Calling raises early on with PP to hit sets?

Good odds to call preflop, easy fold postflop.

[maddog2030]

Let me just quickly put this into further perspective by how many additional chips you MUST win on average after you hit your set:

[ QUOTE ]
1. Folded around to the SB, he completes. You check your pair:
implied odds: infinite

[/ QUOTE ]

0 chips from his stack on average. Easiest.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Folded around to you in the SB, you complete for 5, BB checks:
implied odds: 160 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

55 chips from his stack on average. Pretty easy to do. If he has a hand every once in a while you'll make it up for a decent amount. If we're looking beyond the simple math equation for hitting a set, you should be able to win a few extra pots without hitting.

[ QUOTE ]
3. You limp your small pair, folded around to the BB who is the only caller:
implied odds: 53 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

165 chips from his stack on average. This guy has to have something strong to build the pot from 45 chips to 330 (he has to be able to handle almost 2 pot-sized bets). And that's on average. He will rarely do this with a hand he didn't raise with.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Folded to LP who minraises, you call 30 from the button and the blinds fold:
implied odds: 27 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

330 chips from his stack on average. That means you'll be playing a 660 chip pot with a LP minraiser who will almost always have trash to begin with. Not happening. Probably profitable against a very TAG EP raiser.

[ QUOTE ]
5. You limp from MP, folded to button who raises to 60. All fold to you and you call for 45 more:
implied odds: 18 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

660 from his stack. Impossible. Essentially you must stack him everytime you go to a flop. Not only is it unrealistic someone will put the rest of their chips in everytime, they also have redraws which fix a limit on how much you can actually average taking from them.

[ QUOTE ]
You will also be more likely to lose your stack to a bigger set or straight when you hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Techincally yes. But in most situations, the number of times which you will stack someone else grows faster than the number of times someone will stack you as more people enter the pot.

[Freudian]

Using the assumption that you will never win a hand except for when you get a set will give you somewhat unrealistic results, especially when there are only two in the hand. If for example you assume that the other guy in the hand with you will lose every time when he doesn't flop top pair or better, then the small pairs will be insanely profitable.

If the table is so tight that you will end up HU small pairs should probably be avoided.

[The Yugoslavian]

Don't forget that from EP or MP or even LP after limping a small pp you routinely get raised. Your implied odds are much lower than anyone ever thinks, IMO. For instance, crap players love to raise like as much as the top 20% of hands from LP and then not pay off unless they hit. So when those 3 players have limped already and you limp there is a significant chance the pot will get popped up to a hefty raise that you can't call profitably.

Even from LP with limpers (and then no one raises), getting paid off for sets is difficult. Quite a few of the hands that *do* pay you off on a flop where all the chips get in are often ones that can bust you too (bigger sets/flush draws/str8 draws).

Yugoslav

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
Using the assumption that you will never win a hand except for when you get a set will give you somewhat unrealistic results, especially when there are only two in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. I even mentioned that somewhat in my analysis. But you're missing the point if you're looking at it for hard, precise numbers. Irie pointed out how the general behavior works; I tried to clarify it as it tends to be more clear with numbers people can relate to.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course. I even mentioned that somewhat in my analysis. But you're missing the point if you're looking at it for hard, precise numbers. Irie pointed out how the general behavior works; I tried to clarify it as it tends to be more clear with numbers people can relate to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that many players tend to overrate the profitability of small pairs. Perhaps it has something to do with how we learned to play them in limit cashgames.

I think Iries suggestion to look at PT stats is much better than to create hypothetical situations with non-realistic assumptions.

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that many players tend to overrate the profitability of small pairs. Perhaps it has something to do with how we learned to play them in limit cashgames.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think much of the advice originally leaked over from cash game players who are used to playing with deeper stacks, where the set is considered the classic "stacking" hand. However, they probably were inexperienced with how much stack size actually changes hand values and strategy and still played their normal cashgame game.

[eejit]

[ QUOTE ]
The best evidence to help with this is to look at your PT data with regard to your small pairs. You are likely to find that you are either losing a little, or making a little with them in the first 3 levels with the former being much more likely when you get below 77.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong, but I don't see anyway to filter the stats in PT for to filter for x number of callers? I'm sure calling without enough callers in front is wrong, but is it still wrong with this many?

Thanks for taking the time to reply in this thread Irie, I always enjoy your posts.

[The once and future king]

Yes but Irie

Simply going chips won - chips lost = whatever is not going to give the true picture in relation to equity gained.

To see my arguements why plese refer to to Durrons thread on how much to raise. It 1:20 am on saturday night and getting the post out in Durrons thread taxed my booze addled mind to the limit having to repeat, modulate and adjust those arguements is beyond my curent capacity.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this issue.

[swiftrhett]

I've been playing low pairs for a long time, and now I'm convinced to stop playing 66 and lower. The chip EV is very close to 0. Winning a big stack every once in a while, and losing 15-50 chips most of the time is -$EV at that stage, I believe. On top of that, it is extra effort to play these hands.