|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2008 8:41:42 PM PACIFIC |
 Sklanksy on pocket pairs, LKP, 10. Dec 2003 00:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Maybe this is another poor play on my part. What do you guys think? I happen to think that pocket pairs are one of those hands that are almost always worth calling and seeing a flop. I know Sklanksy talks about pocket pairs being great hands when it's heads-up or when there are many callers. His reasoning is that the pair will stand up a lot of times heads-up when the flop doesn't pair your opponent with AK or something, and when there are many callers you have pot odds enough to see a flop. Sklansky states that the WORST time to play pocket pairs is when there are 3 or 4 other callers. That way chances are the flop will improve somebody, but you don't have the odds to call to try and get a set. I disagree here. I think the pot odds on flopping a set are incredibly poor, but I think the implied odds would be tremendous. You have about a 1 in 8 chance of flopping a set, which isn't great odds. But if you're playing against aggressive players (especially aggressive tight players), if you DO land your set, I think you can make back well over 8 times that initial call. I would very very rarely pursue a set draw past the flop though. In fact, I would want to see only 3 or 4 callers - that would lessen the chance in my mind of someone getitng that flush or straight, and would definitely lead to poorer pot odds if they want to try to catch a draw. What do you guys think? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklanksy on pocket pairs, Mark Gregorich, 10. Dec 2003 01:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree with Sklansky on this one. With only 3 or 4 players, it's true that you are less likely to get beat by a straight or a flush. However, you will almost certainly need to flop a set to win, and you just aren't receiving a very good price. With lots of players, when you flop a set, someone else will almost certainly flop top pair or a similar holding that they can lose several bets with. Not necessarily so with fewer opponents, though. While it's true that you may have to fade the draws, you generally will win the pot, and it will frequently be quite large. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklanksy on pocket pairs, Keffo, 10. Dec 2003 05:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Your reasoning is sound, but you are ignoring the effects of POSITION. If you limp UTG w 44, there's a big chance (risk really) that someone raises you. Lets say the player to your right raises. Now are forced to pay twice as much as you originally wanted. This screws up you implied odds, especially since after the raise you will get few players in the pot. Also, its a LOT better to flop a set in LP rather than in EP. If you are at a table at which noone EVER raises preflop, go ahead and call with 22 UTG, thats fine. Also, prepare yourseld mentally to be beaten by a higher set... It hurts. Personally, I will fold 55 in EP, but likely call w 33 on the button, if the pot has not been raised. I could go on, but like I said, your reasoning is sound, just don't forget to take your position into account. // Keffo | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklanksy on pocket pairs, Keffo, 10. Dec 2003 05:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "Lets say the player to your right raises" Crystal clear? I meant if you limp and the player to your LEFT raises. Strange, I can a decent poker game, but I can't tell left from rigth ;-) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklanksy on pocket pairs, LKP, 10. Dec 2003 12:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Excellent point. I'm so used to playing these loose passive online games where I'm the only one who ever raises pre-flop. Heh. Position IS key. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklanksy on pocket pairs, mkpoker, 10. Dec 2003 05:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think Sklansky is right here, too--and I think his reasoning merits a little explanation. It's Poker 101 that GENERALLY (of course there are many exceptions): 1) When you're on a longshot draw to a very strong hand (like the nut flush), you want many callers, so you can score a bit pot if you hit; and 2) When you hold a made hand that's good but far from invulnerable (like top pair), you want few callers, in order to minimize your chances of being overtaken. The funny thing about pocket pairs is that they can be either kind of hand. Heads-up, it's quite possible a pocket pair will hold up to remain the best hand. Multi-way, a single underpair won't usually hold up, but if you hit a set it can pay off big. In a multi-way situations, medium PPs "act" like a big drawing hand. So what Sklansky et. al. are saying is that you want either few opponents OR many opponents. The worst scenario is to have 3-4 opponents. With 3-4 players, you get the worst of both worlds--your hand isn't likely to hold up AND if you hit a set, you won't the kind of huge payoff that justified the risk of drawing to your set. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklanksy on pocket pairs, LKP, 10. Dec 2003 12:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I do see Sklansky's reasoning, and I understand your explanation. However, you're drawing similarities between a pocket pair and something like suited connectors. You're labeling them both drawing hands, which they are, but I believe they are still different. The difference lies in what will happen IF you hit your draw. I agree with you on drawing hands like the flush draw. But I'm arguing for the deceptiveness of the pocket pair hitting the set. I guess that is a function of the level you play at, but at online 3/6 (where I frequent), you can expect that people will keep betting and raising away with their top pair and a medium kicker, totally oblivious to the fact they might be beat. When the board suddenly turns up that 3rd suited card, warning bells go off. Most opponents will either fold or turn into calling stations. Also, when you have a flop like 9 10 J Q, warning bells are going to be going off that the straight is out there. The deceptiveness of pocket pairs flopping a set is what gives them their power in my eyes. That can not be compared to a flush draw. Most players won't see it coming until it's too late. Thus, the IMPLIED odds I believe are in your favor. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklanksy on pocket pairs, Flatout_Mainiac, 10. Dec 2003 12:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'd have to agree with mk here. I usually toss 55 and below in EP. The other day I was UTG in a tourney, actually could have been an SNG, and I was looking at pocket sixes. I mucked them. MP raises and a few more cold call so at the time I was glad. The flop makes my mucked set and a couple of paints. Flop gets capped. Turn makes my case 6 and the turn gets capped and i get that sick feeling in my gut. Pot gets take down with queens up. Needless to say, I could have cruised through the rest of that SNG. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklanksy on pocket pairs, LKP, 10. Dec 2003 12:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Again, back to the positional stance mentioned by Keffo. I will wholeheartedly agree that positional influence on your decision should be a strong factor. Your decision to muck when you were UTG was a correct one in my opinion. Nevertheless, your post goes on to illustrate my point about implied odds. I know it's unique getting the quad catch on the turn, but you still would've taken a massive pot down had you not gotten it. The deceptiveness drives your implied odds up like mad. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklanksy on pocket pairs, Phish, 11. Dec 2003 07:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 10. Dec 2003 00:24 LKP wrote: > Maybe this is another poor play on my part. What do you guys think? > I happen to think that pocket pairs are one of those hands that are almost > always worth calling and seeing a flop. I know Sklanksy talks about pocket pairs > being great hands when it's heads-up or when there are many callers. His > reasoning is that the pair will stand up a lot of times heads-up when the flop > doesn't pair your opponent with AK or something, and when there are many callers > you have pot odds enough to see a flop. > Sklansky states that the WORST time to play pocket pairs is when there are 3 or > 4 other callers. That way chances are the flop will improve somebody, but you > don't have the odds to call to try and get a set. > I disagree here. > I think the pot odds on flopping a set are incredibly poor, but I think the > implied odds would be tremendous. You have about a 1 in 8 chance of flopping a > set, which isn't great odds. But if you're playing against aggressive players > (especially aggressive tight players), if you DO land your set, I think you can > make back well over 8 times that initial call. I would very very rarely pursue a > set draw past the flop though. > In fact, I would want to see only 3 or 4 callers - that would lessen the chance > in my mind of someone getitng that flush or straight, and would definitely lead > to poorer pot odds if they want to try to catch a draw. > > What do you guys think? I tend to agree with you here. I actually don't really like playing small pairs heads-up, especially against a tough tricky opponent since it's a hand that's very hard to play if you don't hit. Against 2 opponents, those small pairs may fare the worse. Against 3 typical opponents, you can usually get the right implied odds to call a raise cold pre-flop. Perhaps I play too loose pre-flop, but if I'm in the big blind and there's a raise and reraise (2 bets cold to me) and I'm up against only the raiser and reraiser (and there's danger of a cap even), I will usually call the two bets. If I hit, I can usually play it well enough to get the right implied odds (about 4 additional big bets post-flop). Regardless, I don't feel I'm giving up a whole lot even if I don't quite get the right implied odds. I tend not to nitpick the math parts of the game. If it's close enough, it's good enough. Plus there may be opportunities to win without hitting. Or you may not need to hit to win (or you may hit and still lose). | ||
| 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 |
|