Playing Sets OOP

Printable View

12-01-2012, 05:21 PM
TheAlchmizt

Playing Sets OOP

#Game No : 468372164
***** Cassava Hand History for Game 468372164 *****
$0.15/$0.30 Blinds No Limit Holdem - ***
Table Kumasi 6 Max (Real Money)
Seat 6 is the button
Total number of players : 5
Seat 1: twistt ( $30 )
Seat 2: n1tuna ( $49.26 )
Seat 6: Moviestar110 ( $44 )
Seat 7: TheAlchmizt ( $29.70 )
Seat 9: _DOTO_ ( $53.16 )
TheAlchmizt posts small blind [$0.15]
_DOTO_ posts big blind [$0.30]
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to TheAlchmizt [ 6s, 6d ]
twistt folds
n1tuna raises [$0.90]
Moviestar110 folds
TheAlchmizt calls [$0.75]
_DOTO_ folds
** Dealing flop ** [ Ad, 5s, 6h ]
TheAlchmizt checks
n1tuna bets [$0.80]
TheAlchmizt calls [$0.80]
** Dealing turn ** [ 3h ]
TheAlchmizt checks
n1tuna bets [$2.50]
TheAlchmizt raises [$6.60]
n1tuna folds
** Summary **
TheAlchmizt did not show his hand
TheAlchmizt collected [ $8.27 ]

Should i have played this any different to the way i did?

Note* I don't use PokerTracker, and i have only seen about 10 hands.
I'm basically wondering if i should c/r the flop instead of the turn assuming he has an ace, or is it better to get another bet out of him on the turn and be done with it?
12-01-2012, 05:31 PM
Cobra_1878

Stats on villain?
12-01-2012, 05:36 PM
TheAlchmizt

No PT
12-01-2012, 05:56 PM
MadMojoMonkey

No reason to raise OTF or OTT.

You called 0.75 pre-flop, I assume this is to set mine.
You need ( 8*$0.75 - $1.35 = ) $4.65 more of Villain's money in the pot to do this profitably.

Villain gave you ( $0.80 + $2.50 = ) $3.30.
So you need at least ( $4.65 - $3.30 = ) $1.35 more from Villain to profitably set mine.

Villain has not paid you off yet, and a min-raise is more than you need, and likely to scare him off. You have another street of betting to come.

Call turn and bet $1.50 on river. Raise it back for value, obv.
12-01-2012, 06:08 PM
TheAlchmizt

So basically i should've folded preflop and because i didn't, i should've smoothed the turn and donked the river?
12-01-2012, 06:56 PM
Cobra_1878

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

No reason to raise OTF or OTT.

You called 0.75 pre-flop, I assume this is to set mine.
You need ( 8*$0.75 - $1.35 = ) $4.65 more of Villain's money in the pot to do this profitably.

Villain gave you ( $0.80 + $2.50 = ) $3.30.
So you need at least ( $4.65 - $3.30 = ) $1.35 more from Villain to profitably set mine.

Villain has not paid you off yet, and a min-raise is more than you need, and likely to scare him off. You have another street of betting to come.

Call turn and bet $1.50 on river. Raise it back for value, obv.

Wait what? That's confused me. I thought we needed 18-20x what Villain 3bets to be able to set mine call profitably? Or have I got this completely mixed up with something else?

If I raise 0.06 and Villain 3bets 0.18 I thought I needed Villain to have at least $3.24 behind to make the call profitable to set mine???
12-01-2012, 07:18 PM
MadMojoMonkey

You want their stack to be deep enough to pay you ~8x your pre-flop call. EDIT: NOT the amount they 3-bet, but the amount you call, minus the amount the pot is currently when you call.

BUT, you're gonna need them to have a hand strong enough to call you when you hit... so you can't assume they will stack off against you every time you hit your set, and you can't expect the set to win every time, either.

So there are other reasons to want their stack to be deeper than your minimum implied odds dictate.

You know the rule of 2 and 4 for estimating your odds OTF, right? Count your outs, multiply by 2 for the % to hit on the turn... if you're considering an all-in call, then you multiply your outs by 4 for the % to catch on either card.

So... that's based on the fact that you can't see roughly 50 cards. So the odds to hit 1 of 50 is 1/50 = 0.02 = 2%. See? It's just a simple math trick to acknowledge the fact that 1/50 is not too far from 1/47 or 1/46... so just take the one that's easiest to do in your head.

Now...
If you have a PP, then you have 2 outs to catch a set. So take 2 outs over 3 cards (the flop) and you get
2 (outs) x 2 (% per out) x 3 (cards on the draw) = 12%
12% is nearly 7.3:1 against, and damn close to the 7.5:1 against that you actually have.

So this trick of counting your outs to determine your % chance to hit works pre-flop as well. Go ahead and use this trick to estimate your odds going all-in pre-flop w/ AK vs QQ... now vs KK...

Show me the estimate next to the equity calc. DO IT OR I SEND MY TEAM OF HOWLER MONKEYS TO SIT ON YOUR ROOF FOR A MONTH!!!!

TL;DR
You are a 7.5:1 dog to catch a set OTF, when you hold a PP. You need to get that money into the pot and Villain wont necessarily stack off against you every time you do... so getting 20:1 on some of those hands, or at least having the chance to, is going to help make up for the times you catch your set, but don't get paid the right price to set-mine profitably.
12-01-2012, 07:36 PM
Cobra_1878

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You want their stack to be deep enough to pay you ~8x your pre-flop call. EDIT: NOT the amount they 3-bet, but the amount you call, minus the amount the pot is currently when you call.

BUT, you're gonna need them to have a hand strong enough to call you when you hit... so you can't assume they will stack off against you every time you hit your set, and you can't expect the set to win every time, either.

So there are other reasons to want their stack to be deeper than your minimum implied odds dictate.

You know the rule of 2 and 4 for estimating your odds OTF, right? Count your outs, multiply by 2 for the % to hit on the turn... if you're considering an all-in call, then you multiply your outs by 4 for the % to catch on either card.

So... that's based on the fact that you can't see roughly 50 cards. So the odds to hit 1 of 50 is 1/50 = 0.02 = 2%. See? It's just a simple math trick to acknowledge the fact that 1/50 is not too far from 1/47 or 1/46... so just take the one that's easiest to do in your head.

Now...
If you have a PP, then you have 2 outs to catch a set. So take 2 outs over 3 cards (the flop) and you get
2 (outs) x 2 (% per out) x 3 (cards on the draw) = 12%
12% is nearly 7.3:1 against, and damn close to the 7.5:1 against that you actually have.

So this trick of counting your outs to determine your % chance to hit works pre-flop as well. Go ahead and use this trick to estimate your odds going all-in pre-flop w/ AK vs QQ... now vs KK...

Show me the estimate next to the equity calc. DO IT OR I SEND MY TEAM OF HOWLER MONKEYS TO SIT ON YOUR ROOF FOR A MONTH!!!!

TL;DR
You are a 7.5:1 dog to catch a set OTF, when you hold a PP. You need to get that money into the pot and Villain wont necessarily stack off against you every time you do... so getting 20:1 on some of those hands, or at least having the chance to, is going to help make up for the times you catch your set, but don't get paid the right price to set-mine profitably.

Didn't know that but it makes my head hurt, I can't seem to understand it and it doesn't make sense.

If we had AK Vs KK, we have 3 outs right? So 3 ( No. of outs ) x2 ( % ) x5 ( No. of cards we draw ) = 30%? That seems to be right.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

61,642,944 games 0.000 secs 12,328,588,800 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 30.119% 29.70% 00.42% 18305244 261288.00 { AKo }
Hand 1: 69.881% 69.46% 00.42% 42815124 261288.00 { KK }

However, AK Vs QQ, we have 6 outs. So 6 ( No of outs ) x2 ( % ) x 5 ( No. of cards we draw ) = 60%? Which is wrong as stove says 43%?

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

123,285,888 games 0.000 secs 24,657,177,600 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 43.242% 43.03% 00.21% 53051544 260154.00 { AKo }
Hand 1: 56.758% 56.55% 00.21% 69714036 260154.00 { QQ }

Probably a really obvious mistake, and I am tired, but where am I going wrong here?
12-01-2012, 07:36 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra_1878

If I raise 0.06 and Villain 3bets 0.18 I thought I needed Villain to have at least $3.24 behind to make the call profitable to set mine???

If it was $0.01/$0.02 and you were in MP, with Villain in CO, and all other players folded.
First: Your initial raise was for value. It does not count toward the current decision. It is dead money in the pot.
Bet to you: $0.18 - $0.06 = $0.12
To profitably set mine, you need 8*$0.12 = $0.96 total from the pot.

Pot: $0.01 + $0.02 + $0.06 + 0.18 = $0.27

$0.96 - $0.27 = $0.69 you must get from Villain's stack into the pot.

As I mentioned, if Villain has 2 - 3 times the minimum you need, then that's a much better spot to set mine than if Villain can barely pay you off.
12-01-2012, 07:39 PM
Cobra_1878

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

If it was $0.01/$0.02 and you were in MP, with Villain in CO, and all other players folded.
First: Your initial raise was for value. It does not count toward the current decision. It is dead money in the pot.
Bet to you: $0.18 - $0.06 = $0.12
To profitably set mine, you need 8*$0.12 = $0.96 total from the pot.

Pot: $0.01 + $0.02 + $0.06 + 0.18 = $0.27

$0.96 - $0.27 = $0.69 you must get from Villain's stack into the pot.

As I mentioned, if Villain has 2 - 3 times the minimum you need, then that's a much better spot to set mine than if Villain can barely pay you off.

OK, that is making sense now and I have been folding way too many middle PP's to 3bets haha.
12-01-2012, 07:40 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra_1878

However, AK Vs QQ, we have 6 outs. So 6 ( No of outs ) x2 ( % ) x 5 ( No. of cards we draw ) = 60%? Which is wrong as stove says 43%?

No, you've got it exactly right!!
I tricked you into figuring out the limitation of the rule. It only works well when the odds aren't that close to 50% and certainly not when they're over 50%.

This is do to ... blah blah blah... over counting ... drawing multiple outs ... being re-out drawn ... DUCY :lol:
12-01-2012, 07:44 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra_1878

Didn't know that but it makes my head hurt, I can't seem to understand it and it doesn't make sense.

I'm happy to continue answering questions on this topic until it makes sense. :cool:
12-01-2012, 07:51 PM
Cobra_1878

It didn't make sense because of the AK Vs QQ thing. I thought I was going crazy for a moment haha.

Although I can't wrap my head around this either

"12% is nearly 7.3:1 against, and damn close to the 7.5:1 against that you actually have."

How do we convert this into knowing how much we can call profitably relative to our %'s during a hand?
12-01-2012, 08:13 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Take your percent chance and determine the odds that gives you.
E.g. you've got 12% equity to win... so ( 1 - 12% = ) 88% equity to lose.
88/12 = 7.33333 or 7.33:1 against.
So you will profit on a call if the pot is at least 7.3 times the bet.

Bet to you $1.00 ; pot $7.33 ; after 100 hands, you win 12 and lose 88 of those, so
12 * $7.33 + 88 * (-$1) = - $0.04
(rounding errors making it non-zero)

E.g. you've got 40% equity to win... so ( 1 - 40% = ) 60%
60/40 = 1.5 or 1.5:1 against.
So you will profit on a call if the pot is at least 1.5 times the bet.

Bet to you $1.00 ; pot $1.50 ; after 10 hands, you win 4 and lose 6
4 * $1.50 + 6 * (-$1) = $0.00
12-02-2012, 06:22 AM
Cobra_1878

Are you including villains bets when you say "Bet to you $1.00 ; pot $7.33" So the pot is $7.33 including villains bet, or is the pot already $7.33 with villains bet still to be included?
12-02-2012, 11:10 AM
MadMojoMonkey

$7.33 is the amount that is already on the table. It includes Villain's bet, but does not include your call. It is the number on your screen that tells you how much is currently in play, before you raise or call. It is the NET profit you will gain if you call and win.

Whereas the (-$1) is the NET loss if you call and lose.
12-02-2012, 11:13 AM
Cobra_1878

Much appreciated. I understand it much, much better now. Thank you
12-02-2012, 11:19 AM
MadMojoMonkey

:highfive:
12-02-2012, 11:50 AM
supa

Some things to note about the monkeys' math that should be considered by newer posters because it isn't always evident. We will pretty much never flop 12 sets over 100 hands. sometimes we'll flop none and sometimes we'll flop a bunch more. 12% will only be realized over a large sample.

What also isn't being considered and might not be worth considering is when we lose to set over set or flopped flushes or whatever.
12-02-2012, 12:10 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

... and you can't expect the set to win every time, either...

I kind of glazed over it like honey on a Christmas ham, didn't I?

Of course you're right about the 100 hand sample size... and the 10 hand sample size is even more absurd.

The power of the 0EV calc. is that it's the same no matter how many hands you sample.

From the previous example, with 12% equity:
Bet to you $1.00 ; pot $7.33 ; after 1,000,000 hands, you win 120,000 and lose 880,000 of those, so
120,000 * $7.33 + 880,000 * (-$1) = - $400
(that round off of 0.33333 cents per hand is adding up, now!)

What happens if there's just 1 cent more in the pot?
Bet to you $1.00 ; pot $7.34 ; after 1,000,000 hands, you win 120,000 and lose 880,000 of those, so
120,000 * $7.34 + 880,000 * (-$1) = $800
12-02-2012, 01:44 PM
DoubleJ

errmmm...a bunch of things i'm not clear on here

1. wot's all the talk of calling a 3Bet? this isn't a 3Bet pot. or is that just a jolly mathematical excursion?
2. @Monkey - 3:h: OTT puts a bunch of FDs into Villain's range. Don't we want to avoid gifting him a free-card here?
3. Don't we need to factor in an additional buffer for being OOP? i think the EV calc is the same, but extracting value is significantly more difficile, n'est-ce pas?
12-02-2012, 01:49 PM
Icanhastreebet

Quote:

Originally Posted by supa

What also isn't being considered and might not be worth considering is when we lose to set over set or flopped flushes or whatever.

It is worth considering. Something monkey isn't considering which is super important is we'll flop a set and won't get paid a tonne of the time. This is why we want like 15x+ if you are using some quick and easy rule. Of course we'll win some pots etc at showdown but this isn't going to happen very often with weaker v 3b ranges.

Also the times we do get coolered set v set, flush over set, straight over set we are losing our entire stack so it's obviously a pretty large factor and since we are "setmining" we are pretty much never set over setting the other guy in a 3b pot.
12-02-2012, 01:59 PM
DoubleJ

errr...guys - it's not a 3Bet pot:-

$0.15/$0.30 No Limit Holdem
5 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG ($30) 100bb
CO ($49.26) 164bb
BTN ($44) 147bb
Hero (SB) ($29.70) 99bb
BB ($53.16) 177bb

Pre-Flop: ($0.45, 5 players) Hero is SB :6s: :6d:
1 fold, CO raises to $0.90, 1 fold, Hero calls $0.75, 1 fold

Flop: :ad: :5s: :6h: ($2.10, 2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $0.80, Hero calls $0.80

Turn: :3h: ($3.70, 2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $2.50, Hero raises to $6.60, CO folds

Final Pot: $12.80

Hero wins $12.37 (net +$4.07)

CO lost $4.20
12-02-2012, 02:03 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleJ

1. wot's all the talk of calling a 3Bet? this isn't a 3Bet pot. or is that just a jolly mathematical excursion?

Yep, a side track.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleJ

2. @Monkey - 3:h: OTT puts a bunch of FDs into Villain's range. Don't we want to avoid gifting him a free-card here?

Are you suggesting donking the turn for $3.85 into a pot of $3.70? Hero still needs to get $3.85 from Villain to make a profitable set-mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleJ

3. Don't we need to factor in an additional buffer for being OOP? i think the EV calc is the same, but extracting value is significantly more difficile

Ummm... Do you mean like making sure Villain has 2 - 3x the minimum required implied odds in his stack before we call?
Yes, I agree that getting value from a set-mine OOP is a challenge. I do not have any general techniques for dealing with this challenge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleJ

n'est-ce pas?

Entschuldigung, bitte, aber Ich verstehe Sie nicht. Sprechen Sie Englisch?
12-02-2012, 02:29 PM
supa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icanhastreebet

It is worth considering. Something monkey isn't considering which is super important is we'll flop a set and won't get paid a tonne of the time. This is why we want like 15x+ if you are using some quick and easy rule. Of course we'll win some pots etc at showdown but this isn't going to happen very often with weaker v 3b ranges.

Also the times we do get coolered set v set, flush over set, straight over set we are losing our entire stack so it's obviously a pretty large factor and since we are "setmining" we are pretty much never set over setting the other guy in a 3b pot.

The reason I said it might not be worth considering is that even though we're gonna get coolered sometimes we're gonna give coolers just as often over time.

In a vacuum, if we always get it in with our sets and so does every villain, we're all gonna get coolered the same amount of time and it's a wash. The only way this changes is if we can lose less when we're beat.

Iunno, maybe I'm trippin.
12-02-2012, 02:32 PM
DoubleJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Are you suggesting donking the turn for $3.85 into a pot of $3.70? Hero still needs to get $3.85 from Villain to make a profitable set-mine.

Of course not, Old Boy. That'd be frightfully vulgar.

But what I am concerned about is that we won't get that $3.85 if we c/c Turn and Villain goes and outdraws us OTR.

And he does have a bunch of draws in his range. Ja oder Nien?

[NB: Please be aware when responding that I totally suck @ this game]
12-02-2012, 02:43 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by supa

In a vacuum, if we always get it in with our sets and so does every villain, we're all gonna get coolered the same amount of time and it's a wash. The only way this changes is if we can lose less when we're beat.

Iunno, maybe I'm trippin.

This assumes our range is identical to Villain's range. As long as we set-mine a tighter range than Villain, we will cooler them more than we get coolered.

If we never set-mine w/ 66- and Villain always set-mines w/ 55+, then we're less likely to have the under-set, over the long run, right?

Maybe I'm trippin?