Playing for Set Value

[mackthefork]

You get a pocket pair ((52*51)/2)/(6*13)=1 in 17 times I don't know how anyone who doesn't know this can play poker at all.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
It's been suggested on the forum (and in private) that I don't play pockets 22-66, only 77+. The reason for this as I understand it, is you don't want to lose your whole stack to a larger set

This is why you should never read the NL-SS forum.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand your frustration, this is about the worst advice I ever heard, they should rename it the weak tight forum.

For anyone whos interested, the chances of you being behind on the flop to a better set if you flop bottom set (say 3 see the flop) is around 101-1, how can anyone scared of those odds get it all in with AA.

Mack

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this comment is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have a pocket pair, it reduces the number of pocket pairs out there. It also reduces the chances that someone gets the same pocket pair that I have and bluffs me out of the pot (which, to quote Sklansky, is a mathematical catastrophe).

Is my thinking wrong, or just completely irrelevant to the problem at hand?

I was just throwing out random thoughts and consisderatins on the topic of playing for set value since I haven't actually figured out the best way to play them, and suspect that I may have a leak in my game.

[bookish]

Well I agree with all that, but I can't figure out your working.

Its surely easier as (52/52)*(3/51) = 1/17

[e_fermat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Depends on how often you limp and you play your sets. What do you do if you hold 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and the flop comes as follows facing 5 limpers:

Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Or what do you do if pre-flop the BB reraises to 3x BB and it comes back to you with 2 folds and 2 callers?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the situation I'm worried about. My intuition is that sets will lose to larger sets rarely, but it will happen. Sets will lose to straights and flushes more often - especially with crappy flops like that.

So, I'm still left with a pencil, paper and questions....

The thing I love about pockets is that they have HUGE implied odds when you hit your flop. The problems that I'm faced with is choosing which pockets are worth playing preflop, and whether pushing or folding a board like you described yeilds a higher EV.

Thanks,
Steve

ss

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, facing 5 limpers I still push this. No one under the $50's limps with pocket JJ and definitely not QQ so I would push and expect to be called by a TPGK and maybe a 4 flush if there is one out there. Worst case scenario is I'm facing both an OESD and a 4-flush which makes me a slight dog but I've still got 7 outs to the nuts (three each of Q and J, one 4)and the pot odds to double/triple up are too high to pass up.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I have 22 reduces the chances of someone else getting dealt a pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this comment is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have a pocket pair, it reduces the number of pocket pairs out there. It also reduces the chances that someone gets the same pocket pair that I have and bluffs me out of the pot (which, to quote Sklansky, is a mathematical catastrophe).

Is my thinking wrong, or just completely irrelevant to the problem at hand?

I was just throwing out random thoughts and consisderatins on the topic of playing for set value since I haven't actually figured out the best way to play them, and suspect that I may have a leak in my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

your thinking is both wrong and irrelevant. the more people with PPS the MORE likely they become...take a 8 carded deck 4 As and 4Ks. if two people have KK then obviously the other two hands are AA...just a simple example to show you why it is MORE likely.

It is irrelevant bc i dont think this miniscule effect on other hands based on what you have has any bearing on whether you play a PP...would you toss a KK bc it is or is not slightly more likely that someone has AA or whatever your thinking was?

I dont personally believe tossing 22-66 in levels 1-3 is always right...i decide whether to play them or not situationally...stack sizes, position, and table posture(are ppl playing loose, tight etc...)...iow, would hitting a set have huge implied odds or are ppl playing rock solid tight so far and not pay you off if you did hit a set?...

anyway,

pooh

[pokerlaw]

You get a pok pair 5.88% of the time (.45% * 13). That pok pair sets on the flop roughly 1/8 times. So, you flop a set about .7% of the hands you play. (not counting when you have A9 and 2 9s flop of course).

given the scarcity of this and the chip/blind structure at Party, I feel that limping every pok pair you have is a waste of chips, for in the long run, your 22-88s will not set and overcards will flop instead, giving you a crappy hand.

in sum, my advice is to pick and choose the PPs you limp with. if I havent flopped a set in the last two S&Gs you limped w or folded your small pok pairs, i tend to play them more. its a matter of feel, and of course luck, i suppose. but golden rules (always play 88, never play 44, etc), aren't in your best interest. good luck

[pokerlaw]

Oh, and if worrying about a higher set flopping is on your mind, i dont think poker is for you.

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Is it a leak to limp with small pockets in an unraised pot early in an SNG?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not a leak. One concern is that if you know there are multiple aggressive players left to act behind you. If this is the case, you should be hesitant to limp small pairs up front. If it's a fairly passive table, I'm limping any pocket pair at will.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Do you think that limping with small pocket pairs is positive, negative or neutral EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Positive EV for sure, if you play well post flop. And by playing well I mean you don't get cute when you miss your set.

Worrying about set over set in your typical short stacked sng is ridiculous. If you flop a set, prepare to put your entire stack in play.

[RobGW]

Is playing small PP in an unraised pot a leak? It depends on several things. What position are you in? How aggressive is the table preflop? How aggressive is it post flop? The ideal conditions for small PP is a table thats passive preflop but aggressive post flop or full of players that continue too far with poor hands which is usually the case at the lower limits. Playing small PP can be profitable in some situations but not so in others. Learn to tell the difference.