Perfect set minning hh question....

Unknown

def. glad this happened......ep raiser is very fishy and sizing is def strength....(not the size but my read on 140 or so hands)

Poker Stars, $2.02 + $0.20 NL Hold'em Tournament, 2,500/5,000 Blinds, 500 Ante, 9 Players


SB: 94,400
JodaB. (BB): 84,820
UTG: 55,050
UTG+1: 71,598
UTG+2: 96,420
MP1: 340,355
MP2: 56,960
CO: 312,775
BTN: 58,010

Pre-Flop: (12,000) 5 5 dealt to JodaB. (BB)
UTG folds, UTG+1 raises to 15,000, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls 15,000, MP2 folds, CO calls 15,000, 2 folds, JodaB. calls 10,000 ???

jdAA88

someone answer this plz! lol I rly wanna know what the correct play is here.

Richard~

easy fold pre? nowhere near deep eough. When I play pairs for value other than setvalue I generally fold when two overcards hit on the flop, and the ep bet might already be too tight to play this for value

Edit: misread this a bit. If it's strength you're definitely folding, you only have one way to win postflop

trigs

i'd fold this thinking i'm not deep enough to set mine.

Unknown

Richard~ wrote: »

you only have one way to win postflop

i think youve been over playing your pairs oop ...???:p???

how much are we looking for here...? cause i think were getting it provided we can stack one out of 3 opponents....

Richard~

lol, we have 3 opponents? ^^' first I read this as one opponent, then as 2 and now as 3. Still, our hand is useless, I don't think implied odds justifies calling off this much of our stack pre

My instinct tells me that if we can't shove this stack, we can't call this stack

Unknown

Richard~ wrote: »

lol, we have 3 opponents? ^^' first I read this as one opponent, then as 2 and now as 3. Still, our hand is useless, I don't think implied odds justifies calling off this much of our stack pre

My instinct tells me that if we can't shove this stack, we can't call this stack

lets make sure your reading it right firs then lol

theres 12 bbs in the pot and it costs 2 to call.. utg 3x'd and there are 2 others in the pot.....

we are 16 ish bbs deep

how much implied odds do we want?

compuease

To me this is one of those "special" situations.. Almost have odds to call just on pot odds but implied are not huge since we are not deep. However, given that villians are deeper than hero and we're pretty sure to almost triple up if we hit our set on the flop (1 in 8). I call but check fold if we miss flop.
Did anyone understand that?

philliivey

compuease wrote: »

To me this is one of those "special" situations.. Almost have odds to call just on pot odds but implied are not huge since we are not deep. However, given that villians are deeper than hero and we're pretty sure to almost triple up if we hit our set on the flop (1 in 8). I call but check fold if we miss flop.
Did anyone understand that?

Yup!:)

betrthanphil

fold, fold, fold. When your stack is this size the only pots you should be playing are the ones your in control of, throwing away 10k for a hope and a dream really isnt wise here. If your looking at implied odds, well you shouldnt be with this size stack, if the whole table called you should still fold. Even when you hit your set 1 in 8, your not gonna win the hand every time. Jam 99+ and fold all smaller pairs imo

Unknown

betrthanphil wrote: »

fold, fold, fold. When your stack is this size the only pots you should be playing are the ones your in control of, throwing away 10k for a hope and a dream really isnt wise here. If your looking at implied odds, well you shouldnt be with this size stack, if the whole table called you should still fold. Even when you hit your set 1 in 8, your not gonna win the hand every time. Jam 99+ and fold all smaller pairs imo

how much implied odds do you need though......where is my cut off? cause even if this one is obvious I want to change the parameters and understand it....Jules does too ^-^

Richard~

I mean I probably like a call with this stack if we have direct or very close to direct odds for a set, that's probably 1 or two more callers. Also, what makes sense then is to shove any flop you hit

betrthanphil

I wouldnt be calling with less the 40bb for sure! Id feel good about it with 60 or more bbs though. This isnt math backed up or anything, just my own philosophy. I know what I like to do with my chips, and with less than 20bb the last thing Im gonna do is put 10% of my stack in praying to hit a set vs 3 other opponents, while hoping they dont flop a bigger set or some other fun hand that my set wouldnt be good enough. Just doesnt seem profitable in my opinion

Unknown

betrthanphil wrote: »

....just my own philosophy

omg he said it.!!!!

Vekked

Meh it's really close. I'd probably call and fold if any shorter. We're getting 5.5:1 on our money vs. 3 ratards, and 8:1 implied. If we're setmining vs. player 1 getting 20:1, 13.5:1 is going to be close when we throw in 2 more droolers.

Richard~ wrote: »

If it's strength you're definitely folding, you only have one way to win postflop

errr... that's kind of the point of setmining/determining setmining odds. You want to setmine if they're strong, and you assume that you're only continuing with a set...

Richard~

yes, but I didn't feel like the direct odds made up for the lack of implied odds. Is there any way to calculate the decrease in neccesary implied odds as a function of direct odds?

Vekked

Richard~ wrote: »

yes, but I didn't feel like the direct odds made up for the lack of implied odds. Is there any way to calculate the decrease in neccesary implied odds as a function of direct odds?

Well say we need 20:1 to setmine profitably in a heads up pot generally. This 20:1 usually means "20:1 stack odds"** or "we need to be have 20x the size of the raise in our stack". It wouldn't really matter if this was direct odds or implied odds or whatever because they're in theory all the same. We just need to be able to win 20x what we invest in order to make it profitable (as a loose rule, this isn't always the case).

Now in this hand we have an opener who we perceive to be strong because of a read. We're in the BB closing the action. Say that vs. an unknown we need 20:1 to setmine here, but with our read it make setmining a bit more profitable because he will stack more often, so we only need... 16:1 vs. this guy since he's going to stack more often given his range, and given the buyin he's probably not going to be hero folding much. Now with 1 other person flatting we already get 3BB more added to the pot, and is probably going to put in a couple BB more on average on the flop, now we might only need 14:1 to setmine. Then we throw in the other guy who puts 3BB more in and is going to put in a BB or 2 more on average when we hit a set. Now we might only need 12:1. The odds we need to setmine go down because the amount we win on average goes up, and our potential winnings go up (when 3 people that cover us our in the pot we can theoretically quadruple up).

On top of this direct odds are slightly better than implied odds because they're guaranteed. If our odds of flopping a set are 7.5:1 (but say we don't win all of the time we flop a set so we need more like 8.5:1 to breakeven), and we have 5.5:1 direct odds already, we need them to put in ~6BB more on average post flop to breakeven. Given the pot is already 13.5BB, that's less than <1/2 pot bet on average to make our money back. I'd say we easily get that every time. There might be a suuuper small % of the time that we win the pot with a set without getting any more money put in, but that will be made up by the times that 1 guy bets and gets a call, or a raise, and we make even more back.

**many people say 20:1 implied odds but it's a slight misuse of the term usually I think because just because we have 20:1 stack odds doesn't mean we're stacking them 100% of the time we hit a set, so our implied odds are naturally lower

Unknown

Vekked wrote: »

Well say we need 20:1 to setmine profitably in a heads up pot generally. This 20:1 usually means "20:1 stack odds"** or "we need to be have 20x the size of the raise in our stack". It wouldn't really matter if this was direct odds or implied odds or whatever because they're in theory all the same. We just need to be able to win 20x what we invest in order to make it profitable (as a loose rule, this isn't always the case).

Now in this hand we have an opener who we perceive to be strong because of a read. We're in the BB closing the action. Say that vs. an unknown we need 20:1 to setmine here, but with our read it make setmining a bit more profitable because he will stack more often, so we only need... 16:1 vs. this guy since he's going to stack more often given his range, and given the buyin he's probably not going to be hero folding much. Now with 1 other person flatting we already get 3BB more added to the pot, and is probably going to put in a couple BB more on average on the flop, now we might only need 14:1 to setmine. Then we throw in the other guy who puts 3BB more in and is going to put in a BB or 2 more on average when we hit a set. Now we might only need 12:1. The odds we need to setmine go down because the amount we win on average goes up, and our potential winnings go up (when 3 people that cover us our in the pot we can theoretically quadruple up).

On top of this direct odds are slightly better than implied odds because they're guaranteed. If our odds of flopping a set are 7.5:1 (but say we don't win all of the time we flop a set so we need more like 8.5:1 to breakeven), and we have 5.5:1 direct odds already, we need them to put in ~6BB more on average post flop to breakeven. Given the pot is already 13.5BB, that's less than <1/2 pot bet on average to make our money back. I'd say we easily get that every time. There might be a suuuper small % of the time that we win the pot with a set without getting any more money put in, but that will be made up by the times that 1 guy bets and gets a call, or a raise, and we make even more back.

**many people say 20:1 implied odds but it's a slight misuse of the term usually I think because just because we have 20:1 stack odds doesn't mean we're stacking them 100% of the time we hit a set, so our implied odds are naturally lower

awesome. Also with that 20 to 1 rule it takse into account time we are squeezed but here we are closing the action. ill come back with a dicey example next time it happens again....but def nice to know that im looking at it decently correct.