high pair and will pay off if I hit a set, I'm calling 100% of the time.

[Mike Haven]

Assume you have 22. Assume you fold if you don't flop another 2. Assume you both have 100 pre-flop. Assume you win all his money every time you flop the set.

The way I would work it out for HU would be to say if you flop the set you win 100, so you win 11.8x100 = 1180 in 100 similar situations.

You lose 88.2xA in the 100 similar situations, and you don't want 88.2xA to be larger than 1180.

So 11.8x100 = 88.2xA

So A = 13.4

Therefore, you would call a 13 bet and you would fold to a 14 bet.

Notice that the odds of flopping a set are 88.2/11.8 = 7.5 to 1,

and 100/13.4 = 7.5 to 1

which means that before you call his bet his stack has to be able to lose the 7.5 to 1 you need to flop the set.

If he had only 50 pre-flop, you would win 11.8x50 = 590, so you could call only 6.5 bets.

Basically, look at his stack and divide it by 7.5 to give you your maximum call amount.

Or, much easier in your head in the heat of the moment: look at his stack, double it, double it again, divide by 10, then divide by 3.

For example: if his stack is 87, double it to 174, double it again to 348, divide it by 10 to 34.8, then divide it by 3 to 11.6;

call an 11 bet; fold to a 12 bet.

Can we loose the assumptions a little?

If the stacks are different you should look at your own stack, too. If he is $100 deep, but you have only $50 left, you would not call a $10 bet because you cannot break him if you make your set.

Unfortunately, you will not always win if you make your set, you are something like a 90% favourite. So, in 88.2% of the cases you lose the money for the call. In 90% of the remaining 11.8% you win the minimum of your stack and his, but in 10% of those 11.8% you lose the minimum of both stacks.

[Mike Haven]

We're talking about gambling here! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

OK.

To take into account Mr Killjoy's 10% loss of your stack, you should really take another fifth off the final call bet as calculated above.

The quick way to do this in your head is to look at his stack, (if it's smaller than yours, Mr Killjoy - which it should be!), and divide it by 10, then add on a tenth of this new figure to the new figure.

For example: if his stack is 87, divide it by 10 to get 8.7, then add on 0.87 to the 8.7 to get 9.57;

call a 9 bet; fold to a 10 bet.

[eisanm]

Since the 7.5-1 odds are breakeven for a set, and you won't win every time you get a set, and you won't get his money every time you get a set either, you probably shouldn't call for more than 10-1 of his stack, or even less than that.

I know lots of people push AA postflop and lose to sets, same with KK and QQ, but it does not happen EVERY time...

[SuitedSixes]

Thanks Mike, for taking the time to respond to this. Everyone else to. I have a grasp on it, now.