|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 11:16:05 PM PACIFIC |
 Calling raises with wired pairs, Roy Cooke, 11. Aug 2003 09:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It has been written that, in limit hold'em, you need four callers to profitably call a raise with a pair in which you think you need to flop a set to win. While I think four players is a reasonable base guideline, I think that statement does not go far enough as far as explaining the factors that go into the decision. For instance calling a raise with two terrible aggressive players in-between the raiser and yourself is a much stronger call than calling immediately behind the raise with five good players in the pot (That includes the likelihood of several of them having higher wired pairs) When deciding to call with wired pairs you should consider: 1. The expected volume of the pot (both in number of players and expected dollar amount).....At times this is just an educated guess. 2. The propensity of your opponents to give you action if you flop a set. 3. The likelihood of your opponents to have higher wired pairs 4. Your position in relation to the likely post-flop bettor. This is a judgment call, but the value of a set goes up significantly if players (particularly loose ones) are between the post-flop bettor and yourself. 5. The propensity to be able to outplay your opponents in the pot (A word of warning...Almost everyone I know overestimates their ability on this issue). Think about those factors when considering calling a raise with small wired pairs and loosen or tighten your decision based on those factors.....Make good judgments and your overall profit with wired pairs will skyrocket! Roy Cooke | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Calling raises with wired pairs, Easy E, 11. Aug 2003 12:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 11. Aug 2003 09:50 Roy Cooke wrote: > It has been written that, in limit hold'em, you need four callers to profitably > call a raise with a pair in which you think you need to flop a set to win. > > While I think four players is a reasonable base guideline, I think that > statement does not go far enough as far as explaining the factors that go into > the decision. > > For instance calling a raise with two terrible aggressive players in-between > the raiser and yourself is a much stronger call than calling immediately behind > the raise with five good players in the pot (That includes the likelihood of > several of them having higher wired pairs) > Roy, are some of the assumptions here: a) the two TA's in the middle will provide much extra compensation, during those times when your set comes and it's good ( that most players wouldn't)? Compensation that will cover the times you are paying off extra, because of their raises? b) your strategy is "set or fold" almost exclusively? c) your sets are taking you all the way through the hand? Also, how much does your ability to play well against the initial raiser play into your "tolerance" for including the TAs? And lastly, I assume your point #4 about loose players in front means LPs that will open, rather than check and call? Good stuff in your post. I've upgraded my perception of you to a slightly better than breakeven $0.50/$1 player, living in a townhouse. Maybe you can give 4 Poker some pointers.... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Calling raises with wired pairs, MozMan, 11. Aug 2003 13:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 11. Aug 2003 12:24 Easy E wrote: > Good stuff in your post. I've upgraded my perception of you to a slightly better > than breakeven $0.50/$1 player, living in a townhouse. Maybe you can give 4 Poker > some pointers.... ROFLMAO! God I love your sense of humor! -Moz "Your destiny chooses you." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Calling raises with wired pairs, Roy Cooke, 11. Aug 2003 14:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi Easy E While I know you are only jesting..........The remarks you are making are coming off rather condescending........If I were 4poker I would be offended....And I don't think it right that we offend 4poker.........He seems like a fine man that shows respect for his fellow human beings..... From his posts I would think that 4poker is a successful pro....At least I think he shows good knowledge.....As far as my record goes.......I know few limit hold'em players that would trade me records! I will answer the questions you asked ....My response will be below the question. on 11. Aug 2003 12:24 Easy E wrote: > on 11. Aug 2003 09:50 Roy Cooke wrote: > > It has been written that, in limit hold'em, you need four callers to profitably > > > call a raise with a pair in which you think you need to flop a set to win. > > > > While I think four players is a reasonable base guideline, I think that > > statement does not go far enough as far as explaining the factors that go into > > the decision. > > > > For instance calling a raise with two terrible aggressive players in-between > > the raiser and yourself is a much stronger call than calling immediately behind > > the raise with five good players in the pot (That includes the likelihood of > > several of them having higher wired pairs) > > > > Roy, are some of the assumptions here: > a) the two TA's in the middle will provide much extra compensation, during those > times when your set comes and it's good ( that most players wouldn't)? Compensation > that will cover the times you are paying off extra, because of their raises? Roy Says: Players (particularly with loose ones)in the middle are likely to call the initial bettor and get raised by you if you flop a set....Then they are "potstuck"......Calling bets and raises and likely drawing slim or dead to a set.......This adds value to your situation. > > b) your strategy is "set or fold" almost exclusively? Roy Says: No....although I hate to say these types of things to players who do not have much experience....If I can outplay people in situations I loosen up my play to increase the number of potential "outplaying" situations.......This is something you should not do unless you have good play knowledge and are capable of reading hands well. > > c) your sets are taking you all the way through the hand? Roy Says: Unless I think I am in trouble against a hand that I am not getting the right price from the pot to outdraw! I will fold sets on the river if I think I am beat! > > Also, how much does your ability to play well against the initial raiser play into > your "tolerance" for including the TAs? Roy Says: Quite a bit! > > And lastly, I assume your point #4 about loose players in front means LPs that will > open, rather than check and call? Roy Says: Players that are aggressive are better if you flop a set, although player that check and call have value also as they are likely to give you a free fourth card.......So..both have their good points. > > Good stuff in your post. I've upgraded my perception of you to a slightly better > than breakeven $0.50/$1 player, living in a townhouse. Maybe you can give 4 Poker > some pointers.... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Calling raises with wired pairs, stdioh, 11. Aug 2003 16:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think of more interest is the topic of when to 3-bet with a small pair. Of course there are many things which factor into it such as each player's propensities, but if I'm in late position with a small pair and an early position player raises, I'll very seldom call (only if there are a couple of cold callers and I think I have odds to try to hit a set), but will sometimes 3-bet. If there are no cold callers and I'm on the puck or in the cut-off, I'll three bet to try to fold out the blinds. Small pairs play nicely heads up because if your opponent isn't on a bigger pair then he'll have to hit his hand on the flop or you're holding the best hand. Heads up a hand like AK loses a lot of value simply because if the flop comes with an ace and your opponent leads it is easy to get away from, if the flop hit your opponent and makes your set you can clean a tonne of money off of him and if the flop comes garbagy and he's holding something like JJ or QQ it is easy to bully him around representing a higher pair - and he'll think, "well, he did 3-bet preflop" quite often. Of course when both of the blinds come in, you're back to no set = no bet, but then you aren't in that bad shape as again you've got some odds for a set and the play didn't cost you too much in the way of EV. Even then you're likely to get a free turn card if players decide to check to the raiser, possibly hoping to checkraise. I'd say that if you only play your small pairs when you have odds, but reraise with them in just the right spots you'll do a lot better than if you look for creative places to slip in with them in a short flop and try to bull your way through the hand. Of course Roy is exempt from all of this as he has reached near-imortality, but for us mere mortals, fear of small pairs is healthy and profitable :) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Calling raises with wired pairs, Easy E, 12. Aug 2003 04:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 11. Aug 2003 16:16 stdioh wrote: > I think of more interest is the topic of when to 3-bet with a small pair. Of course > there are many things which factor into it such as each player's propensities, but if > I'm in late position with a small pair and an early position player raises, I'll very > seldom call (only if there are a couple of cold callers and I think I have odds to > try to hit a set), but will sometimes 3-bet. If there are no cold callers and I'm on > the puck or in the cut-off, I'll three bet to try to fold out the blinds. Small pairs > play nicely heads up because if your opponent isn't on a bigger pair then he'll have > to hit his hand on the flop or you're holding the best hand. Heads up a hand like AK > loses a lot of value simply because if the flop comes with an ace and your opponent > leads it is easy to get away from, if the flop hit your opponent and makes your set > you can clean a tonne of money off of him and if the flop comes garbagy and he's > holding something like JJ or QQ it is easy to bully him around representing a higher > pair - and he'll think, "well, he did 3-bet preflop" quite often. > > Of course when both of the blinds come in, you're back to no set = no bet, but then > you aren't in that bad shape as again you've got some odds for a set and the play > didn't cost you too much in the way of EV. Even then you're likely to get a free turn > card if players decide to check to the raiser, possibly hoping to checkraise. > > I'd say that if you only play your small pairs when you have odds, but reraise with > them in just the right spots you'll do a lot better than if you look for creative > places to slip in with them in a short flop and try to bull your way through the > hand. > > Of course Roy is exempt from all of this as he has reached near-imortality, but for > us mere mortals, fear of small pairs is healthy and profitable :) interesting points, stdioh. Not sure if it applies in the situation Roy described originally, since there are TAs in between to account for. If it's a solid raiser/opener up front, who knows the TAs are behind him/her, the flop is going to have to hit the IRO very hard for you to get much play out of your hand (except for your "steal" situation, of course) One thing I've always tried to keep in mind is that small pairs have to be evaluated VERY carefully post-flop. If there is any chance that a solid player has expanded their hands up front, trying to take advantage of the TAs with good draws (top flushes, medium suited connectors, etc), then you may never be sure when your pair is beaten, since almost EVERYTHING is an overcard. It isn't good to push a small pair preflop only to be forced to throw away the winning hand post-flop. Plus, with the TAs in there, there are a whole range of possible hands that you could skewer yourself on without knowing it. "set or fold" can become very expensive and pot-poor if a lot of aggressiveness is going on. As Roy always likes to say, how to play the small pairs "depends" on a lot..... But you have good points about not always playing hands in the same manner, if you are going to play them. For you wisdom, I upgrade you from 0.01/0.02 to..... nah, never mind, I've already got Roy AND Mike on my case... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Calling raises with wired pairs, stdioh, 12. Aug 2003 10:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| heheh...agreed. I didn't go into too many specifics, but the cases where I'll 3-bet a small pair are few and far between. I might do it once every 50 hours of play or so. Of course when things work out just right, there might be $50 of profit for me on one of those moves. At the right time, I find that a 3-bet with a small pair can be really profitable. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|