|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Implied Odds?
Does anyone call this? What about a raise to 6 or 8?
***** Hand History for Game 3162485215 ***** $200 NL Texas Hold'em - Wednesday, December 07, 21:33:41 EDT 2005 Table Table 69192 (Real Money) Seat 1 is the button Total number of players : 10 Seat 10: Gambler9305 ( $207 ) Seat 5: papag0rgi0 ( $354.05 ) Seat 2: jimmyfloyd79 ( $231.15 ) Seat 3: WGHarding ( $194.75 ) Seat 1: GA_bound ( $225.25 ) Seat 8: WhiteCoyote ( $98.29 ) Seat 6: ZZmen ( $102.60 ) Seat 4: BBBill_92679 ( $257.95 ) Seat 7: Yohda ( $196 ) Seat 9: lasophis ( $215.65 ) jimmyfloyd79 posts small blind [$1]. WGHarding posts big blind [$2]. ** Dealing down cards ** Dealt to papag0rgi0 [ 7d 7c ] BBBill_92679 folds. papag0rgi0 calls [$2]. ZZmen folds. Yohda folds. WhiteCoyote folds. lasophis folds. Gambler9305 folds. GA_bound calls [$2]. jimmyfloyd79 raises [$9]. WGHarding folds. papag0rgi0 folds. GA_bound folds. jimmyfloyd79 does not show cards. jimmyfloyd79 wins $16 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Implied Odds?
sorry for all the questions, i'm trying to do away with my old weak-tight playstyle and get better.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Implied Odds?
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.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Implied Odds?
Texas poker what game are you playing right now?
Can you figure out my old party name? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Implied Odds?
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.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Implied Odds?
[ 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Implied Odds?
[ 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Implied Odds?
yea, i am assuming that. so what? a set is a very strong and disguised hand
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Implied Odds?
[ 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Implied Odds?
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...
|
|
|