Apparently my 22-99 are big losers? what the hell...

So I just bought poker tracker and PAH today, and after logging 6000 hands at 400nl full ring on PP, I'm taking a look at my stats and its showing 22-99 as being my biggest losers! I find this to be odd, since I would have figured low pocket pairs to be extremely profitable. My stats show that every pair between 22 and 99 is a loser of between $150 and $400.

My standard lines with PPs right now are...
22-77: limp - call raises from any position, then a 2.5-3x check raise if I flop a set.
88-JJ: limp from ep, open for a standard 5x raise from lp unless it looks like raising is going to push alot of limpers out. c-bet the flop in raised pots, with hitting a set being an added bonus.
Occasionally play 88-JJ for the overpair in small pots.

Any thoughts on this?

I know 6000 hands isnt a very big sample size. Could it just be that 6k hands isnt enough to account for the high variance associated with set camping?

Or maybe implied odds just arent good enough to justify calling 4-5x raises preflop.

I'm concidering some changes to my mid-low pair play. Should I think about opening them for a 5x raise from every position? Party Poker NL400 seems pretty tight.

discuss,
thanks

Personally I think it is probably just the variance. I mean, unless the players you're playing against are good enough to put you on the set fairly often because you are playing it too obviously then I think you're doing alright. I limp everything up to TT though. Take in mind that I am pretty damn new at online poker and poker in general in the scheme of things.

6k is small, though its concerning that its happening across the board like that. you have noticeable bad luck with set over set or not hitting sets? what type of raises are you calling preflop? oop? i'd say its not enough to be sure, but you might want to start rethinking how you're playing em.

your sample size is too small

its possible that 400nl players aren't dumb enough to make limp/calling with 22-77 profitable.

Maybe try folding small pairs in early?

Stop using predictable, exploitable lines with every hand you play...

Thanks for posting this. If it wasn't for sample size, etc. it would confirm a lot of what I've begun to suspect.

if all your small pairs are losing, you must seriously be getting killed at this limit. Maybe you should beat up on 1/2 a little more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

if all your small pairs are losing, you must seriously be getting killed at this limit. Maybe you should beat up on 1/2 a little more.

---

It could be bad luck. These pairs often need to both hit a set AND get paid AND hold up the way most people play them. Hence, you really have to look at the entire group of hands instead of a particularl one over any sample less than hundreds of thousands.

That being said, I've heard of players mucking 22-55 UTG in tougher deep stacked games. As the money gets deeper and the players stop calling it all off with weak stuff, reverse implied odds and fase implied odds become a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

My standard lines with PPs right now are...
22-77: limp - call raises from any position, then a 2.5-3x check raise if I flop a set.
88-JJ: limp from ep, open for a standard 5x raise from lp unless it looks like raising is going to push alot of limpers out. c-bet the flop in raised pots, with hitting a set being an added bonus.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

These pairs often need to both hit a set AND get paid AND hold up the way most people play them.

---

22-77: If you're limping and calling raises but never raising it up yourself in LP, it's only logical that you're missing a lot of small pots you could be taking down uncontested preflop, which would make up for a lot of the donations you make when you call and miss.

88-JJ: Dunno why your standard line is to limp these from EP, esp. TT/JJ, but these aren't my stakes.

But overall I think it's limp less, raise more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

88-JJ: Dunno why your standard line is to limp these from EP, esp. TT/JJ, but these aren't my stakes.

---

Its hard to play 88-JJ for overpair value from OOP. I don't think limping is bad.

I play them roughly the same as the OP, and over 13K hands, they are all profitable...some more than others, of course.

I used to be skittish about the smaller PPs, but I love 'em now...

How would raising every 22-AA 5xBB from every position work? Most pots are taken down either pre-flop or via c-bet.. so all you'd have to rely on are a set on the flop when your c-bet is called.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

How would raising every 22-AA 5xBB from every position work? Most pots are taken down either pre-flop or via c-bet.. so all you'd have to rely on are a set on the flop when your c-bet is called.

---

Raising 22-77 from EP has to be negative EV.

Think about it. 77 is dominated by 88-AA. This means 42 hands dominate it. More importantly, 77 dominates very few hands.

Compare this to KQ, which a lot of people have trouble raising with from EP. AQ is dominated by AA, KK, QQ, AK, and AQ which add up to 50 hands.

So basically if its profitable to raise 77 from EP, then it should also be profitable to raise KQ as well (which is doubtful).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

These pairs often need to both hit a set AND get paid AND hold up the way most people play them.

---

I don't think this has to be thrown out on sample size. If my math is right, we're in the range of 200+ pairs 22-99 over 6k hands (8/220 * 6k). It's really wierd that they'd be the exact worst 8 hands over any range of time.

So are we playing the math game again with low pps?

My line with these has been to call raises up to 1/10 of the possible winnings if you stack your opponent and your opponent is bad enough to get stacked with TPTK. Raise in position if you can take it down there, fold to any agro on the flop and cbet when it makes sence.

It seems @ 400nl they aren't quite that bad.

Also, is it common to get 6k hands in one day? How many tables over how many hours? I'm just getting back into online poker and I was planning on doing some serious statistical stuff with my game. If 6k can come in a day without 4+ tabling, it seems over a few weeks I can have all the stats I need.

6k hands is 24 hours of 3-4 tabling.

Also the 10x rule can't work against 2/4 players. I'd need at least 18x-20x.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

How would raising every 22-AA 5xBB from every position work? Most pots are taken down either pre-flop or via c-bet.. so all you'd have to rely on are a set on the flop when your c-bet is called.

---

If you did it every time, you'd be getting looked up an awful lot. Every time with QQ+, half the time with 88-JJ, and half the time with 22-77 in position...there you might have something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Also the 10x rule can't work against 2/4 players. I'd need at least 18x-20x.

---

Never been a fan of profiling by stake. There is no "2/4 player" per say. There are a lot of different types and many of them are pretty easy to peg. It's just tougher types of players are more common as you move up and overall similar players tend to bet/raise more and call less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Also the 10x rule can't work against 2/4 players. I'd need at least 18x-20x.

---

Never been a fan of profiling by stake. There is no "2/4 player" per say. There are a lot of different types and many of them are pretty easy to peg. It's just tougher types of players are more common as you move up and overall similar players tend to bet/raise more and call less.

---

Sure, but I would guess you'd be fairly harder pressed to find players at 2/4 who donate their stack with TP than you would at .25/.5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Sure, but I would guess you'd be fairly harder pressed to find players at 2/4 who donate their stack with TP than you would at .25/.5

---

Yeah, certainly when your default line is a flop c/r. After a PFR, with 100bb stacks, it's a great line to ensure you'll win small pots and lose big ones. Consider leading into the PFR instead and do this sometimes when you catch air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Yeah, certainly when your default line is a flop c/r. After a PFR, with 100bb stacks, it's a great line to ensure you'll win small pots and lose big ones. Consider leading into the PFR instead and do this sometimes when you catch air.

---

I don't think I ever have the goods when I check raise the flop.

I generally either have a draw or air.

CR as a default line is terrible.

I don't think you should have a standard line, but if you do it should be BETTING. You're letting aggresive players off with one cheap C-bet, and passives off for nothing when you lead the turn and they fold AK.

It's hard to fold an over pair when you get check raised, but it's much HARDER when you re raise on the flop, and even if you do, it costs more.

read SS for a change.

supersystem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

I don't think I ever have the goods when I check raise the flop.

I generally either have a draw or air.

---

I mix it up a bit. c/rs get kinda expensive against the guys I play with because they like to call any single act of aggression with any piece (incluing big hands) just to make you follow-through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

supersystem?

---

Yeah.

The funny thing is that many regulars at the PS100/200 game will lead strong with big hands, but don't balance it well with air and weak hands with outs against AA.

I really like SS, but I find it hard to apply Doyle's concepts to tight play.

I also have trouble calling preflop raises with 45s. Is this +EV?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

I also have trouble calling preflop raises with 45s. Is this +EV?

---

...as I understand it Doyle is usually the one raising that up!

40:1 is my magic number for implied odds on stuff like that. So certainly with 200-300bb stacks you should consider these calls. It also depends on reads. You can make up some ground if you know the other player well enough to take away the pot with air or continue with not much of anything.

[quote="underminedsk"]You are right, after talking it over with some of my friends today, we decided that big flop check raises are killing action against good players. Perhaps leading into the PFR would be better (if I put the PFR on TPTK+), or check/calling flop + check/calling turn + donk lead the river, or check calling flop + c/r turn. Might these be better lines against tight players?

As a side note, I just moved a large portion of my bankroll from a eurobet site where abig flop c/r + 1/2 pot turn + open push river was good for full stacks almost every time. It's hard adjusting to the conciderably tigher play at party poker.

On the issue of 22-77, the general consensus seems to be that opening them from EP-MP for a 5x would be unprofitable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Raising 22-77 from EP has to be negative EV.

Think about it. 77 is dominated by 88-AA. This means 42 hands dominate it. More importantly, 77 dominates very few hands.

Compare this to KQ, which a lot of people have trouble raising with from EP. AQ is dominated by AA, KK, QQ, AK, and AQ which add up to 50 hands.

So basically if its profitable to raise 77 from EP, then it should also be profitable to raise KQ as well (which is doubtful).

---

I can definately see what you are saying here, but I've noticed that 50%+ of my PFRs are folded to preflop. Also, c-betting increases the EV of any hand. And you do have a 1/8 chance of flopping a monster. I see this as very different from opening KQ from EP, where you can see a flop like QJ4 and have no idea whether you should be happy about this flop or not. Opening KQ from EP might be profitable anyway, but it's very tough to play in the hands where you hit TPGK and your OOP. With 22-77 either your set or dont set, so generally you know where you stand.

Really, my biggest concern about playing 22-77 oop is being oversetted, and getting myself into a situation where both my opponent and I have 150xbb+ stacks and I cannot get away from it. Is this fear justified?

Ill continue to update those stats as I increase the number of hands I log. I'd be interested to see stats from somone else's EV from playing pocket pairs at 400NL+ over a larger sample size. When people post things like:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by relayer

I play them roughly the same as the OP, and over 13K hands, they are all profitable...some more than others, of course.

I used to be skittish about the smaller PPs, but I love 'em now...

---

be sure to post the stakes and site you are playing at, because it makes a HUGE difference. I figure everyone playing low stakes and below should be making a ton of money calling raises with pocket pairs, so people saying they are profitable at 100NL and below doing this doesnt really mean much, I dont think.

[quote="Fnord"]

It could be bad luck. These pairs often need to both hit a set AND get paid AND hold up the way most people play them. Hence, you really have to look at the entire group of hands instead of a particularl one over any sample less than hundreds of thousands.
quote]

to address the sample size and luck issue, let me give some perspective:
I've logged 5995 hands at 400NL and I've had 383 pairs. Now 5995/383 = 15.6. This number is a bit high for PPs, right? Since the chance of getting a pair is 1/17. (Again this reflects the small sample size). Out of these 383 pairs, I've flopped a set 33 times. 383/33 = 11.7. This is also pretty low, as the chance of flopping a set should be 1/8. So the high number of pocket pairs coupled with the low number of sets indicates bad variance, right? (Or do I have this totally backwards)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

...as I understand it Doyle is usually the one raising that up!

40:1 is my magic number for implied odds on stuff like that. So certainly with 200-300bb stacks you should consider these calls. It also depends on reads. You can make up some ground if you know the other player well enough to take away the pot with air or continue with not much of anything.

---

As a side note, I often raise suited connectors and occasionally call raises, and my EV on suited connectors 45s-QJs is very positive across the board. This must mean that doing these things is working well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

if all your small pairs are losing, you must seriously be getting killed at this limit. Maybe you should beat up on 1/2 a little more.

---

I'm break even over the first 6000 hands at PP NL400. It's kind of depressing to think id be up 1.5k+ if I just hadnt played any pairs 99 or below at all (Obviously this wouldnt be correct though)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

...I've noticed that 50%+ of my PFRs are folded to preflop...

---

Again, I don't play at your stakes, but it seems to me that if 50% of your PFRs are being folded to preflop, that's reason enough to be raising 22-77 in LP preflop to make up for the times where you're calling raises with the same holdings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

...Really, my biggest concern about playing 22-77 oop is being oversetted, and getting myself into a situation where both my opponent and I have 150xbb+ stacks and I cannot get away from it. Is this fear justified?...

---

I think the times you destack QQ+ will more than make up for the times where you're beaten by a higher set.

look at all your hands and see how you are playing them...i used to have a huge leak where i overplayed low pockets on paired flops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bair

look at all your hands and see how you are playing them...i used to have a huge leak where i overplayed low pockets on paired flops

---

This hand should play more like a missed AK than an over-pair. You have some showdown value, but you'd really like to just fire once and play show 'n tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

...I've noticed that 50%+ of my PFRs are folded to preflop...

---

Again, I don't play at your stakes, but it seems to me that if 50% of your PFRs are being folded to preflop, that's reason enough to be raising 22-77 in LP preflop to make up for the times where you're calling raises with the same holdings.

---

What about raising pots in LP with 22-77 with a few (or maybe a lot of?) limpers?

mixup: raising little pairs in late with limpers as a free card play. you'd like to improve your set odds to 1/6 or whatever they become if 4 ppl check to you. Fun part is when the turn nails you and one of those 4 realizes you didn't have dick on the flop and gets pushy.

Doyle limps connectors, because he wants to play them against AA/KK/AK and he knows if he raises first, the AA will re raise and he can't stand the pressure. If he's raising SCs it's because he was raising air anyway.

It's important to note that his plan is to move people off hands, especially when he flops a SD. YMMV. He's not looking to call down with a draw (much).

Really, guys, read it. It's still the bible. It's worth it just for the personality alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drmcboy

Doyle ...
Really, guys, read it. It's still the bible. It's worth it just for the personality alone.

---

It's the only poker book I have ever read - and I would recommend it.

Consider, when you raise from EP without a shitty table image, most players put you on:

AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/AK/AQ

i dont think enough players will run lines without the goods.
Ok so we call a raise in ep with a pp and miss, whats to stop us running a standard set line that we show?
Eg c/r flop to 3 times then open push the turn. If thats our set line then how many times do we really need a set for preflop raiser to play for stacks on the turn?
PFR'ers hand needs to be pretty or strong or he has to be bad (eg. overrates hand/calling station)

This post, while noticeably interesting, is very dependant on making the play with a hand. Ive only played to 200nl but surely running lines or at least setting-opps-up to believe certain lines is the key to making them play for stacks with less than they should. eg. shouldnt we just c/r to 3 times a certain number of flops anyway?

QQ is a loser for me over 20k hands of $600NL, fwiw

I am very, very interested in this topic.

I have read and reread Harrington's books. I don't play tournaments but if I understand things correctly early stages of tournaments are similar to ring games.

I don't understand his hand selection though.

He advocates folding small pairs (22 - 55 ) in EP and folding 22 - 66 in MP to a EP raise. For example, if you are in fifth position and the player in third position opened for three times the big blind he says "the small pairs , sixes through deuces, are not playable. Just throw them away. " (page 190, Book No. 1)

Why? What is the difference between 55 and 77? What makes one +EV and the other -EV against an early raiser. You can't do much with them without flopping a set, can you? Is this something that applies to tournaments only?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myself

Why? What is the difference between 55 and 77? What makes one +EV and the other -EV against an early raiser. You can't do much with them without flopping a set, can you? Is this something that applies to tournaments only?

---

It's not that one is definitely +EV and one is definitly -EV, he has to draw the line somewhere and though theres a grey area there he chose to draw it between 55 and 77.

Set hunting is less viable in tourneys then in cash games because the effective stacks are often not large enough to justify playing to hit a set. This lowers the value of low pocket pairs in tourneys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Set hunting is less viable in tourneys then in cash games because the effective stacks are often not large enough to justify playing to hit a set. This lowers the value of low pocket pairs in tourneys.

---

I am no tournament expert, as I dont even play them anymore, but...
Dont stacks drop faster with marginal hands like AA or TPTK in tournaments than in ring, and arent the implied odds that are associated with doubling or trippling your stack and going deep into a MTT alot higher for tournaments? (i.e. for a good tournament player, having alot of chips is worth much more than just the number of chips themselves)

BTW, everyone keeps talking about poker books. I'll state for the record that I've never read a single poker book in my life...

Mid PP (77-99) were only slight winners for me until I started raising with them from any position when first in, raising out of the blinds, raising from LP with limpers ahead of me and re-raising 2-3X bets ahead of me when on the C/O or button. Generally just being a lot more aggressive with them. Your pair is typically the best hand pre-flop and if you raise enough to isolate a single person you're still good on the flop 2/3 of the time against overs. Even if overs come, your strong pre-flop action allows you to represent hands that can induce better hands to fold.

My problem was that I was playing these hands too much for set value alone. They're strong enough though to play them much more aggressively than I was. I was calling too many 3-6x BB bets looking to set and snap of AA or KK. Well most 3-6xBB raises aren't AA or KK. I was calling off too many bets when I didn't hit my set and wasn't getting paid often enough when I did to make my passive play profitable. I now tend to treat mid-PP like they're the best hand PF, and most of the time they are. Even if they aren't, an aggressive approach allows you to at least make it more convincing that they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

BTW, everyone keeps talking about poker books. I'll state for the record that I've never read a single poker book in my life...

---

I've never understood this. Why do people treat having not read a poker book as a badge of honor? Many of them are written by players much better than you are. Your opponents are reading them. Does the satisfaction of having a bigger ego outweigh the information you're choosing to ignore. The argument that experience is the best teacher doesn't hold-up because a lot of these books are written by people with tons more experience than the average poker players, or above average for that matter. Poker books can greatly decrease the learning curve when used appropriately.

Quote:

---

Your opponents are reading them. Does the satisfaction of having a bigger ego outweigh the information you're choosing to ignore. The argument that experience is the best teacher doesn't hold-up because a lot of these books are written by people with tons more experience than the average poker players

---

Amen. I personally own at least a dozen poker books myself(juggling them in between my CIS books) and I know how much I struggle with them let alone if I never bothered to read or study.

Quote:

---

I was calling too many 3-6x BB bets looking to set and snap of AA or KK.

---

Careful how much you are willing to call a PR with a PP looking to set-even if I have a full $25 stack and my opponent has that or more calling for say like $3 would be pushing it.Remember vs another PP you are a 4-to-1 dog so you need to make sure A)He has enough to make destacking worthwhile,and B)He is aggressive or undisciplined enough to be able to pay you off(yes I have seen sharks get off AA/KK when they smell a set).[/quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

BTW, everyone keeps talking about poker books. I'll state for the record that I've never read a single poker book in my life...

---

I've never understood this. Why do people treat having not read a poker book as a badge of honor? Many of them are written by players much better than you are. Your opponents are reading them. Does the satisfaction of having a bigger ego outweigh the information you're choosing to ignore. The argument that experience is the best teacher doesn't hold-up because a lot of these books are written by people with tons more experience than the average poker players, or above average for that matter. Poker books can greatly decrease the learning curve when used appropriately.

---

Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound like I was proud of that fact or anything. I was just trying to help everyone see where I come from by stating that I dont have the perspective that some of you have gained from reading poker literature. I just have way too much school work and other things going on to devote time to reading poker books. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

BTW, everyone keeps talking about poker books. I'll state for the record that I've never read a single poker book in my life...

---

I've never understood this. Why do people treat having not read a poker book as a badge of honor? Many of them are written by players much better than you are. Your opponents are reading them. Does the satisfaction of having a bigger ego outweigh the information you're choosing to ignore. The argument that experience is the best teacher doesn't hold-up because a lot of these books are written by people with tons more experience than the average poker players, or above average for that matter. Poker books can greatly decrease the learning curve when used appropriately.

---

Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound like I was proud of that fact or anything. I was just trying to help everyone see where I come from by stating that I dont have the perspective that some of you have gained from reading poker literature. I just have way too much school work and other things going on to devote time to reading poker books. :(

---

Perhaps take devote some poker time to reading instead of playing. Just a thought.
There are books about every conceivable subject you might want to learn, usually written by people who had to learn things the hard way. It's ridiculous to not take advantage of this and go about re-inventing the wheel.

Check-raising when you flop the set is a bad idea against a preflop raiser. It's better to lead into the raiser in hope of being re-raised. Check-raising is to strong of a move and counterproductive when you flop a set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonOfAkira

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

BTW, everyone keeps talking about poker books. I'll state for the record that I've never read a single poker book in my life...

---

I've never understood this. Why do people treat having not read a poker book as a badge of honor? Many of them are written by players much better than you are. Your opponents are reading them. Does the satisfaction of having a bigger ego outweigh the information you're choosing to ignore. The argument that experience is the best teacher doesn't hold-up because a lot of these books are written by people with tons more experience than the average poker players, or above average for that matter. Poker books can greatly decrease the learning curve when used appropriately.

---

Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound like I was proud of that fact or anything. I was just trying to help everyone see where I come from by stating that I dont have the perspective that some of you have gained from reading poker literature. I just have way too much school work and other things going on to devote time to reading poker books. :(

---

Perhaps take devote some poker time to reading instead of playing. Just a thought.
There are books about every conceivable subject you might want to learn, usually written by people who had to learn things the hard way. It's ridiculous to not take advantage of this and go about re-inventing the wheel.

---

perhaps someone could direct me to a good book on mid/high stakes NL ring? I havent heard of any reccomended book specializing in this area.

Quote:

---

Check-raising when you flop the set is a bad idea against a preflop raiser. It's better to lead into the raiser in hope of being re-raised. Check-raising is to strong of a move and counterproductive when you flop a set.

---

Totally dont agree if you have already made this play with less. It isnt necessairly about the move, its about what you will make the move with.

Quote:

---

Set hunting is less viable in tourneys then in cash games because the effective stacks are often not large enough to justify playing to hit a set. This lowers the value of low pocket pairs in tourneys.

---

Again dont agree. Get some post flop play. Harrington suggests pps are no good to ep raisers. Well who doesnt raise AQ in ep in an mtt? Fact is that if you start betting low flops and get folds but fold yourself to 3 bets then you know you arent good. You dont need to have a set to play big pots against ace high. Same applies to cash games, where too many people just hit the fold button without a set. Again, playing pots with more marginal but good hands increases stacks in mtts and bb/100 in cash games.

Quote:

---

Mid PP (77-99) were only slight winners for me until I started raising with them from any position when first in, raising out of the blinds, raising from LP with limpers ahead of me and re-raising 2-3X bets ahead of me when on the C/O or button. Generally just being a lot more aggressive with them. Your pair is typically the best hand pre-flop and if you raise enough to isolate a single person you're still good on the flop 2/3 of the time against overs. Even if overs come, your strong pre-flop action allows you to represent hands that can induce better hands to fold.

My problem was that I was playing these hands too much for set value alone. They're strong enough though to play them much more aggressively than I was. I was calling too many 3-6x BB bets looking to set and snap of AA or KK. Well most 3-6xBB raises aren't AA or KK. I was calling off too many bets when I didn't hit my set and wasn't getting paid often enough when I did to make my passive play profitable. I now tend to treat mid-PP like they're the best hand PF, and most of the time they are. Even if they aren't, an aggressive approach allows you to at least make it more convincing that they are.

---

This is closer to the truth. Surely higher buy in games are far more aggressive and tight (or full of better players who dont make so many mistakes) therefore opening with a wider range not only makes us difficult to read but also will get action on out better hands.
Thus, if we only ever 3 bet or lead with good hands we become easy to read.
ABC poker has so many exploitable lines and is so easy to read too eg set hunters/overpairs etc.

Dont really have anything to add here. Just wanted to say this is one of the better discusions I have seen on FTR and made me consider my own play differently.

check raising on an uncoordinated board at the 400 nl levels is a big mistake. even an average player at these stakes will smell set and be able to get off their large hands. it would be better to lead out or just call the flop bet in hopes of inducing a pot committing bet on the turn. a set is usually almost invulnerable so you don't need to make your move on the flop in most cases unless the opponent allows it.

oh and don't worry about running into larger sets. this almost never happens. the odd of it are about 1% when you have a low set. this means out of 100 times flopping a set you will run into a larger set once. big deal. the other 99 times you will be making good cash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

oh and don't worry about running into larger sets. this almost never happens. the odd of it are about 1% when you have a low set. this means out of 100 times flopping a set you will run into a larger set once. big deal. the other 99 times you will be making good cash.

---

I like the thought, but the math is wrong. Set-over-set when all the money goes in is much higher than 1% because people don't play and give action with random hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

oh and don't worry about running into larger sets. this almost never happens. the odd of it are about 1% when you have a low set. this means out of 100 times flopping a set you will run into a larger set once. big deal. the other 99 times you will be making good cash.

---

I like the thought, but the math is wrong. Set-over-set when all the money goes in is much higher than 1% because people don't play and give action with random hands.

---

Ya the odds of being in a set under set situation is simply the odds that villain with a pocket pair made a set times the percentage of rank of your set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underminedsk

So I just bought poker tracker and PAH today, and after logging 6000 hands at 400nl full ring on PP, I'm taking a look at my stats and its showing 22-99 as being my biggest losers! I find this to be odd, since I would have figured low pocket pairs to be extremely profitable. My stats show that every pair between 22 and 99 is a loser of between $150 and $400.

My standard lines with PPs right now are...
22-77: limp - call raises from any position, then a 2.5-3x check raise if I flop a set.
88-JJ: limp from ep, open for a standard 5x raise from lp unless it looks like raising is going to push alot of limpers out. c-bet the flop in raised pots, with hitting a set being an added bonus.
Occasionally play 88-JJ for the overpair in small pots.

Any thoughts on this?

I know 6000 hands isnt a very big sample size. Could it just be that 6k hands isnt enough to account for the high variance associated with set camping?

Or maybe implied odds just arent good enough to justify calling 4-5x raises preflop.

I'm concidering some changes to my mid-low pair play. Should I think about opening them for a 5x raise from every position? Party Poker NL400 seems pretty tight.

discuss,
thanks

---

The sample size is small, and I imagine some of it could be sample size. However, take a look at the actual hands. Are you running into set over set? Do your opponents fold alot when you c/r?

Personally, I hate the c/r with a set (depending on the player). It screams 2 pair or better from most opponents. I don't mind it as much if you often c/r draws, but most observant players are going to hit the brakes when someone c/r them.

I like bet-3-bet more (especially, if a king/queen/ace hits the flop). [/i]

Quote:

---

I like the thought, but the math is wrong. Set-over-set when all the money goes in is much higher than 1% because people don't play and give action with random hands.

---

This is a point to keep in mind, plus it also answers the previous question on why Harrington recommends avoiding 22-66 when hunting for sets (in some positions). The probiblity of being beat set-over-set increases with the lower sets. Although this wont happen very often, it will often cost you your entire stack when it does. Plus, what happens when you are set hunting with your 44 and the flop comes 488. Maybe you dont lose your stack to a player with 89, but you don't win the hand on one of those few times you caught your card. Contrast this with playing JJ. You will catch that J as often as you would catch a 4 while holding 44, but you will lose set over set much less often and flop like J88 won't bother you at all.

Quote:

---

Plus, what happens when you are set hunting with your 44 and the flop comes 488. Maybe you dont lose your stack to a player with 89, but you don't win the hand on one of those few times you caught your card.

---

don't skip breakfast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drmcboy

Quote:

---

Plus, what happens when you are set hunting with your 44 and the flop comes 488. Maybe you dont lose your stack to a player with 89, but you don't win the hand on one of those few times you caught your card.

---

don't skip breakfast.

---

rofl

I hope someone has 89 everytime I flop a boat with 488.

Ha Ha

Not exactly what was going for with that example. See what happens when you skip breakfast.

fnord the odds are about 1 percent when you FLOP A SET that someone else has flppped a higher set. Keep in mind that the one percent is when you actually flop a set. the math is not wrong at all. what are you talking about man???
and yes it is true when the money goes in they have a good hand but people put their money in with hands much less than sets. bottom line: don't even worry about a higher set because over the long run you will make much much much more stacking folks who have two pair, over pair, draws, or are bluffing. Take it from me. I win a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

fnord the odds are about 1 percent when you FLOP A SET that someone else has flppped a higher set. Keep in mind that the one percent is when you actually flop a set. the math is not wrong at all. what are you talking about man???
and yes it is true when the money goes in they have a good hand but people put their money in with hands much less than sets. bottom line: don't even worry about a higher set because over the long run you will make much much much more stacking folks who have two pair, over pair, draws, or are bluffing. Take it from me. I win a lot.

---

The odds of you having a pocket pair any given hand are approx 1/20. Therefore, when you have a pocket pair, and there are nine other at the table, the probability of one of them having a pocket pair is 1/20*9= approx 1/2.

Then there is the possibility that you flop a set which is 1/7.5. Saying you flop a set, the odds that one of the other two flop cards gave villain with a pocket pair a set is (this is rough math):

(2/3 chance from flop)(1/7.5 chance of set with three cards)*(1/2 chance villain has a pocket pair)====== about 4.4%

Then times it by the inverse of the rank of your set.

example if you have 22 then the odds are (4.4)*(12/13)= 4.06%

Obviously if you have 66 then the odds will be about 2.2 percent.

there you have it

Also consider multi-way pots where your 22 is up against 88 77 and maybe even JJ.

The 1% number just doesn't jive with observed results against non-donkish players. When all the money goes into the pot, bottom set will lose to a bigger set more often than 1% of the time.

I see it more like KK running into AA (about 1 in 20ish at a full table.)

Should you take your 222 set to the felt? Heck ya! Almost every time.

Nonetheless, the possibility of being against a higher set post flop is something to take into consideration. Not so much post flop, but preflop as well. For instance, if you have 22 and you are seeing a lot of action, but the guy is short stacked, and you are barely getting your odds for calling preflop (considering that you hit a set on the flop) than you might consider folding.

Sorry that that ran on. Here it is simplified.

Many say that you should estimate that you need to realistically make 10Xraised money with a set to make a preflop call worth it. W/ lower PP's you might raise the implied odds you need a bit to account for the rare times that you lose a stack to an overset.

Also, a additional concern would be that you get hit by a backdoor flush or straight w/ your set (which you may lose more often than win because they have higher cards). This will happen at times (I lose a 250 stack today on an all in after the flop w/ a set and he gets 2 hearts), so this is another rare occurence to consider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpe8598

Many say that you should estimate that you need to realistically make 10Xraised money with a set to make a preflop call worth it. W/ lower PP's you might raise the implied odds you need a bit to account for the rare times that you lose a stack to an overset.

---

I did the math on this a while ago. Around 9:1 (10% of the effective stack size) is the breakeven point if you KNOW he has AA/KK, stacks off with it and you can't laydown an under-set. In practice, I like Lukie's pretty hard rule of 5%. Players will find a way to get away from big pairs, control the pot, miss the board (KK when an Ace flops) or really have a whiffed AK (or whatever.)

If you think it's close there is no harm in just folding. Small mistakes in pots that haven't even been built yet won't kill you.

I use to play by the 10% rule and quickly figured out that this is -EV. Stick with the 5% rule. Also, nothing is better for table image and deception than raising with 77-22 in LP. Keep people guessing.

dpe8 agrees with me and knows what he's talking about. and renton, thanks for the showing the math man. OK so it is 2 percent instead of 1 percent. Still, as Dpe8 said, I will take my set of twos to the felt everytime! Two percent chance of running into a higher set worries me less than farting at home when no one else is around. FNORD if you worry about running into higher sets you are obviously way too cautiious of a player. What do you do with two pair then, check call everytime in fear of any higher two pair or EVEN A HIGHERR SET MAYBE???
Taking risks is part of the game buddy. PUSH YOUR EDGES! HAVE SOME BALLS PAL. This is a game of incomplete information. Sure you don't have the nuts when you have a low set but when are you EVER sure you have the best hand in this game? Not very often. Your aren't gonna win too much in this game if you don't learn to push your edges and grow a pair.

by the way what stakes do you play anyway FNORD? and how much do you win? you are always talking down to people like you are a master do you walk the walk or do you just talk the talk??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

Your aren't gonna win too much in this game if you don't learn to push your edges and grow a pair.

---

You know Fnord how well, exactly?

LOL at this thread

Yeah that Fnord guy is pretty weak I bet you could run him over in a bankroll vs bankroll deathmatch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

Your aren't gonna win too much in this game if you don't learn to push your edges and grow a pair.

---

You know Fnord how well, exactly?

---

Gotta admire BigBoy's reading comprehension skills.

I'll give you the Cliffnotes version:
o No I'm not advocating laying down or soft playing sets. What I am saying is that 1% is a horrible misrepresentation of how often you lose set over set and how often a set gets busted by any hand.
o I don't claim to be a NLHE master. I just play reasonably well and beat the game for a little cash at the 100 & 200 level. Discussion of win rates is silly because there is a huge luck and table/game selection component.
o Some people post really stupid shit and I call bullshit on it with impunity. Poker puts a real mindfuck on the human mind.
o Other people have very different views of the game and are very successful. I'm aggressive in figuring out how they tick and where I may be mistaken. Sometimes I'll even take up a view I disagree with just to think things through.
o I enjoy logic problems and talking about poker.
o I've been participating in online forums in one form or another since the 2400 baud modem became widely available. I'm pretty good at being witty and holding my own in a debate reguardless of the merits of what I'm saying.
o In poker (particularly NLHE) if you can't figure out what works, understand the dabates and instead mindlessly follow advice, find another hobby.

you'r betting patterns must be absolutley terrible either that or you'r a tight nut-straddler and because of this no-one will give you'r sets action.

I suggest moving down stakes and getting a better over-all game.

LOL. i think it is you who has the reading comprehension problem kid. I never said you LOSE 1% of the time LOL. I said someone else FLOPS A HIGHER set 1% of the time. Learn to read before trying to act smart homie.

also seems to me like you are ashamed to post your winrate. hmmm interesting for someone who thinks he knows everything about poker.

The 10% rule is used when you are almost certain (as much as you can be) that you can destack if you hit the set. The higher the limits, the lower this % should be. Correct?

I say 50nl and < is 10%, above this and you start moving into 5% because players may be able to sniff set and are less willing to give up their stack.

furthermore, the reason why this 10% is justified at the lower limits, is because you usually fastplay your flopped set to destack. Fish + Over-pair = De-Stack.