Bottom set, multiway pot...bet size?

Multiway pot....
I'll tell you what I was thinking on the flop later...

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.02 BB (9 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

MP2 ($6.05)
MP3 ($4.78)
Hero (CO) ($4.23)
Button ($3.90)
SB ($5.33)
BB ($0.54)
UTG ($2.58)
UTG+1 ($1)
MP1 ($3.29)

Preflop: Hero is CO with 3, 3
2 folds, MP1 calls $0.02, 1 fold, MP3 calls $0.02, Hero calls $0.02, 1 fold, SB calls $0.01, BB checks

Flop: ($0.10) 3, A, 10 (5 players)
SB checks, BB checks, MP1 checks, MP3 bets $0.04, Hero ?

I had 2 dilemas:
1) given a bunch of limps I wanted to just call the flop and let some weaker holdings bet off more chips...
2) given the limped pot and the 2 suited cards, I was worried someone was drawing to a flush and wanted to charge them...

What would be an appropriate decision on the flop??

Raise to like $0.18c. If you just call look at the odds the other players are given. SB has to call only $0.04 for a chance to win $0.18, or 4.5:1 odds. He's correct to call with a flush draw. If he calls, then the BB is getting 5.5:1, and so on. And this is only immediate pot odds. Their pretty solid implied odds makes a call with a flush draw and gutshots correct.

I understand your reasoning for wanting to only call. You have a really strong hand, and believe they will be folding a decent amount of the time. However, given villain's betsize, and well the fact that the pot has so many villains, you are practically forced to raise here. Also given the fact that some of these villains will still call "incorrectly" for their flush, will still call their Ax, Tx hands, etc, and hte decision becomes pretty clear.

we're clearly raising here.

1. flush draws
2. straight draws
3. any ace will come along and pay us off so we raise for value
4. since its 2NL same goes for a ten so we raise for value

I also would raise here. I want to lower their odds for correctly calling on draws. I expect some of them will still call and I want them to pay for the privilege, but then I'm not one for tricky plays for trying to build pots.

Raise, so many aces will pay you off, and you dont want to give the correct odds for a flush draw.

even without a flush draw, raise this multiway. If no one calls, its no big deal because when someone does call your raise, the pot will be so big by the river in comparison to if you just called, that it will compensate for the pennies you lost from slowplaying.

Originally Posted by tyrn

even without a flush draw, raise this multiway. If no one calls, its no big deal because when someone does call your raise, the pot will be so big by the river in comparison to if you just called, that it will compensate for the pennies you lost from slowplaying.

cheaa

Alright....everyone seems to be in agreement...
I think I was maybe second guessing b/c I thought I had a ticket to 3X up....I raised to charge draws and everyone folded....yeah I was pissed. But I would do the same thing again....there was just no $$ to be made there...

I would have raised to $0.16 there, for all the reasons already given. Don't hesitate to do it again.

Why aren't you raising pocket pairs from cutoff preflop?

Dont let like 7 people see the flop for a big blind, make them pay to see the flop. You want to punish them for playing weak cards in a weak way.

Originally Posted by amir is cool

Why aren't you raising pocket pairs from cutoff preflop?

Dont let like 7 people see the flop for a big blind, make them pay to see the flop. You want to punish them for playing weak cards in a weak way.

Ahh, the unresolvable debate.

Small pocket pairs can work in 2 ways:

1. Setmining.
2. Against a small number of opponents in position, where they can hold up or create fold equity.

The thing is, these two aspects of small pocket pairs are in conflict with each other. The most profitable setmining occurs when you have lots of people in the pot with deep stacks, so that you have huge implied odds on your 8-1 possiblity of hitting a set.

Whereas, if you don't hit your set, you would rather have very few opponents and position so that you can take down the pot either with the best hand or with a continuation bet that induces folds.

Now, which should you do? The reality is, in a lot of situations, either approach is positive EV. If you have lots of limpers behind you and nobody in front of you is likely to raise, it's a perfectly positive EV play to limp in with your pocket 3's. On the other hand, if a pre-flop raise will cause enough of those limpers to fold getting you heads up or in a 3 way ot with position, that's a positive EV play too.

On the other hand, if the limpers behind you are all calling stations, your raise isn't going to drive them out and in that situation you are just cutting your implied odds with respect to setmining. And if the limpers are all microstacked, you basically need to raise because you have to drive some of them out as you aren't getting good implied odds.

The point, of course, is that rules about "always raise small pocket pairs in position" and "never raise them" are inferior to a flexible approach that considers who your opponents are, how they are likely to react to your play, and what implied odds you are likely to get chasing your set.

The reason I dont raise w/ 33 is that there are very few cards that can come on the flop that I am happy to see...
Given the fact that my 33 vs any collection of higher cards is essentially a race and with all the dead money from the limps, any villain would be essentially priced to call my raise to see the flop and they technically wouldnt be making a mistake by calling, given the odds...
If I am wrong on this one, I'd love to hear a second opinion

20 pennies

Funny that your reason for not raising is exactly the reason i raise w/33.
Not many flops are good for me if i dont...
eg. if i call a in a five or six way pot and flop comes AQ7 i am totally dead. couldnt even consider putting a bet into the pot really (I would think about it tho lol). If i raise pre-flop and get HU in position i have really good chances to take this pot down with this board. I think more than anything thats whats important, using the power of your position. Is so sick how the more i play the more powerful position becomes.

not sure why i posted twice. i suck lol

Originally Posted by Vinland

The reason I dont raise w/ 33 is that there are very few cards that can come on the flop that I am happy to see...
Given the fact that my 33 vs any collection of higher cards is essentially a race and with all the dead money from the limps, any villain would be essentially priced to call my raise to see the flop and they technically wouldnt be making a mistake by calling, given the odds...
If I am wrong on this one, I'd love to hear a second opinion

You are not raising 33 to hit a good flop(a set). You are missing the point about the great FE your hand will have with a good image. Also, getting it in when you do hit your set should be easier. Im not saying you should raise them, the discussion about this topic is endless, im just pointing out what you where missing about the raising option.

I always thought it might be a good thing to raise low PP here because; it increases chances that the hands you are playing against are likley to pay you off when your set hits, you have the image of a strong hand allowing you to take more pots down with cbets (flop/action dependant of course), it starts building a good size pot early on making it easier to get it in if you want, and (even though I know most micros do not pay attention, yada yada) if they see you do this once with 33 they are more likley to call when you do it with AA in the same position.

Just my opinion....could be way off.

Admittedly I am no expert but one thing I have learned in the last couple weeks is if I do not raise with a hard CB after flopping a low set I am only leaving the door open to get raped by draws.

PPs are an incredible multiway hand. I dont get why so many people want to isolate OOP with them these days.

Originally Posted by lockpull

I always thought it might be a good thing to raise low PP here because; it increases chances that the hands you are playing against are likley to pay you off when your set hits, you have the image of a strong hand allowing you to take more pots down with cbets (flop/action dependant of course), it starts building a good size pot early on making it easier to get it in if you want, and (even though I know most micros do not pay attention, yada yada) if they see you do this once with 33 they are more likley to call when you do it with AA in the same position.

Just my opinion....could be way off.

The second and fourth reasons are valid.

However, when you are setmining (or making any other longshot 8 to 1 type of play), the most important thing is to have sufficient implied odds to pay off your bet at better odds than its expected frequency.

And raising cuts your implied odds, both because (1) you are driving people out of the pot who could potentially pay you off if you hit your set, and (2) you are reducing the ratio between your expected payoff and your pre-flop bet by increasing the denominator of that fraction.

Again, unresolvable debate. Personally, I try to vary my play and sometimes raise and sometimes call, based on what I think the rest of the table is going to do. But your mileage may definitely vary on this topic.

Originally Posted by LawDude

However, when you are setmining (or making any other longshot 8 to 1 type of play), the most important thing is to have sufficient implied odds to pay off your bet at better odds than its expected frequency.

And raising cuts your implied odds, both because (1) you are driving people out of the pot who could potentially pay you off if you hit your set, and (2) you are reducing the ratio between your expected payoff and your pre-flop bet by increasing the denominator of that fraction.

This reminds me of a question I asked a few days ago about calling Ax suited and the response I got. I think it just goes to illustrate how important and altering implied odds can be.

Whats wrong with having crap hands in there that can hit crap 2 pairs or worse TPNKs when you hit your set?

Originally Posted by LawDude

you are reducing the ratio between your expected payoff and your pre-flop bet by increasing the denominator of that fraction.

Never even looked at it from this obvious angle. Still a lot to learn. Thanks.

I guess the argument can be made either way but it boils down to table, opp, and image on what you do with what hand and I can definitley not argue with bjaust either.

Originally Posted by bjsaust

PPs are an incredible multiway hand. I dont get why so many people want to isolate OOP with them these days.

Hero is CO

raising from the CO is perfect because you get IN position by discouraging the BU from calling
I think the most important reason is that we get to take down the pot preflop or on the flop a lot

poker is a game of fighting for the blinds
by raising preflop we fight for the blinds directly

we are happy: everyone folds
we are OK with: some people call
we are unhappy: someone 3bets

it's also a slight mistake to let BB in
you're not going to make more money with an average bad player in the pot than out of it
if he's really bad, maybe, but in general I'd prefer a HU or 3way raised pot
say our equity in the hand is 1/3 (I don't mean hot-and-cold equity, I mean total equity if we play out all possible flops with all possible starting hands) in a 16.5BB pot, then we have 5.5BB in equity for a raise of 5BB we profit .5BB
that would be 25ptBB/100 and we're not even taking in account skill or the fact that our hand is on average better than whatever the limpers have

in a 5BB pot with 5 people, our hand would have to play almost twice as well multiway than our opponent's hands to make up the .5BB difference we lost in equity from not getting the blinds out of the equation
even if that's true, wouldn't our hand play better in the previous scenario as well?
Unless we have good reasons to believe that limping is better, like aggressive blind 3bing, blinds play terribly post-flop but might fold preflop, etc. we must conclude that the default play is to isoraise with almost any hand we want to play

lol wtf is this thread, limping is fine

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by bjsaust

PPs are an incredible multiway hand. I dont get why so many people want to isolate OOP with them these days.

Hero is CO

raising from the CO is perfect because you get IN position by discouraging the BU from calling
I think the most important reason is that we get to take down the pot preflop or on the flop a lot

poker is a game of fighting for the blinds
by raising preflop we fight for the blinds directly

we are happy: everyone folds
we are OK with: some people call
we are unhappy: someone 3bets

it's also a slight mistake to let BB in
you're not going to make more money with an average bad player in the pot than out of it
if he's really bad, maybe, but in general I'd prefer a HU or 3way raised pot
say our equity in the hand is 1/3 (I don't mean hot-and-cold equity, I mean total equity if we play out all possible flops with all possible starting hands) in a 16.5BB pot, then we have 5.5BB in equity for a raise of 5BB we profit .5BB
that would be 25ptBB/100 and we're not even taking in account skill or the fact that our hand is on average better than whatever the limpers have

in a 5BB pot with 5 people, our hand would have to play almost twice as well multiway than our opponent's hands to make up the .5BB difference we lost in equity from not getting the blinds out of the equation
even if that's true, wouldn't our hand play better in the previous scenario as well?
Unless we have good reasons to believe that limping is better, like aggressive blind 3bing, blinds play terribly post-flop but might fold preflop, etc. we must conclude that the default play is to isoraise with almost any hand we want to play

One other thing to bear in mind is that there is no way to capture all the equity that your 3's have, because many times you will not know whether you are ahead or behind post-flop (for example, if villain leads on the flop and you don't know if he has a pair or a draw, or villain calls your c-bet and you don't know if he hit a higher pair).

I don't mean we take down the pot any time we're good
I mean we win a big pot once in a while and win a small pot sometimes and the chances of our winning a small pot increase if we're heads up or three way

I never said limping wasn't good
I just think raising is slightly better

not sure if we do hit a set whether we want to be 5 way in a limped pot or 3 way in a raised pot

Originally Posted by iopq

I don't mean we take down the pot any time we're good
I mean we win a big pot once in a while and win a small pot sometimes and the chances of our winning a small pot increase if we're heads up or three way

I never said limping wasn't good
I just think raising is slightly better

not sure if we do hit a set whether we want to be 5 way in a limped pot or 3 way in a raised pot

I think it's unprovable which play is more +EV.

Whether you want to be in a 3-way raised pot or a 5-way limped pot depends on how likely you are to get players to stack off against your set. The more likely, the more you would prefer the limped pot, because then you are getting better implied odds. The less likely, the more you would prefer the raised pot, which encourages players to go all in.

As I said, in the end, I have no hard-and-fast rule for this.

Originally Posted by iopq

poker is a game of fighting for the blinds
by raising preflop we fight for the blinds directly

Hell no! No limit poker against loose/bad players is about hitting a big hand while someone else holds TPWK+ and taking a stack in one hand. Your biggest edge is that you wont be stacking off with those same TP hands on scary boards. Limping is fine with so many players in already.

Originally Posted by Pelion

Originally Posted by iopq

poker is a game of fighting for the blinds
by raising preflop we fight for the blinds directly

Hell no! No limit poker against loose/bad players is about hitting a big hand while someone else holds TPWK+ and taking a stack in one hand. Your biggest edge is that you wont be stacking off with those same TP hands on scary boards. Limping is fine with so many players in already.

OK, so which hands in your database make more than 1.5BB every time you play them?

Do your steel attempts make 1.5bb every time you try them?

Originally Posted by Pelion

Do your steel attempts make 1.5bb every time you try them?

yes, the big blind and the small blind = 1.5BB
When I'm the first one in, I attempt to steal exactly 1.5BB

Originally Posted by Pelion

Do your steel attempts make 1.5bb every time you try them?

1.5bb is what you would make if your opponents folded every time. Unless youve found the tightest 2NL table in history that isnt going to happen.

Also just as a note, the BB that pokertracker counts are Big Bets by default, so if youre comparing to your PT database you will only get 0.75 BB for a succesful steal.

When tables are fairly tight and people arent making huge mistakes you have to fight over the small change. When tables are loose and people are calling down to the end with top pair hands on any board, attempting to blind steal with weak hands in already multiway pots will more often than not just put you with a weak hand in a multiway pot post flop. When people wont stack off in small pots with weak hands, building a pot preflop with an implied odds hand makes sense. When people will already put in a big chunk even an unraised pot, it doesnt.

I think both raising and calling preflop are going to be fairly +EV, and there probably wont be a huge difference between them. I dont agree at all with the idea that calling is just blanket wrong, without any consideration of the opponents likely tendencies, and I dont agree at all that blind stealing is anywhere near as crucial a part of winning at microstakes as doing well in big pots.

I thought you meant does my steal ATTEMPT to make 1.5BB every time
also, I said 1.5BB not 1.5ptBB

Now, I've taken some of the opponent's tendencies into consideration: if we raise we're not that likely to get 3b
if we bet post-flop we're not that likely to get raised

that seems like even when we flop a set we won't stack anyone in a limped pot because our opponents are passive
I didn't say calling is wrong, I said raising should be a better idea given the circumstances
I think it's better if we have a chance of taking it down pf without resistance (two limpers fold)
but if the limpers never fold it's probably the same

So it's taken 4 days for you guys to come to the conclusion that it depends on your opponent's tendencies?