Profitability of calling large raises with small pocket pairs?

[Woolygimp]

Due to their strength and inconspicuous nature, Sets are by far and large the cash hand in No-Limit holdem. However, do we overestimate their implied odds?

It is common belief that it is standard to call a large raise
with small pocket pairs, betting that your opponent will pay with his entire stack should you hit (as long as it obeys the 5/10 rule). If so, is it also standard to call large raises with small suited connectors? They work on the same basic concept.

Very few people are capable of playing small PP against their opponent unimproved (a pre-flop raiser), profitabily.
They can only do so with multiple solid reads, something most of us online types don't have the pleasure of having.

That said, we are relying only on the equity that will come from our hand should we improve.
We will improve 1 in 7.5x, against an opponent who will improve around 1 in 3 (AQ/AK/KQ) OR 1 in 7.5x like us.

So to call a 5x BB raise PF, we will need to make 7.5 * 5 or 35 BigBlinds on average each time we do hit. At a 1/2 game, thats about 70 dollars.

It is my opinion that 35 big blinds or more everytime you hit is unsustainable. That's without factoring reverse implied odds. I don't know the chance of a person raising with 99-AA, but I'm sure one of you could post it in a reply. He also has 1:7.5 to improve and assuming he's raising with a pocket pair, 2% of the time he's going to stack with his higher set you unless you hit quads (%5 of that time).

Thats not including the times you hit your set and he folds because he missed. Sure you're going to take down his pot (and continuation bet) when this occurs, but your still not getting your +35big blinds on average that you need to make a profit.

This is going to happen when an ace hits vs his 1010-KK, and he doesn't make a pair with this overcards.

However this all said, I do think its profitable to call a large raise should there be around 2 or more callers in front of you.

I'm not that great of a mathematician so someone else could probaly crunch the numbers better than I.

(Edit)
To everyone who points to the PT stats of 22-77 being in the green, You're forgetting about the times that you play these hands with limps/in blinds/smaller raises.

[Bukem_]

They might like this in ssnl.

That thread about set of deuces already got way too much attention.

[Woolygimp]

I'd copy it over, but I always thought double posting was against the forum rules.

Also what thread about the set of deuces?

[Leptyne]

You should expect a return of 10X your pre-flop call. In your example this means 50BB or $100. This makes up for those times you don't hit, or hit and lose, fold at the turn, etc.

The odds of flopping a draw are 8.1 and 8.5 for flush and oesd. then you're a 2-1 dog to hit, and may not win if you hit.

With pp you want to play HU v. an opponent that has a stack big enough to pay you off. With sc you want a multi-way pot because you only playing for a draw when you hit the flop.

Profitability depends on how well you can extract value from an opponent those times he has a good 2nd best hand.

[ludo72]

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.

[lehighguy]

If he is the kind to curl up into a ball with KK-TT when an ace hits the flop, this presents another opportunity for you to bluff him out provided your in posistion. If I have a good read I often bluff the ace.

You don't always need to have it. If they are weak-tight take advantage of it.

[trevor]

[ QUOTE ]
However this all said, I do think its profitable to call a large raise should there be around 2 or more callers in front of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a pretty important factor. Getting in multi-way w/ the small pairs rather than HU will make up for the equity or lack of it you are talking about. Not saying I 'never' play a hand like this HU but depending on how deep the table sits is the most important factor IMHO. More deep = more I gamb000000000le.

Also bad for your image to keep calling raises and folding to the continuation bet (which you'll have to do quite a bit HU).

[Leptyne]

[ 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]

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.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
If so, is it also standard to call large raises with small suited connectors? They work on the same basic concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Calling PFR's with small PPs is basically playing poker on auto-pilot. Hit a set or don't. It's very simple. With SCs, you flop tons of draws, possibly 2 pair, trips, etc. They can get you into lots of trouble that set mining with PPs won't. Definitely much harder to play.