|
Nakamura
|
03-31-2010, 09:24 PM
Post subject: Set mining question
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Grindin'
Posts: 1,511
|
|
We are dealt   in a MP. We limp 30 chips off a 1500 stack to set-mine.
It's generally accepted that one needs implied odds of around 15:1 to set-mine profitably.
What happens when the BTN pops it to 120? The 30 chips no longer belong to us (it currently belongs to the pot), and we are being asked to call 90 chips off a 1470 stack, which is within the 15:1 rule for calling. It seems like that if we do this consistently, we are paying 120 chips from a 1500 stack to set-mine, which is no longer considered profitable.
What is the correct play PF? Is this a gray area best navigated by reads on players e.g. a player who only raises QQ+,AK warrants a call, but not a player who raises a much wider range?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
drmcboy
|
|
DrButtInski
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,565
|
|
The problem is the limp, raising and folding are both much better.
1) your open limp range is probably exclusively PPs and when you give action you'll always have a set.
2) you need to get his stack ~50% of the time calling the 120 and never lose when you make a set in order to break even. Given that he won't hit anywhere near 50% of flops hard enough to stack off (It's probably closer to 10%)...
3) If your opps will get the money in with <TP for stacks, I'd still rather save the chips pre so you can play more TPGK hands.
if they are so dumb they don't get #1, #3 will almost always apply.
If you expect the pot to be heads up I think I can say it will always be wrong to 'set mine'. Things change with multiple limps since you'll be getting a better price and have more people to make a hand you can win chips from. This also doesn't mean you can't call/raise with the intent of winning on some non set flops.
One of the most important days in my poker career was the first time I open folded a pair. It gets easier.
|
|
|
|
Nakamura
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Grindin'
Posts: 1,511
|
|
I understand your points about calling HU here. Personally it took me a while before I worked this out for myself.
I've simplified the question a little bit. Imagine a few more limpers call before us and a large pot is brewing. I've just wondered if we should consider the fact that we aren't exactly getting 15:1. Do we think of this more as a guideline and apply ourselves to the situation?
|
|
|
|
taipan168
|
|
Administrator
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10,436
|
|
The 15:1 "rule" is really only a guideline. I can't find the analysis now but I think to have correct express odds we need about 9:1 on the call to set mine (takes into account the chance we get stacked by a higher set and/or get otherwise drawn out on). So it totally depends on the situation (ie. if you do hit a set, how likely is opp to stack off?)
I saw another guideline somewhere else called the "10/20" rule - against idiots who will stack off with all sorts of crap on the flop then 10:1 on the preflop call is enough, against good players who will slow down even with a strong top pair you need 20:1.
|
|
|
|
Nakamura
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Grindin'
Posts: 1,511
|
|
The 10/20 rule seems interesting. I believe the 20 part, but I'm not sure I believe the 10 bit.
|
|
|
|
drmcboy
|
|
DrButtInski
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,565
|
|
10/1 seems dumb to me a MTT, no way it's good in a SNG. How many 3 barrel bluffs have you ever seen in a SNG? That would also require you to check and or/call three times.
|
|
|
|
taipan168
|
|
Administrator
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10,436
|
|
I think 10:1 is an extreme if you're up against a super LAGG donkey who, for example, will shove any flop regardless. I think the express odds were about 9.6 to 1 so 10:1 is one extreme. Agree that it's nowhere near enough in the vast majority of situations.
|
|
|
|
baudib
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,176
|
|
I like dr's point about playing for stacks with TPGK type hands vs. those aggro donks. you can actually find many more good spots vs. this type of player, sometimes middle pair will be good enough.
mcatdog's analysis deep in this thread is very good, and i refer to it often.
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...-a-166633.html
|
|
Playing big pots at small stakes.
|
|
Poker Orifice
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2008
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 321
|
|
Hey, tks for posting that link ^
was some interesting reading
|
|
"SEIBORG"
|
|
Jack Sawyer
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Old School
Posts: 2,535
|
|
If we raise t90 and get reraised t210 total, we call/fold? t240?
I mean, purely from the mining perspective of course, assuming you absolutely need to hit a set to win the stack.
|
My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...
Quote:
|
VHS is like a book and a book is like a stack of kindles.
|
|
|
taipan168
|
|
Administrator
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10,436
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
If we raise t90 and get reraised t210 total, we call/fold? t240?
I mean, purely from the mining perspective of course, assuming you absolutely need to hit a set to win the stack.
|
Depends on stack sizes. If you're both sitting on double stacks t210 total would seem to me to be a relatively easy call. If you're sitting on starting stacks I would most probably lean towards folding.
|
|
|
|
drmcboy
|
|
DrButtInski
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by taipan168
I think 10:1 is an extreme if you're up against a super LAGG donkey who, for example, will shove any flop regardless. I think the express odds were about 9.6 to 1 so 10:1 is one extreme. Agree that it's nowhere near enough in the vast majority of situations.
|
you should call any bet from this person getting a lot less than 10/1 with a pair, why would we care about our express set odds?
Set mining rules are for people who likes excuses to play weak/tight/bad/ok depending on what PP you've limped, where you limped it and what the rest of the table did.
Before you enter the pot, consider your current equity/price, playability of your likely made hands, chance to bluff, stack size, position, yadda which each holding, PPs included.
|
|
|
|
taipan168
|
|
Administrator
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10,436
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
you should call any bet from this person getting a lot less than 10/1 with a pair, why would we care about our express set odds?
Set mining rules are for people who likes excuses to play weak/tight/bad/ok depending on what PP you've limped, where you limped it and what the rest of the table did.
Before you enter the pot, consider your current equity/price, playability of your likely made hands, chance to bluff, stack size, position, yadda which each holding, PPs included.
|
The discussion in this thread was about set mining odds. If we expand the discussion to whether we should call a large bet from a terrible LAGG player with 33 because we think we have more than enough equity then that's a separate discussion (and I agree with you).
|
|
|
|
drmcboy
|
|
DrButtInski
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,565
|
|
you brought up this crazy person (apparently) to justify your belief that it's good to call a bet getting 10/1 stack odds to set hunt ever. It isn't except in circumstances so extreme that making a rule to include that person is like making a rule for what happens when a bug flies in window and you have to kill it before it stings you. Yes, that will happen eventually, but you'll deal with it then. For now, your time would be better spent making a plan for the 7/8 of the time you don't flop a set or what kind of pot odds you want when you're trying to flop top pair.
Have you ever asked yourself why we don't have a rule for that? Shouldn't be much more complicated - assuming you're willing to make goofy assumptions like we do with sets. The reason is rules were made up by nits who hated to lose. So they made up rules to follow. More important, rules that other people could NOT follow, and then they would have played bad when they stacked the nits. But nits don't like top pair, they like sets. So they went out and found a way to justify playing the pure nuts, do a lot of folding, and complain, which is why they are at the poker table.
I'm not saying this is you, but I absolutely believe that if you break down the math on set hunting compared to raising or folding most of those pairs you will never tell anyone 20/1 again.
The next time you're folding T2o from the SB getting 12/1 even you know pot odds alone would dictate a call, ask yourself why you would use the even less reliable "stack odds" to justify calling a raise in the SB with 22.
|
|
|
|
taipan168
|
|
Administrator
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10,436
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
The reason is rules were made up by nits who hated to lose. So they made up rules to follow. More important, rules that other people could NOT follow, and then they would have played bad when they stacked the nits. But nits don't like top pair, they like sets. So they went out and found a way to justify playing the pure nuts, do a lot of folding, and complain, which is why they are at the poker table.
|
I got the set hunting "rules" from 2+2, which as you know is dominated by multitabling grinder nits many of whom actually aren't that good poker players even though their hourly rate may be decent. When these guys are playing 12+ tables there's no room for much postflop play, so they end up playing sub-optimally in an attempt to boost their hourly rate. This isn't a justification but if you had the choice to raise a small pocket pair or just call and try to set mine it's pretty obvious what your choice is if you just can't/won't play postflop.
The other factor is that a lot of turbo players (myself included) spend so little time with relatively deep stacks that they don't know what to do in the event that we actually have to play some postflop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
The next time you're folding T2o from the SB getting 12/1 even you know pot odds alone would dictate a call, ask yourself why you would use the even less reliable "stack odds" to justify calling a raise in the SB with 22.
|
I don't fold anything from the SB getting 12:1 pot odds.
|
|
|
|
dranger7070
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wake up in the mornin feelin' like P. Diddy
Posts: 2,476
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
I like dr's point about playing for stacks with TPGK type hands vs. those aggro donks. you can actually find many more good spots vs. this type of player, sometimes middle pair will be good enough.
mcatdog's analysis deep in this thread is very good, and i refer to it often.
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...-a-166633.html |
This link is extremely helpful, ty!
I always just assumed that calling a raise PF vs nits/limping with a PP IP was auto +EV early on in sngs. This obviously pokes some holes in that logic.
|
|
|
|
drmcboy
|
|
DrButtInski
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,565
|
|
Wow, start folding your SB a lot more, that is a big leak. There are times to play 72o but one is not OOP vs 6 players.
The rest of the stuff seems to be you agreeing that set mining is bad, so I'm not sure why you didn't say that. It is even worse if you play like a robot to program in plays that lose money (re read Mcat's post). It isn't obvious at all that limp/calling is > folding.
|
|
|
|
baudib
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,176
|
|
I don't know how often we're actually getting 12-1 to complete the SB, but I think we have terrible implied odds to play true garbage OOP. we're going to have under 10% equity in a lot of 5-way pots with 72o.
|
|
Playing big pots at small stakes.
|
|
taipan168
|
|
Administrator
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10,436
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
Wow, start folding your SB a lot more, that is a big leak. There are times to play 72o but one is not OOP vs 6 players.
|
Forgot to say that I'd only call with 72o against 6 players when stacks are deep (like >50 BBs) so the incremental chips are almost meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
The rest of the stuff seems to be you agreeing that set mining is bad, so I'm not sure why you didn't say that. It is even worse if you play like a robot to program in plays that lose money (re read Mcat's post). It isn't obvious at all that limp/calling is > folding.
|
Cliff notes: I agree with your post.
|
|
|
|
Nakamura
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Grindin'
Posts: 1,511
|
|
Wow, I expected some debate ... but this is great boys! Some real food for thought in this thread.
|
|
|
|
drmcboy
|
|
DrButtInski
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,565
|
|
When you roll the 72/J3/93 vs 4+ players 50BBs deep and you flop trips and get action you are probably not a favorite. It isn't the chips you put in pre that matter.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
02-11-2012, 09:04 PM Tennessee worries that Online Poker could reduce State Lottery revenues
Linear Mode
