But you don't need to win 300! That's the whole point. There is a possibility to win their stack, but you really only need to win roughly 150, which is completely possible because pots grow geometrically.

And if V is going to fold to a flop raise with an overpair, then we should be calling more and just raise every flop and shut down when he continues

Full marks. You could build out a full howtoTroll course out of your last few days of posts.

I laid out the clear simple logic how your Sasquatch logic was fatally flawed and you were unfazed.

And, of course, I did contribute constructively to this discussion early on. As if you gave my comment serious consideration, lol.

I wish we could address one point at a time, but I'll try my best.

1) It was stated above that we would only need 10:1 IO against a nitty tight range (I'm not exactly sure what that is, say TT+/AK). So, for example, if he has a $300 stack and raises to $30, are you saying we have the correct IO to make a setmining call HU (even in position)? If so, you're wrong. See above for reasoning.

2) I'm aware that we don't have to win the whole $300 all the time. Did I say we do? Is it possible to win $150? Well, my kinda-best-case-example shows us winning $125, but ok, certainly not a stretch to believe we can also win $150 once and while too (although against a solid player I highly doubt we'd ever win much more than that). None of this affects my comments clarifying IO which are (a) the fact he has $300 vs $600 vs $1Million makes zero difference and (b) we're not winning $150 on average (in fact, we hardly ever win that). Could we win $85 on average (the amount we need to setmine)? That's a good question. I don't think we can, so I fold; but I'm not going to be too hard on you if you call, cuz it's likely close and not a huge mistake either/way (table/opponent dependent of course).

3) Yes, calling to take away pots UI postflop can definitely be part of the plan (although none of that is what is being addressed regarding purely setmining IO).

GcluelessIOnoobG

I've already conceded to you on a lot of those points how calling can be fine depending on your table (our experiences seem to differ greatly here, but that's fine), and the fact that it likely isn't a big mistake either way.

My wall-of-text explanation of IO is with regards to the other very misguided thoughts by others regarding IO. Care to chime in there, or did your child-in-car-seat GIF cover it?

Gprettymuchdonewiththisdiscussion;Iguessallthenewp okerbooksI'mnotreadinghaveadifferentexplanationofI OG

Considering you're saying you can only hypothetically win 40bb best case scenario, idk what to tell you. That's atypical. You should be able to get more on average when Vs have an overpair

This is why I'm doing my set tabling experiment. My hypothesis is that this is no longer atypical in my games at; in fact, it's the exception. So far 3 sessions / 18 hours in this is proving to be the case but I hope to get in 100 hours just to have a somewhat better idea.

GcluelessNLnoobG

lol me.

The spot is profitable in LLSNL because it is. This is self-evident to any experienced and accomplished player. Standard bread and butter stuff.

At a table of pokerbots, a pokerbot would fold (or 3bet??) because there are too many pokerbots left to act that will 3bet aggressively. We don't have to worry about that in 1-3 land the vast majority of the time. Our call will likely start a train of calls. 5way action going to the flop might be typical in many lineups here.

Why is it profitable? Players don't like to fold. They don't know if we flopped a draw. They don't know if we're being sticky with a worse made hand. They don't know if we're floating. Sometimes when we miss the flop we get to see a free turn card.

Yes, sometimes we'll flop a set and lose. Sometimes we won't get paid off enough. But these considerations are overtaken by the high likelihood we'll win a nice pot when we hit. This is fundamental stuff. The scenarios are too complicated to prove mathematically without building some massive simulation generator, building player profiles, and letting it spin. Good luck with that.

Anyway, carry on with your nittery and belief that any higher winrates than your own are likely myths or rungood.

so a minimum of 4000 hours is needed to prove any point about win rates, but your set mining experiment will be the definitive answer to playing pocket pairs?

let me save you some time. whatever the 'result' of your set mining experiment, you will use it to 'prove' that tighter is righter ...not because it's right, but because that is the lens through which you look at poker and all poker decisions.

unfortunately, you're becoming an increasingly intransigent caricature and while I know this isn't your intention because you post and argue with good manners and form, your intractability is destroying threads

This whole argument again boils down to GG thinking that in his games players are good enough to the point of where we have to calculate implied odds based not on the stack size but on some arbitrary number that they will willingly put in the stack (and not a dollar more!) regardless of the strength of their holding.

There is perhaps a grain of truth there in the sense that such games may theoretically exist. But it would be very atypical of an average LLSNL table.

But if that's the skill level we're talking about, playing in them simply wouldn't be profitable (unless we are in the 0.001% club, aka Iveys and Dwans of Poker)

No, it is just standard GG having it both ways nonsense.

Can't shovel it in with top pair or bluff because with so many Villains seeing the flop someone is bound to have better than top pair too often.

Can't make enough money set-mining because his Villains are too sharp.

lol

I seriously don't know if you have a reading comprehension problem or what, but, as I've said at least a couple of times, *I've conceded all of this to you*. (i.e. yes, at passive good tables your call will most likely result in a few overcalls with hopefully a fish or two and your call here is likely profitable).

None of that has anything to do with any of my responses to SwolyswoND/etc. misguided responses to how setmining IO work (i.e "hey, solid dude has $400 stack, therefore my implied odds are $400, and if he has a $1M stack then my implied odds are even larger").

If you disagree with particular responses, then I'd suggest quoting the ones you disagree with. Otherwise you're harping on stuff we're not even disagreeing on.

GcluelessreadingcomprehensionnoobG

This is a good point I'm aware of. Will definitely be a small sample size where I won't necessarily be able to draw concrete conclusions, but I'm hoping it will at least hint at what's going on.

But, what's the alternative?

Do I just blindly sit in the game and assume it's the same game it is as the one I've played before? Passive, payoffy, lol live 1/3 NL amirite, etc.? I could (and have been) doing that.

At least I'm taking a proactive stance and attempting to figure out how (if) my game is changing and in doing so attempting to figure out the best way to combat those changes.

What, it's better that I simply sit back and say "lol, it's 1/3 NL" and carry on as normal (where normal produced excellent results)?

Gmantries,gets****forit,newsat11:00pmG

Lol, no you are not doing all you can to combat changes in your games at all. Combating those (raising your edge and then winrate in the game) would consider you evolving your game, develope your game, and be willing to listen to advice from countless very skilled crushers in this forum offering you inputs and food for thought. If you have trouble in getting people to pay you off- those players are very very likely to be overfolding against you (correctly so considering your nit and rock of the century image, your range is always nutted and so on)- BUT, you can exploit this back in a myriad of ways if youre willing to go out of your comfort zone.

What you really want though as we all can see, is to continue to nutpeddle and stay in your comfort zone, while you continue barking and arguing about absurd stuff like if setmining with 30-1 direct implied odds is proffitable+++. Its beyond laughable at this point, let me tell you.

GG, you haven't in the slightest disproven what I said about IO. If effective stacks are $1 million, and you're calling a $10 bet PF, you have 100,000:1 IO. Obviously you don't expect to win the whole stack every time you hit, but the chance is there. That's exactly what "implied" means in IO.

Of course that's an extreme example that you concocted to prove a ridiculous point, so let's not get off the rails on it. In the actual scenario, calling $10 with $300 stacks behind, you most certainly have 30:1 IO, and that is absolutely without a doubt sufficient to set mine. No rational player says otherwise. The only reason to not call PF to setmine in the situation posed is the fear of being squeezed behind.

I'm not the one here who's misguided on the subject.

Swoly, you and I are simply not going to see eye to eye to this and are going to have to agree to disagree at this point.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Swoly, your definition of implied odds is wrong. While this is a semantic point and not likely to effect strategy, stack depth do not equal implied odds. They are two different concepts entirely. Implied odds are what the size of the pot will be, not just what it is now. What that will be is heavily dependent on your opponents skill levels (their ability to not pay you off when they hit). However there are some tricks to estimating them, which is probably where the 15:1 setmining rule of thumb comes from. Maybe this is because I got my start in limit hold'em, but implied odds played a very large role there and were in no way tied to stack depth. If I'm OOP on the turn and my opponent bets and I have a flush draw, I need about 4.2:1 direct odds to call. If i'm getting 3.5:1, then I decide if I can squeeze an extra bet or two on the river. If I hit and lead will he fold? If so, I shouldn't chase. Maybe i bet, and he raises, and I can 3-bet, so maybe I can pad my estimate with that scenario when making my close decision. But the point is the definition of implied odds is what you can EXPECT your opponent to put in the pot, not what they have in front of them to put in.

So lets go back to a small pair example. Lets say we're in a full ring game and a solid opponent raises UTG. We know their range is TT-AA/AQ+. This is generally a pretty easy range to play against. If it folds to us in the BB with 22, there is actually some merit to calling here. We know if we hit a set we're likely good, they will often have a hand that will pay us off on at least 2 streets, and even a board like 369 is good for us, and we can probably call a c-bet unimproved or maybe check the hand down and win.

Now put the same opponent on the button. They might be opening 40% of their hands. We likely can't profitably setmine with 22 anymore. We have a lot less confidence calling a C-Bet on a 369 board since they could have hit multiple parts of that board. We can sometimes 3-bet back at them and turn our hand into a semi-bluff, but just straight up setmining at any stack depth is just flat out bad strategy in this spot. If we do flop a set, they are less likely to make a hand like an overpair or TPTK that will pay us off for even one street. We should be much more likely to fold.

These were much more common scenarios in the tougher online games I used to play than 1/2NL now where heads up pots are rare, but these are still good concepts to know.

This is likely my last post on the subject, so a tl;dr recap is:

1. Your definition of implied odds is wrong and it would be helpful if you stopped using the term the way you do.
2. There are many more strategic concepts to setmining than just stack depth/IO, however I will admit in the absence of any other info, 15:1 is at least a decent starting spot, and setmining will usually be profitable in almost all 15:1 stack depth situations encountered in LLSNL due to weak players and multiway pots.

Your troll game has went from near 0 to off the charts in record time. Congratulations.

44, I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.

Please kick around Koss for awhile, imo.

Goneofusdidn'ttakeourpillsthismorning,andIdon'ttak epills,soG

Going to agree with Koss. IOs are what you can expect the pot to grow to on average. They are capped by stack depth, but not defined by it.

Oooh, this should be good! Can't wait to see how G and Koss get kicked around on this one!

GnotholdingmybreathG

I mean, we commonly use IOs as a shortcut for "stack to call ration" in NL, especially for set-mining, but it's not the actual definition. That's why we want more possible to win then our needed IOs, to make the average win pay for all the losses.

15x is a good rule of thumb, but it depends on V and position. IDK of any V I wouldn't be willing to setmine when the max possible is 30x and I'm in position.

Not sure why I'm doing this, but I'll take one more shot from a different perspective.

Swoly, let's say *you* are the UTG raiser. Stacks are $300 effective, you raise to $10 with AA, your opponent (give him any properties you feel like) calls with 22, the pot is $20 with $290 stacks behind (SPR 14.5 cuz I know everyone here is such a big fan of SPR) going to the flop, and the board runs out 982rKr4r.

Approximately how much do *you* lose in this spot?

Ok, now instead of $300 stacks, make them $600 stacks. Approximately how much do you lose now?

And now make those stacks $1M. Same question.

Glastattempt,imoG

I'll play along, even though there's a lot of variables at play like how frequently my opponent raises/floats/etc.

On that flop I'm betting $15 and calling a raise. If he raised flop, I'm c/c turn at just about any sizing (let's say PSB). If he called flop instead, on the turn I'm betting around 2/3 pot ($35), folding to most raises depending on sizing.

So on the river the pot is anywhere from $120 to $310. At this point the paths diverge widely so I can't give you all the specifics. In the V raised flop scenario, I'm certainly checking river and making a call/fold decision based on sizing and reads. In the V flatted flop and called turn scenario, I b/f river. If he flatted flop and raised turn, I'm again c/eval based on sizing. I'd say on average holding AA here, I would lose around $100. But that is the dryest runout ever, and on more normal runouts where there are more draws in V's range, I can (and should) get stacked for $300 fairly often.

So yes, the stack size matters a ton. With $300 stacks, the full amount comes into play fairly easily. At $600 less so, but again, as I mentioned, we don't expect to win the full stack every time we hit. However, it being the maximum allows us to "get away with" winning less the % of the time we don't stack V. You sure as hell would rather him have $600, or $1,000, or $1,500 in front than $300 on a board like Jc Tc 2s 4d 4c when V holds AcKc, for example. It doesn't have to come up often - the payout when it does happen makes up for all the times it doesn't at that stack depth.

The $1 million was and is a ridiculous example, so I'm not going to address it. But the opportunity is still there to win it all on a runout like A22K9 against AA, so you can't just say it doesn't matter.

The point is, on this typical dry runout, you've estimated you lose approximately $100, and most non-idiot poker players would do about the same. So in these cases, having $300 extra or $1M extra in your stack is meaningless.

Now of course sometimes you'll get a slightly different runout against a more difficult opponent and feel you have to stack off for the $300 (in general, I feel this would be a big mistake to get in just 3% of stacks preflop to stackoff, but that's beside the point). Fair enough. But even in these spots, does it then matter if you have another $300 behind or $1M? I mean, that would have to be quite the runout for you to have to get the extra $300 - $1M as a dog unless you really suck at poker, no? I mean, at that point you'd need to be re-raising some of his raises or be facing some like 2xPSBs or something.

And are you going to sometimes have the crushing A22 runout? Yup, it will happen. And in those super rare spots, yeah, having $600 in your stack instead of $300 will make a difference. I would argue having $1200+ isn't going to make much of a difference because at that point there will have had to be so much raising going on that we'd likely slowdown before we reach that point what was a $20 pot. But those spots are incredibly rare, so yeah, we can almost ignore them anyways as they'll add so little to the implied odds that we end up estimating (i.e. 0.1% of the time we'll encounter the A22 case and stack $1200, which EV wise is an extra ~$1, so not even worth taking into consideration).

GcluelessNLnoobG

Don't just look at the extreme examples (your dry runout and the A22 flop). Look at the ones in between like the JT2cc when the opponent holds AKcc. $600 stacks can go in quite easily there, particularly with aggressive players. $1,000 stacks can too.

The overall point that you seem to be missing is that the stack depth is important because even though stacking someone for 200-300bb doesn't happen often, the value you get from those few instances more than makes up for the times that you flop a set and don't win the $85 needed to justify the PF $10 call. It skews the average considerably.

As you note every time you comment on a deepstack thread, "you suck at deepstack." I say that here not as an insult - but as an indicator that you're probably not taking into account how profitable it is to see flops with speculative hands that can make nut or near-nut hands when both players are deep.

Sets fall squarely within that category. They are the most disguised hand in poker, and win much more than making flushes/straights ever do. If you're having trouble winning enough with your tabled sets, then you need to address your postflop play, not preflop. Excluding the squeeze risk that has been discussed already, there is simply no tenable argument not to call a pocket pair for $10 pre at $300 stack depth. None. Zero.