What is the limit for calling raises with pocket pairs preflop with this stack size? If everyone folds to the raise except for us, what is the most we can call without it being a -EV play? Should we be willing to tighten up the limit if we will be playing OOP?

if they raise to 3bb you can call with a pp. You hit about 1 in 8 times. Sometimes you hit but dont get paid, sometimes you hit but lose anyway. To account for this we are looking for stack sizes approximately 15x the bet we have to call. Maybe a bit less if we are in position or we know the villain will get all in often.

Same as in your other thread with the same title.

Don't play shortstacked.

This.

You need approx 15-1 in implied odds to happily call to set mine - generally speaking. With more information (Ie, ranges. Eg, if the reggy btn opens. You maybe getting 50-1 implied odds yet calling with a PP from the SB may not be proffitable), you can work out if a set mine spot needs more implied odds or can be done with slightly less.

Dont play 50bbs

Position doesn't matter as much for flopping sets, since you will not be on a draw and you'll usually have the best hand. 50BB is fine for set mining as long as we're talking about small (3BB) raises.

I'd rather play with 60bb than 50bb just to get 20:1 odds on a standard 3bb raise. But then I'd rather play with 100bb and have done with it.

I feel you'd be better off with a real short stack like 20bb, maybe 30bb or just go full stack if you want to play speculative hands.

Buy in full and win 100bb when you set mine and stack off rather than 50?

This question comes up so much that I decided to model it.

So, here is the scenario. Villain (100bb) raises preflop and Hero calls to set mine. Villain will c-bet 1/2 pot 100% of the time and if Hero misses his set he folds. If Hero hits a set he will shove. Villain will call the shove 50% or 40% of the time (annotated in each model). Likewise there is 2bb and 0bb of dead money in the pot. When Hero flops a set, 3% of the time Villain will flop a set and stack Hero.

Now, the EV of each situation is given in each model however it may be a bit confusing. You can think of EV as the profitability of the situation. The preflop raise is 3bb so if our EV was +3bb that would be like saying we win 100% of the time or we double our money 100% of the time.

If EV is positive then the situation is profitable. If EV is negative then the situation is not profitable. If the EV is really close to 0bb then it is EV nuetral.

Now, what is worth noting is how DRASTICALLY the EV changes as a function of chip stack depth. There is a dramatic difference in profitability between 50bb vs 100bb. It is a HUGE deal and I can not overstate the impact of being at 100bb in this situation vs being at 50bb.

Y-axis is BB and X-axis is number of trials that is, I ran each scenario 10,000 times.

Lastly, its late, if I made any mistakes I'll correct them tomorrow

Thought I'd add an addendum.

When you model, you will never be able to capture all the "What ifs"

When you model, you want to start out with a bare bones logical premise and then build upon the premise. The model should serve as a guide for profitability and to empirically show the impact of key factors.

the take aways of the models are to show just how significant stack sizes are to profitability in the above scenario.

LOL, and dgiharris wins at another thread.

why is there ever 0bb of dead money in the pot?

Thanks for this dgiharris. Nice one!

Heads up + rake = 0bb

Or

If Hero and villain are the blinds and everyone else folded...

Also, again, the purpose or modeling is to show the trends... Don't get bogged down in what ifs but rather LOOK AT THE TRENDS

There are literally infinite possibilities and I can't model them all. Bit what I can do is model trends so you get a feel for the impact of key variables...

EDIT: I think I may have misunderstood you... , you are referring to post flop... When I say "dead money" I mean preflop not post flop

The graphs and model are cool, but IMO the premise is entirely flawed. How many people just "shove" when they hit a set? I highly doubt that's going to happen - unless you're short stacked. In other words, the basic premise will turn those stats opposite - it's more likely to work when short stacked than full stacked. Those huge profits from being deep stacked will turn into small profits because your opponents fold.

You are thinking too literally as far as the model goes. Usually we aren't going to open shove for 100bb if we flop a set. However, we will be able to manipulate the pot and betting such that we do get stacks in by the turn or river for 100bb and from that standpoint, the model is accurate. Basically, you can use the premise of the model as a guide to profitability.

Otherwise, if what you are saying was true, then setmining would not be profitable would it? And we know that setmining is very very profitable

This isn't true. Its all about ranging your villains and selecting the right situations.

If you are putting yourself in a position vs players that you KNOW have strong hands and you KNOW that they are the typical rec-fish that can't fold a big hand to save their lives then absolutely the model applies.

Similarly, the way the model works, I can adjust how often we think villains are stacking off.

For instance, if I input in that our villains will only stack off 25% of the time and we are sitting 100bb deep then it looks like this



Basically, the model is more or less accurate and you just use it as a guide and adjust the parameters accordingly. It requires a little bit of mental flexibility on your part to understand "how" and "when" and "where" the model applies.

If i'm up against a Scared money player then obviously I'm rarely stacking him since he's going to fold too much. So, I would adjust my stack off % against said player to like 10%. If i'm up against a super station that can't fold big hands to save his life, then I can up my stack off % to 80%. If i'm up against a player that has a sizing tell and I know he has AA/KK and is the typical rec fish that will never fold, then I can up my stack off % to like 90%.

Yes, the model can't do it all for you in terms of modeling an exact poker situation. HOwever, it can serve as a guide and you can input in the various parameters for a specific situation that you envision and then use the output accordingly.

The model is helpful, Dgi. Obviously, it is intended only to offer a rough sketch to help shape intuition.

In the 1-3 games I play, the 3BB raise is not standard. 12-15 is more like it after a limp or 2. 12 to open is pretty standard, imo. Also, PFR calls are with a lot of draws. My guess is, conservatively, that PFR will be no worse than a 5 or 6:1 dog when he calls--definitely not a 32:1. And I'm thinking that someone who c-bets 100% of the time calls a shove way less than 50%.

I would love to see more of these models. I suspect that we would discover that 3 or 4 way pots are when set mining starts to become a really good idea with smaller stacks. The good news is that this happens frequently. I am also very curious to see how dead limp money affects this. (to dumb to make models myself --)

dgharris, thanks for the model and I read your disclaimer, but when it comes to the 100bb examples, I don't think that an average villain will c-bet/call shove on the flop in a single-raised pot anywhere close to 40% of the time, or that an average set-miner will shove flop 100% of the time. therefore, the results can be largely skewed

In fact, pots with 100bb effective stacks almost never have such type of a dynamic at all. Short-stack dynamics (c-bet and shove-raise, or a c-bet-shove, on the flop in single-raised pots) do not happen in deep-stacked hands. Simply put, short-stack pots are "two-street poker", deepstack pots are "four-street poker". Therefore, the player's postflop skills in turn- and river-play are very important and have a very large impact on the winrate

that is not to contest that set-mining in deeps-stack games is hugely profitable if played even somewhat decently

EDIT: oops, sorry, I didn't see that this was already brought up, because I didn't read past your big post with all the graphs

The model is extremely precise, but the problem is it isn't very accurate because of the parameters we're feeding it. I think you're underestimating the effect of how actual poker hands play out. This isn't feeding shoves into an ICM calculator.

Exactly, that 10:1 rule or 15:1 rule or whatever you read is mostly based on heads up play. If the whole table shoves, I'm pretty sure you're OK calling with any pair (unless everyone is shoving with pairs bigger than yours.)

I know when I say, "villain c-bets, hero shoves..." that that presents a problem because you are right, hands don't often play out like that for 100bb.

However, the models are still accurate in the sense that it models the END POINT and that is, flopping a set and SOMEHOW getting all the money into the pot.

So, it requires a little mental flexibility on your part to understand how, when, and where the model applies to your particular situation and exactly how you achieve that "somehow".

Hey Johnny,

I will put together a series of models detailing this situation. It takes time to write the code, give me a couple of days.

I have to add a few more parameters, c-bet call % and individual stack off % and a % for when villains outdraw hero...

I've been meaning to put this model together for some time anyways and this is the perfect excuse. I'm playing a series of tournies this weekend throughout the Bay Area so will be pretty busy. But I should have it done and up by Monday...

frosty ice seems to be doing this with some regularity at the moment - against the right kidns of villains. As DGI says, dont get bogged down in the nitty gritty, the theme is that when you get a set, you get all in. could be flop (like frosty) or anywhere down the line but the math holds up. Opponents dont fold *just* because youa re deep stacked and from my database, Ive made a load more money against 100bb+ players than 50bb players when Ive made sets.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying though. IMO, it's not about getting all the money in. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes we can't when deep stacked. We know if we try, we'll blow someone off the hand. The point is, we make more (usually) by not trying to getting it all in. That's what the model doesn't take into account.

It's simple EV. It was stated in NLHTAP. Don't make the bet that you think your opponent will call, make the bet that maximizes your EV.

Sure, sometimes when I'm playing microstakes I can get in a full stack, thought they're far more likely to call my all-in with a short stack (see also the Hammer of Future Bets, also in NLHTAP I believe.)

With most of the 1/2 and 2/5 live I play, I won't be able get it all in, and if I try they will fold. Hardly anyone is going to stack off 100BBs+ with 1 pair, so you have to bet lower.

So again it's not how much you make if you get it all-in, it's how much you lose if you try.

I only wish.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but the more you talk about not being able to stack off 100bb deep in low stakes no limit the more it is apparent to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

100bb stack offs with TPGK , TPTK, and overpairs is extremely common in 1/2nl and 2/5nl

And 200bb stack offs with overpairs is common as well. No one folds AA/KK and villains are super quick to put you on AK because apparently that is the only hand in the universe we ever raise with

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...hands-1242315/

Above is a link to over 300 examples of TYPICAL LLSNL nonsense.

I play five days a week and can attest to seeing this DAILY.

If I were ever in a 1/2nl or 2/5nl game where players didn't routinely stack off for 100bb with TPGK, TPTK, or overpairs, I'd stop playing and find another game.