Playing Pocket Pairs for Set Value

In another attempt to make a decent strategy post in the BC, this time I'm going to be talking about calling preflop with PP's for set value.

I think there are 4 main points that I will discuss, if anyone can think of anymore feel free to jump in. This is not a be all end all guide, as I'm not an amazing player, but these are some of the things I think about PF before calling with my small PP.

1. IMPLIED ODDS

'Implied odds is an estimation on how much money you CAN win from the bet if you hit one of your outs'

Firstly we need to know how often we're going to hit one of our outs. Flopping a set is about 7.5-1. Poker is all about making +EV decisions, so if we imagine playing out the same hand 8 times, we are only going to hit our set 1 time. The one time we do hit our set we need to make back the money that we lost the other 7 times, to make it a break even play.

Thus, when thinking about calling PF with your small pair, the villain will need at least 7.5xwhat we have to call left in their stack to make it a break even play.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (9 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

MP2 ($48.15)
MP3 ($49.85)
CO ($10)
Button ($45.65)
SB ($3.70)
Hero (BB) ($50)
UTG ($50.75)
UTG+1 ($77.70)
MP1 ($30.90)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 5, 5
3 folds, MP2 calls $0.50, MP3 raises to $1.50, 3 folds, Hero calls $1, 1 fold

Flop: ($3.75) Q, A, 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP3 bets $2, Hero folds

Total pot: $3.75 | Rake: $0.15

In the example above, villain raises to 3bb, we both have around 100bb stacks

so (100-3)/3 gives us the implied odds = 32.333, which is way more than 7.5x

2. THEIR RANGE

Lets say we have a 10/8 player opening UTG whos range is 66+/AQ+, lets say we know they often stack off with overpairs postflop QQ+. Their total range is 86 combinations and assuming we get a fairly innocuous low flop, their stack off range is 18 combinations. So their stack off range is around 20% of their total range.

Lets say we have the same player, 10/8 but he has an ATS of 25% and opens in the CO. Now his opening range is like 330, if he still stacks QQ+ its only 5% this time.

So what are the implications of this?

Vs a tight range we can call when our implied odds are closer to 7.5-1, vs a looser range our implied odds need to be much greater that 7.5-1 due to the fact they have a strong hand much less of the time. I generally try to get 15/20-1 on a call PF unless I know they are pretty tight.

3. POSITION

It's a fairly well established concept of poker that money moves clockwise round the table. Position is key and we can make alot more money IP than OOP. When we hit our sets its going to be harder for us to get more money in the pot OOP - so we should aim to set hunt more IP than OOP.

4. POT ODDS

When multiple people are in the pot facing a raise or RR preflop we can make up some of the missing implied odds with tthe pod odds. EXAMPLE

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (8 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Button ($4.65)
SB ($6.60)
BB ($25)
UTG ($63.15)
Hero (UTG+1) ($25.35)
MP1 ($25)
MP2 ($24.30)
CO ($30.85)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with J, J
UTG raises to $0.75, Hero calls $0.75, MP1 calls $0.75, MP2 raises to $3.75, 4 folds, UTG calls $3, Hero calls $3, 1 fold

Flop: ($12.35) J, 2, 7 (3 players)
UTG checks, Hero checks, MP2 bets $20.55 (All-In), 1 fold, Hero calls $20.55

Turn: ($53.45) 2 (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: ($53.45) 3 (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: $53.45 | Rake: $2.60

Here I didnt not have implied odds to call preflop I needed to call 3 and he had 20.55 left, giving me around 6.8-1. Less tahn what is required in implied. However I was getting around 3-1 in pot odds, so over all I was gettign close to 10-1. The player was pretty tight and I coudl assume he had QQ+ a large % of the time, he did not squeeze light either.

So thats:
1. IMPLIED ODDS
2. RANGE
3. POSITION
4. POT ODDS

GL!

Great post Muzz. 5 spades for you sir.

Originally Posted by OhBollocks

Great post Muzz. 5 spades for you sir.

Ty sir!

Good Post.
Questions

1.We limp some pp in midp,and CO/BTN min raises,we have about 10-1 implied odds.Do we call here? OOP and we know CO/BTN min raises means a monster.

2.I have played countless pp hands OOP hoping to hit my set.Is your order of playing pp for set value in importance,1,2,3,4 or do we consider the whole 4 thing together.Which one is the most important?

I believe thats why Spendaa said about exploiting set hunters,we raise lighter.

Playing pairs for set value is extremely exploitable if you do it consistently.

You are giving away a lot of equity and fold equity if you play like a set-hunter.

"When multiple people are in the pot facing a raise or RR preflop we can make up some of the missing implied odds with tthe pod odds."

Implied odds are BIGGER in a raised/reraised pot- if stacks are large enough. This is because someone is more likely to put more money into the pot post flop. In a limped pot you can not expect to stack someone easily.

Getting a set is a bonus, not something you try to get.

Nice guide Muzz, now I can just quote this thread when someone asks about set odds

Also I'd like to add that while I do agree with Sir Pawnalot where set hunting can be exploitable, I think at the micro stakes it is extremely profitable because many of the players overplay their big hands.

Plus at what stakes do we really expect players to be aware and knowledgable enough to take advantage of set hunting?

In order for set mining play to be less exploitable what other hands should we be limping in with OOP apart from PP's?

I'd argue that position is less of a factor with pocket pairs than with most implied odds hands. That's directly related to the fact that they hit so much more often.

As you point out, you need to make ~8x your preflop investment from postflop play. Assuming pot sized bets (I know it's unreasonable, but go with it for now): We know the preflop pot is over 2x our investment. One street of betting is another 2x. Add our call and the pot is now 6x. If villain bets another street, we got the amount we needed (without even raising)!

Certainly the added chips we get over three streets and from raising accounts for more than what we lose in our opponent betting less than pot.

Because we basically only need 2 bets to enter the pot, it's not entirely difficult to make that happen even from OOP. Certainly it helps to be in position, but it's not really necessary.

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

Playing pairs for set value is extremely exploitable if you do it consistently.

You are giving away a lot of equity and fold equity if you play like a set-hunter.

"When multiple people are in the pot facing a raise or RR preflop we can make up some of the missing implied odds with tthe pod odds."

Implied odds are BIGGER in a raised/reraised pot- if stacks are large enough. This is because someone is more likely to put more money into the pot post flop. In a limped pot you can not expect to stack someone easily.

Getting a set is a bonus, not something you try to get.

do you really think many players at micro stakes are gonna come up with a strategy to combat our set hunting? I mean even if we always play our sets the same way and that way always means a set they are gonna call us anyway.

also in LP you are usually better off raising your pairs in a limped pot. Against a raise i kinda like the 5/10 rule. Incase someone who read this thread is wonder what the heck is the 5/10 rule. It means that if the pot is raised and a call cost 5% or less of the effective stack then it is safe to set hunt. If it cost more the 10% then you should not set hunt and either fold or raise

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

Playing pairs for set value is extremely exploitable if you do it consistently.

You are giving away a lot of equity and fold equity if you play like a set-hunter.

"When multiple people are in the pot facing a raise or RR preflop we can make up some of the missing implied odds with tthe pod odds."

Implied odds are BIGGER in a raised/reraised pot- if stacks are large enough. This is because someone is more likely to put more money into the pot post flop. In a limped pot you can not expect to stack someone easily.

Getting a set is a bonus, not something you try to get.

a) This is mainly a guide for fullring no-limit holdem. This guide os for playing PP's for set value as stated, nothing else. I did not state the pros or cons of any other strategy. Whether this be playign them as bluffs post flop or otherwise.

b) Implied odds cannot be 'bigger', you're either getting the right implied odds to stack him, or not. 7.5-1, if you aint got at least 7.5-1 your making a mistake, end of. It's tied in with the 'RANGE' section, obviously in a 3bet pot their range is smaller and weigthed more to their 'stack off range'.

c) this is a guide in the beginners forum, its not a be all end all guide. Most the posters here are playing small/micro stakes holdem, a place where people aren't really going to be exploiting set mining with small PP's. I took time to write this thread, please do not shit on it, without bringing up some valid and relevant points. kthnx

Originally Posted by hangchiong

Good Post.
Questions

1.We limp some pp in midp,and CO/BTN min raises,we have about 10-1 implied odds.Do we call here? OOP and we know CO/BTN min raises means a monster.

2.I have played countless pp hands OOP hoping to hit my set.Is your order of playing pp for set value in importance,1,2,3,4 or do we consider the whole 4 thing together.Which one is the most important?

I believe thats why Spendaa said about exploiting set hunters,we raise lighter.

1 If you know he has a monster of course, ifit AA/KK like 90% time then ur getting decent implied.

2. 3 is the least important, I'd say the other 3 were all pretty close. But remember, if you haven't got the odds, you haven't got the odds.

I understand that the post is about set value-not strategy. I was neither mocking your post in any way- I thought it was really good, I just commented on a couple of points.

There is many ways of playing poker profitably poker. The skill level of the opposition decides our approach at the table. Assuming that almost nobody will exploit us at micro stakes is a fair assumption IMO. At micro we meet new players all the time and rarely play against same villains on many occasions.

You made the concepts really clear. Hope you do not fold JJ every time you miss flop though.

Originally Posted by Muzzard

In the example above, villain raises to 3bb, we both have around 100bb stacks

so (100-3)/3 gives us the implied odds = 32.333, which is way more than 7.5x

Just to clarify, this only works IF they will stack off. I think a better way to think of it is IF this exact hand was played out 8 times with random board cards, would I make up or exceed in hitting my set ONCE, the money I would lose the 7 times I don't? So, you need to make (3bb times 7) or (21bb). Not everyone will be willing to give you that and some will give you much more.

Originally Posted by Jason

Originally Posted by Muzzard

In the example above, villain raises to 3bb, we both have around 100bb stacks

so (100-3)/3 gives us the implied odds = 32.333, which is way more than 7.5x

Just to clarify, this only works IF they will stack off. I think a better way to think of it is IF this exact hand was played out 8 times with random board cards, would I make up or exceed in hitting my set ONCE, the money I would lose the 7 times I don't? So, you need to make (3bb times 7) or (21bb). Not everyone will be willing to give you that and some will give you much more.

Yeah thats why sailing close to 7.5-1 is probably going to be -EV, the more implied odds you have the better. In the example we have 32-1, so we only need to stack them 1 in 32 times to make it break even if we are just goign to set or forget the hand.

I think you may have mixed the terms SPR (stack to pot ratio) and implied odds.

SPR is self explanatory. Implied odds are in reality pot odds with future bets implied in the calculation.

Things to consider when estimating implied odds are:

- Strength of villains hand

- How obvious your draw is (dependant upon villains skill level)

- Villains tendencies

- Number of opponents

- Position

- Your range

- Your image

- Etc, etc

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

I think you may have mixed the terms SPR (stack to pot ratio) and implied odds.

SPR is self explanatory. Implied odds are in reality pot odds with future bets implied in the calculation.

Things to consider when estimating implied odds are:

- Strength of villains hand

- How obvious your draw is (dependant upon villains skill level)

- Villains tendencies

- Number of opponents

- Position

- Your range

- Your image

- Etc, etc

Yo Muzz!

You never told me you were getting a new coach! Wtf?

Originally Posted by OhBollocks

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

I think you may have mixed the terms SPR (stack to pot ratio) and implied odds.

SPR is self explanatory. Implied odds are in reality pot odds with future bets implied in the calculation.

Things to consider when estimating implied odds are:

- Strength of villains hand

- How obvious your draw is (dependant upon villains skill level)

- Villains tendencies

- Number of opponents

- Position

- Your range

- Your image

- Etc, etc

Yo Muzz!

You never told me you were getting a new coach! Wtf?

lol tell me about it, this list looks strangely familiar.

Reactions to my posts seem strangely familiar.

"lolwut"

"This is the worst advice in the history of bad advice"

"You really believe your own BS?"

"Wtf?"

"BAD ADVICE"

I do not understand why- is my posts really that bad? If they are I would like to know. Please tell me what is so fundamentally wrong with my poker strategies in my own thread "winning in poker".

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

Getting a set is a bonus, not something you try to get.

I don't agree with this point.

Set hunting is something you are obviously trying to get, when the odds are right. You have to have the control to throw away your pair when it misses and the board is clobbering you against their range, but when the odds are there, you are throwing away money if you are not set hunting.

Maybe it's a leak in my game, but I count set hunting as a very valuable tool, especially because it is often so well disguised and able to exploit opponent who plays TPTK or when opponent is draw oriented...

Not arguing, just a different approach I think.

Set hunting is profitable- yet against thinking players it is exploitable.

These kind of situations are what I am refering to:

Villain has AQ and raises to 3BB. You call with 77.

Flop comes K, 8, 2. You fold to a c-bet.

Same situation, different flop

K, 7, 2. You call c-bet. Villain check turn (9). You bet- villain folds.

Overestimating implied odds are common, underestimating equity is also common. Against micro players we can give away tons of equity, but still pull out a profit because they overvalue certain hands.

I have already stated that set-hunting is profitable against noobs. But that does not mean we should think about other ways of playing PPs.

Personally, I like to raise all PPs (positionally and situationally adjusted oc). This gives me a much better chance of repping stronger hands on flop and turn, and it disguises my sets when I hit them.

If someone limp/calls, check-folds their PPs and suddenly starts raising and check/raising on turn I would fold quicker than lightning.

It is wise to think about your game and construct counter strategies against yourself. Often I play HU against "myself" in my head in order to realize how others can exploit my own game. Once I started "crushing" myself I would improve my own game.

I thought we were all "training" to become as good as possible versus all kind of players- not only learn about how to play profitably. If you are only interested in beating micro players I can not and will not help you.

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

I thought we were all "training" to become as good as possible versus all kind of players- not only learn about how to play profitably. If you are only interested in beating micro players I can not and will not help you.

Sir Pawnalot, I can see your points, and I was under the impression this was the beginner forum and we were having a discussion. Your responses lead me to believe you are offended by my method of trying to discuss your points, so I'll let you be after this comment:

If you don't want to discuss micro players, which is the primary focus of beginner stakes and beginner forums, you might want to hold these discussions in another forum, as most of us here learning through the beginner forum are playing micro stakes. Yes, many of us want to become the best players we can be... but the point of being a better player is to profit from your play, otherwise we would all be playing with 'play money', thus we are looking for the most 'profitable' play.

Good Luck out there!

I was not refering to you Monty and not in any way offended by what you wrote. It was all sensible.

What offended me was:

"Yo Muzz!

You never told me you were getting a new coach! Wtf?"

I could not have agreed more with this:

"If you don't want to discuss micro players, which is the primary focus of beginner stakes and beginner forums, you might want to hold these discussions in another forum, as most of us here learning through the beginner forum are playing micro stakes. Yes, many of us want to become the best players we can be... but the point of being a better player is to profit from your play, otherwise we would all be playing with 'play money', thus we are looking for the most 'profitable' play."

Playing profitably against micro-stakes players is what BC helps us with.

Just pointing out that some of the strategies against micro players may not work at higher levels is healthy. It does not negate anything that has been said.

We must not nag about differences where there are non.

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

Set hunting is profitable- yet against thinking players it is exploitable.

These kind of situations are what I am refering to:

Villain has AQ and raises to 3BB. You call with 77.

Flop comes K, 8, 2. You fold to a c-bet.

Same situation, different flop

K, 7, 2. You call c-bet. Villain check turn (9). You bet- villain folds.

Overestimating implied odds are common, underestimating equity is also common. Against micro players we can give away tons of equity, but still pull out a profit because they overvalue certain hands.

I have already stated that set-hunting is profitable against noobs. But that does not mean we should think about other ways of playing PPs.

Personally, I like to raise all PPs (positionally and situationally adjusted oc). This gives me a much better chance of repping stronger hands on flop and turn, and it disguises my sets when I hit them.

If someone limp/calls, check-folds their PPs and suddenly starts raising and check/raising on turn I would fold quicker than lightning.

It is wise to think about your game and construct counter strategies against yourself. Often I play HU against "myself" in my head in order to realize how others can exploit my own game. Once I started "crushing" myself I would improve my own game.

I thought we were all "training" to become as good as possible versus all kind of players- not only learn about how to play profitably. If you are only interested in beating micro players I can not and will not help you.

well i for one do want to learn how to play different players but that doesn't change the fact that at the right kinda game set hunting rocks. Also as we learn we can exploit their exploitation of us

Little Ogre wrote:

"well i for one do want to learn how to play different players but that doesn't change the fact that at the right kinda game set hunting rocks. Also as we learn we can exploit their exploitation of us"

YESSSS!!!! That is mainly what I have been trying to say all along here on BC. You have understood what poker is all about. Whenever someone is countering your strategy- we readjust and pwn some more...

Thanks again Muzz for keeping my memory fresh with odds.

If you dont remember me you coached me for a little from the 2+2 post that you made. Thanks again for the information.

A+ Post