Should you play low PP's early in $10/$20's?

[ QUOTE ]
What is so great about this situation? You hit your set 11.8% of the time. In this case, +270 chips adds 0.0298 $EV according to ICM (of the prize pool). When you don't hit the set, losing 30 chips costs you 0.0044 $EV.

So, 0.0966*(100-11.8)/100+0.1298*11.8/100 = 0.100518 $EV for making the move, as opposed to 0.1 that you have for folding.

So, assuming it works out just the way you planned, you're gaining 0.5% equity by making the move.

At the beginning of a $10 sng, this is like saying your equity is worth $10 if you fold, and $10.05 if you want to play this game with your pocket pairs.

A few things to keep in mind though: I'm assuming it works out exactly as you planned on average. I believe that this is generous, and it does not ALWAYS work out as great as you described. If it works out that great 90% of the time, this is -$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, sometimes you get more than 270 chips, right? I think the person who posted this scenario was just saying that even when you don't stack someone, you can gain chips.

(I'm not offering an opinion about playing mid or low pocket pairs. I play very few, but I wouldn't be surprised if I should be playing more.)

[swiftrhett]

Sometimes you get less. Even when you hit your set. Does no one want to post some real results here?

[ QUOTE ]

Well, sometimes you get more than 270 chips, right? I think the person who posted this scenario was just saying that even when you don't stack someone, you can gain chips.

(I'm not offering an opinion about playing mid or low pocket pairs. I play very few, but I wouldn't be surprised if I should be playing more.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Does no one want to post some real results here?

[/ QUOTE ]I imagine the sample sizes are pretty small. For instance, I set up filters to show hands where I held 22-99, I was between 0 and 4 positions off the button, there were 8 or 9 players at the table (PS) and at least 3 players saw the flop. Only 80 hands meet those criteria. I'm a net loser on those hands (4180 chips over 80 hands). In looking over the hands, I don't think I played some of them that well, so maybe I could have turned a profit. But, I haven't figured out how often I limped and folded to a raise.

I only stacked someone once (though I probably could have gotten another with better play). I also got stacked. (I pushed 980 into a 1640 pot when a second heart appeared on the turn, got two calls and one of them hit a flush. The guy had 13 outs on the river, but he was the first caller, so he wasn't getting good odds unless he knew the 3rd player would come a long a significant portion of the time. This is not meant as a bad beat post, just pointing out that with a sample size this small, one such result can have a big impact -- if I had won this hand, I'd be a net winner of chips over the sample.)

[Ixnert]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes you get less. Even when you hit your set.

[/ QUOTE ]

And sometimes you win even when you don't hit your set. Small pocket pairs early aren't going to be profitable unless you (at least occasionally) win when you miss.

(And no, I don't have stats at hand, but the last time I looked at this particular scenario in my stats, that was indeed the only reason 44-77 were net winners for me early. With the usual caveat about small sample size, though.)

[Emmitt2222]

I'm assuming most of these responsees are almost exclusive to Party? I play at Stars where you have t1500 so I play alot looser in the earlier rounds, definitely limping with any pp. Because of the drastic increase in starting chips limping more is better at Stars correct? Or am I missing something that it is still right to be incredibly tight until the later rounds?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming most of these responsees are almost exclusive to Party? I play at Stars where you have t1500 so I play alot looser in the earlier rounds, definitely limping with any pp. Because of the drastic increase in starting chips limping more is better at Stars correct? Or am I missing something that it is still right to be incredibly tight until the later rounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, you're right, limping any PP and even calling raises after you've limped is much less borderline and much more +$EV with a T1500 stack than a T800 stack.

At party I usually dont "open limp" smaller PPs, I wait for someone else to make a move before me because:

1. You get a better estimate of how many people youre gonna share the pot with.

2. It usually takes a bigger hand to raise lots of limpers than to raise just one limper or open raise, thus you are more likely to get to see your flop without being reraised.

Why does no one say anything about the players at the table? If you are at a very passive table, where there are frequently 5 players or more seeing the flop, and people don't mind going to showdown with bottom pair, your small pp's are great.

If you are at a table where the average player is TAG, few people seeing the flop, and often for a raise and where people don't 'chase', they are not as good.

This is true right? Then doesn't that mean that you should limp less with low pp's as you go to higher buy-ins? It would be nice if some g00t player made everything clear. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Insty]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing 22-66 may give you a slight +ChipEV, but it seems that it gives you a slight -$EV when you use ICM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?
What do you mean by "when you use ICM".

[valenzuela]

in low buy-in sngs we usually have family pots and passive players. Calling raises and seeing a flop with 3 other players seems fine to me, btw none of us is talking with empirical advice...does anybody have some?

[1C5]

let me know what filters to use, i will tell me stats good or bad, have 2500+ tournaments in my PT...