Some set hands from today ... |
|
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:22 am GMT by TheSalche
Hit a buncha sets today ... how'd I do? Game is 25NL 6-max at Stars
Hand #1:
Table 'Keid II' 6-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: buzzard1881 ($66.40 in chips)
Seat 2: loungefly ($31.60 in chips)
Seat 5: bootscut ($34.35 in chips)
Seat 6: Sonny617 ($24.85 in chips)
Sonny617: posts small blind $0.10
buzzard1881: posts big blind $0.25
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Sonny617  
loungefly: folds
bootscut: raises $0.75 to $1
Sonny617: calls $0.90
buzzard1881: calls $0.75
*** FLOP ***   
Sonny617: bets $2.50
buzzard1881: folds
bootscut: raises $2.50 to $5
Sonny617: calls $2.50
*** TURN *** 
Sonny617: checks
bootscut: checks
*** RIVER *** 
Sonny617: bets $7
bootscut: folds
Hand #2
Table 'Seinajoki' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 2: Dagory ($32.50 in chips)
Seat 3: Sonny617 ($25 in chips)
Seat 4: bghuskrfan ($45.80 in chips)
Seat 5: bionic shldr ($14 in chips)
Seat 6: ShyRockGirl ($15.15 in chips)
Dagory: posts small blind $0.10
Sonny617: posts big blind $0.25
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Sonny617  
bghuskrfan: calls $0.25
bionic shldr: folds
ShyRockGirl: folds
Dagory: calls $0.15
Sonny617: checks
*** FLOP ***   
Dagory: checks
Sonny617: bets $0.75
bghuskrfan: calls $0.75
Dagory: calls $0.75
*** TURN *** 
Dagory: bets $1
Sonny617: raises $3 to $4
bghuskrfan: calls $4
Dagory: folds
*** RIVER *** 
Sonny617: bets $7
bghuskrfan: calls $7
Hand #3
Table 'Alrisha II' 6-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: jweste2906 ($105.20 in chips)
Seat 2: foxconnone ($29.20 in chips)
Seat 3: Sonny617 ($24.05 in chips)
Seat 4: elascher ($25.55 in chips)
Seat 5: soldatti ($24.65 in chips)
Seat 6: HOLLA 575 ($18.05 in chips)
elascher: posts small blind $0.10
soldatti: posts big blind $0.25
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Sonny617 
HOLLA 575: calls $0.25
jweste2906: raises $0.75 to $1
foxconnone: folds
Sonny617: calls $1
elascher: folds
soldatti: folds
HOLLA 575: raises $1.25 to $2.25
jweste2906: calls $1.25
Sonny617: calls $1.25
*** FLOP *** 
HOLLA 575: checks
jweste2906: checks
Sonny617: bets $4
HOLLA 575: folds
jweste2906: folds
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:58 am GMT by MrDarling
Hand 1 is weird.
Why are you only calling the min-raise?
Its a draw heavy flop, you don't want to give him a free card. Re-raise again and hope he pushes. Remember we never fold a set 
On the turn again, lead. Sure he might hit his flush, but if you don't lead you have no idea if he actually hit it or if he represent it.
Hand 2 is fine.
I suspect villain to have Q's or TP at best.
If you are beat, then he is a real fish letting you see SD without a raise.
Hand 3 is fine. You can't always get paid when you hit!
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:00 am GMT by MrDarling
BTW, 3 sets in one session?
Wow, better scarifies another chicken to the poker Gods.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:15 am GMT by BeerWench13
I think you played them all very well. I like the check on the turn on the first hand. If you had the flush, this is likely the play you'd make. The bet on the river must've indicated that for your opponent. Either way, I like the way you played all of them.
That second hand was a little scary on the turn. May I ask what he had?
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:13 pm GMT by Ensano
sorry if this is off topic but in hand #1 there was only 1.35 in the pot and you called the raise so you were getting 1.5 to 1 for your call... (not saying anything is wrong with it) My question is what general odds are you looking to get preflop to call with low PP (2s-4s) or for you does it depend more on who raised?
NB.. I know, I know stack size and all that, but for example I won't call with a small PP unless i'm getting at least 2.5-1 to call no matter who. Now is this just a leak and I should be more player specific?
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:15 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Personally, I will call just about any preflop raise at these limits with small pockets unless there is a reraise or the raise is made by an extremely tight opponent. I know it's probably not the best way to play, but I like to hunt the sets and find them very profitable most of the time when they hit.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:28 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Ensano wrote: | | Now is this just a leak |
Nice avatar, btw.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:33 pm GMT by Jauron
$7 river bet = set?
I'm so going to sell that tell. 
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:34 pm GMT by Ensano
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | Ensano wrote: | | Now is this just a leak |
Nice avatar, btw. |
plz explain.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:35 pm GMT by aaronw
| Ensano wrote: | sorry if this is off topic but in hand #1 there was only 1.35 in the pot and you called the raise so you were getting 1.5 to 1 for your call... (not saying anything is wrong with it) My question is what general odds are you looking to get preflop to call with low PP (2s-4s) or for you does it depend more on who raised?
NB.. I know, I know stack size and all that, but for example I won't call with a small PP unless i'm getting at least 2.5-1 to call no matter who. Now is this just a leak and I should be more player specific? |
Usually what you are looking for with small pocket pairs is implied odds. This is the amount of money that you can potentially win if you hit your set. The odds of flopping a set are something like 7.5:1 (I could be wrong with that number, but it is somewhere around there). So I look to have implied odds of about 10:1. Basically, I look at whoever has the least amount of chips that is already in the pot and if they have about 10 times more money than it costs me to call. I think this makes playing small pocket pairs profitable. Hope this helps.
***Note- this is just how I play small pocket pairs. This may not be the best way to do it. It is just how I do it.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:45 pm GMT by aaronw
Hand 1- I like how this is played PF and on the flop. I think I lead turn here. I just want to get more money in the pot. I also like betting the river as well.
Hand 2- Personally, I would raise with the PF to try and take control of the hand and build a bigger pot incase I flop a set. I find it is very hard to get all of my opponents money with a set unless the pot is raised PF because the pot is too small on the flop. I like how you played this. I think you got a lot of value out of this hand. Maybe raise a bit more on the turn. If he is going to call the extra $3 as he did, he may call $5. Just a suggestion. I think I bet a little more on the river too. If he is going to call $7 he is probably going to call $10. I think I just bet larger on the turn and river to get more money in the pot.
Hand 3- I think I would probably fold this PF because there was a raise and a reraise. Even though it was a small reraise I would probably fold. However, you are getting great implied odds for hitting your set and you are in position, so I don't mind a call. Actually, now that I look at the hand again, I think that a call PF can be profitable due to the implied odds you have. You hit your set and everyone folded, that sucks. Not much you can do there though.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:47 pm GMT by TheSalche
Ensano -
I play pocket pairs pretty loosely ... think my VPIP for them is like 90 or so. I sometimes make some calls that aren't the greatest preflop. Hand 1 is an example of this, and to some extent hand 3 is as well. At 25NL you tend to get paid off well usually
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:49 pm GMT by shorn7
| Quote: | Basically, I look at whoever has the least amount of chips that is already in the pot and if they have about 10 times more money than it costs me to call. I think this makes playing small pocket pairs profitable. Hope this helps.
|
Aaron-
Be careful here. The most likely person for you to get the $$ from is the raiser, so you need to pay most attention to them, their stack, and their tendencies. That is not to say that the other players don't matter...they do. But don't assume that you will be able to get to 7.5-1 (which is correct BTW) through everyone at the table after the flop.
What you should focus on is the combined implied odds of what is already in the pot (x) + (the raiser's stack * what % you think you can get from him). This will tell you if you should call or not. If the raiser has less chips then you, then arguably you should fold a lot of pairs because you won't win enough often enough to make up for the call.
Salche-
I think hand's 2 and 3 are fine, but I hate your flop call and turn check on hand 1. That board is pretty draw heavy still and the last thing you want to do is give a naked heart, Ace, or Queen a chance to beat you for free. You still have outs against a made str8 and a flush, so I charge him now to get there. In this spot (unless I have a dead read on villain holding AK or two pair), I re-raise the flop and lead the turn. If he has a decent hand, he may call whcih increases your EV and by leading the turn, you deny him the infinite pot odds that you gave him. Anywya, not trying to sound harsh but that is my opinion.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:55 pm GMT by aaronw
Shorn:
I think it is obvious that you are not going to get 7.5:1 on your money everytime you flop your set, but I think that is a good guideline to follow. Would you agree that you should be looking to get implied odds of ATLEAST 8:1 or so from the PFR to make a call profitable with a small pocket pair?
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:27 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| aaronw wrote: | Shorn:
I think it is obvious that you are not going to get 7.5:1 on your money everytime you flop your set, but I think that is a good guideline to follow. Would you agree that you should be looking to get implied odds of ATLEAST 8:1 or so from the PFR to make a call profitable with a small pocket pair? |
Let's not automatically equate "implied odds" with "how much does villain have behind." This number isn't the same nearly as often as we think or would like.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:30 pm GMT by aaronw
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | aaronw wrote: | Shorn:
I think it is obvious that you are not going to get 7.5:1 on your money everytime you flop your set, but I think that is a good guideline to follow. Would you agree that you should be looking to get implied odds of ATLEAST 8:1 or so from the PFR to make a call profitable with a small pocket pair? |
Let's not automatically equate "implied odds" with "how much does villain have behind." This number isn't the same nearly as often as we think or would like. |
Could you explain that a bit more, please? I am thinking that if villain has $50 behind and I cover, that I could potentially get hit stack. Would that not be implied odds? Or am I misunderstanding the concept?
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:34 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| aaronw wrote: | | Could you explain that a bit more, please? I am thinking that if villain has $50 behind and I cover, that I could potentially get hit stack. Would that not be implied odds? Or am I misunderstanding the concept? |
How often are you going to get his stack? If villain is known to fold to any flop bet when he misses, what are your implied odds then?
How much he has behind and how much you'll actually get are two different things.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:45 pm GMT by aaronw
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | aaronw wrote: | | Could you explain that a bit more, please? I am thinking that if villain has $50 behind and I cover, that I could potentially get hit stack. Would that not be implied odds? Or am I misunderstanding the concept? |
How often are you going to get his stack? If villain is known to fold to any flop bet when he misses, what are your implied odds then?
How much he has behind and how much you'll actually get are two different things. |
I understand that we will net get his stack every time. But are implied odds not what we could POTENTIALLY get? We could potentially get his stack everytime, correct? Even though that is not realistic, is that not what implied odds are for? I may just be misinterpretting implied odds and not understand the concept, but I was always under the impression that that is what it meant.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:04 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| aaronw wrote: | | Even though that is not realistic, |
You summed up what is wrong with your interpretation of implied odds right there.
| aaronw wrote: | | I may just be misinterpretting implied odds and not understand the concept, but I was always under the impression that that is what it meant. |
An example....
You have the A in your hand.
The board shows K 7 2 T .
Your opponent makes a pot-sized bet, he has four times that amount behind.
What are your implied odds?
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:20 pm GMT by aaronw
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | aaronw wrote: | | Even though that is not realistic, |
You summed up what is wrong with your interpretation of implied odds right there.
| aaronw wrote: | | I may just be misinterpretting implied odds and not understand the concept, but I was always under the impression that that is what it meant. |
An example....
You have the A in your hand.
The board shows K 7 2 T.
Your opponent makes a pot-sized bet, he has four times that amount behind.
What are your implied odds? |
I see how that probably won't be a great call because he won't pay you off when that last heart falls. However, I was thinking more along the lines of preflop with a small PP. So you are saying that the implied odds are unrealistic because you will not get that amount of money each time. Do you have a better definition that you follow?
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:26 pm GMT by TheSalche
I think what Sean is pointing out is that the flaw in implied odds assumes when villain has AK, we have 77, that our villain will "always" pair his ace or king when we spike a set. Obviously this doesn't happen so we have to overcompensate implied odds i.e. instead of making sure they have 10x behind, at least 15 - 20 times behind so we make a lot when we get our ideal situation, but hopefully still make at least one more smaller bet when our opponent cbets AK on a dry board when you flopped your set.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:29 pm GMT by aaronw
| TheSalche wrote: | | I think what Sean is pointing out is that the flaw in implied odds assumes when villain has AK, we have 77, that our villain will "always" pair his ace or king when we spike a set. Obviously this doesn't happen so we have to overcompensate implied odds i.e. instead of making sure they have 10x behind, at least 15 - 20 times behind so we make a lot when we get our ideal situation, but hopefully still make at least one more smaller bet when our opponent cbets AK on a dry board when you flopped your set. |
I understand that part. And that makes complete sense to me. However, I have never really heard a definition of implied odds before that took this into account.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:35 pm GMT by TheSalche
As a no limit player you should love and cradle implied odds and pretty much throw pot odds out the window. Opposite for limit.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:27 pm GMT by Ensano
| TheSalche wrote: | Ensano -
I play pocket pairs pretty loosely ... think my VPIP for them is like 90 or so. I sometimes make some calls that aren't the greatest preflop. Hand 1 is an example of this, and to some extent hand 3 is as well. At 25NL you tend to get paid off well usually |
that's the reason I highjacked the post. From your posts I noticed we play the same stakes (except that I don't know Sh*t about stud) on pstars, so I was just looking for a different point of view on playing small PPs.
NB.. one day I'll have to come take your money from you... jk
|
|
