what does the term mean?? cheers

http://www.pocketfives.com/2E6DD90F-...EB96D8E5D.aspx

cheers!

I see you now know what set-mining is.

Now you have to figure out times when you use your pair for set-mining and when you play it for value. For example, you are in a loose game where people freely call pf raises. You have JJ on the button. There has been an early raise and several callers. Here with JJ, a reraise is unlikely to win the pot so you would call and look to hit a set (set-mining). However, in a different tighter game or late in a tourney, if you had JJ on the button and it was folded to you, you would raise for value, you wouldn't be set-mining. Lete in a tourney with JJ, you might raise all-in for value if you were against a short stack or were a short stack yourself.

So obviously the little pairs like 77-22 are never usually played for value but are used for set-mining. Middle pairs 88-JJ can be used for set-mining or value, depending on the situation. The big pairs QQ-AA are almot exclusively used for value, however sometimes even QQ can be used for set-mining in a very loose game like early in a low buyin rebuy tourney and when stacks are very deep.

While that article does explain what set-mining is, don't trust most of what it says. There are many errors and omissions.

Set mining is primarily a concept for NL, since the implied odds are greater. There are some circumstances in which it is right in limit, e.g., if 5 or more players will see the flop, the implied odds usually let you play a low pair for set value. However, this is not worth a lot in limit. Small pairs are still marginal at best. A set has a lower chance to hold up in limit because people have the odds to chase unlikely draws, and you can't get paid off as much in NL.

Position still matters. Position makes it more likely that you can get paid off. When your opponent has a strong hand, he is more likely to commit his stack before finding out that you have a strong hand. When your opponent has a mediocre hand, he is more likely to put chips in to act strong before seeing that you are interested in the pot, or to believe you are just trying to steal if he shows weakness.

The article overestimates the chance of getting paid off. While some people are willing to fold an overpair, this isn't necessary to deprive you of the implied odds needed to make set mining profitable. You lose a lot of value when someone with QQ folds on a K-high board, or when a player with AK unimproved folds.

You can still lose after you flop a set. You lose about 20% of the time against a higher pair. This comes from the possibility that your opponent flopped a higher set ~8%, plus the possibility of spiking 2 outs twice ~ 8%, plus the possibility of hitting a one card straight or flush ~4%. If you get your stack in as an 80% favorite, you only average a gain of 60% of your stack (80% gain of 1 stack - 20% loss of 1 stack), not 100%. If you are sure you are up against an overpair (usually a bad assumption), then you need 60% of your stack to be 1/8.5 times your preflop call. You would break even if it is about 1/14 of your call.

Set mining can be fun. However, for to to be profitable, you either need to find some value from the times that you miss, or you need a lot more implied odds from the times that you hit than just 10:1.

This is somewhat of a controversy for me. We all understand the 7.5:1 odds of hitting a set and also the times where you won't get paid off when you hit and the times you lose to an overset or a straight or flush when you don't boat up.

However, having said all that, I have really tried to calculate my own profit of hitting a set. And I am specifically trying to nail down the times when I stack someone in a deep stack situation. This sort of profit can take care of many times when you don't get paid off fully and when you get sucked out on by a straight or flush.

I think a lot has to do with recognizing opponents who will go full stack with an overpair. And also, you need to play your set properly to maximize profit. That means slowplaying if you are against an aggro who likely has TPWK or betting the straight or flush draws out of their odds. On top of pricing out those draws, some players will actually pay quite a bit for their draw, like pot sized bets, not even noticing the 2:1 odds. And then there are times when you can get multiple opponents all-in on draws and TP.

Sorry that turned into sort of a rant. I hope I didn't scare anybody.

hey prunch i love your avatar!

Well, I think a lot of winning players understand these ideas individually, but still make -EV calls because they don't understand the combination. People commonly state that you can call 1/10 of the effective stacks for set value, even out of position, but this is wrong by a lot.

There was a famous example from the WSOP main even where a novice raised to 1000 chips with AA, a massive overbet, and Farha called with 33. There was a 3 on a flop, the novice bet 6000 into the pot of 2000, and Farha raised. A lot of people said this call was great, and showed the skill advantage of a pro. I say that's nonsense. There have been conflicting reports on the stack sizes (10,000? 12,000?), but none of the ones I have heard make calling with 33 a good gamble, even if you think your opponent will get all of his chips in with AA when you flop a set. Farha likes more gambles than good gambles.

Note that even after AA was outflopped, it still had 10% equity due to the chances of spiking an ace, or trips on the board, or a straight on the board to tie.

Do you have any results you can share?

re Farha: I have watched this hand: effective stacks were 10000 (though Fraha had 20000). There was NO doubt in my mind that Farha would get all the other guy's chips in if he hit the set: it was obvious this guy had AA, and obvious this guy was an idiot (who the hell plays AA like that with super deep stacks?). Further more, since the AA was so obvious, if an A and a 3 flopped, Farha could get away from his set.

So anyway;
1) He was 100% to get the guy all in if he wanted
2) Therefore he definitely had effective odds
3) Farha could afford to lose 10000 chips, hence making the 10% risk (which is actually closer to 9%) acceptable; He would still almost have average stack if he got stacked
4) He could easily avoid set over set situations (though I admit I am not sure if he would have the discipline to fold, evidenced by an all in pre call with KK against Greenstein's obvious AA, which he even read as AA)
5) profit

First, your estimate shouldn't be 100%, even if you are sure that he had AA instead of the JJ, TT, or AK that other people may have when they overbet preflop. Even if you think it will happen 90% of the time, the full stack is not the average value. Do you think it is clear that the guy would stack off on a monotone flop? How about if not all of the money went in on the flop, and the turn brings a scary card?

Second, suppose Farha always gives up when he flops less than a set. Suppose you also grant him the ability to tell when he has an underset (or boat against quads), so he will escape that 8% chance of losing given that a 3 comes on the flop. Then it's still a bad investment. He flops a clean set or quads about 1 time in 9 (1938 out of 17296 ~ 1/8.92). Since he loses 1000 chips 8 times out of 9, he needs to win 8000 chips on the ninth to break even, which means winning 90% of the time. He only wins about 88% of the time, so he only makes about 7600 chips on average when he hits.

He loses chips on average by calling 10% of his stack for set value even if we grant him the ability to get the stacks in 100% of the time when he flops a set vs. overpair, and the ability to get away from a flopped set over set situation without losing any chips. These are advantages that no one has in cash games. Calling 10% of the effective stack size with a low pair is -EV unless you can extract significant value from the times you miss.

Third, I proved that according to the ICM, you should never take -EChip gambles in heads up pots. This is more clear if you have a skill advantage.

I stand by my statement that this was not close to +EV, and this is a common leak by winning players. Farha likes gambling, and he might make the same play if you convinced him it was -EV. That should not be emulated by those of us who are advantage gamblers.

This morning, I took a seat at an online game [nl 0.05/0.10] - one off the button - first hand [no reads] - everyone has close to a full stack [$10.00].

UTG opens with 10 bets and it folds round to a player in middle position who calls. Now it’s my turn – with a pair of eights – and I fold.

Here comes the flop ; 4 8 9 – aghhhhhhhhhhh – I’d have made a set!

UTG insta-clicks ‘all in’ [AA] and MP take a nano-second to think and call [AKs]. Nothing more on the turn or river so a pair of aces takes the pot - a pot I could have had if I’d stuck around!

OK, so I’m new here, but I’ve been reading my brand new 2+2 book collection and I’ve been lurking on this forum long enough to know that it’s not what happens this one time that counts – it all about expected value.

So my first thought was that with a one in eight chance of hitting a set to stack two other players hanging around would have been +EV. But then I guess that while the 4 8 9 flop was pretty sweet I would have runaway from any picture on the board – so while there’s a 1-8 chance of hitting a set I’m guessing there’s a less that 1 in 20 chance of hitting a medium set with no high cards on the board [I was working on the assumption I was up again two pretty big pairs AA, KK, QQ, JJ].

Is that logic OK, or am I just a wus trying to convince myself that I really, really didn’t screw up!

Actually, I did a survey of my tourney play at Pokerstars and I show a profit for every PP except 77 which is (0.44)BB/hand. 55 is a very slim profit 0.13 bb/hand. This is for all blind levels over 35,000 hands.

For the lowest blind level, I show a loss for JJ and 77 and a very slight loss for 22.

Geez, I might have a problem with 77.

The hard part would be to go through all those hands and figure out which ones I was playing for set value and which ones I was playing for value or steals.

Hey GrumpyB - Just read your post and I have a few comments.

1) You are correct that choosing to play small/medium pocket pairs vs. raises is often an issue of expected value, especially against two players. The chances that you'll be able to play a hand like 33-88 strongly enough against two opponents to win at showdown/before showdown are often too low to play the hand for 1 pair value. As a result, your goal is to 'set mine' and hit it big.

2) You stated in your hand that you were under the assumption that you were up against two pretty big pairs. While in this instance you were right, without reads on these players you really have no way of knowing that. Just because someone opened in EP doesn't mean he has to have AA and just because someone called a big open doesn't mean they have to have KK-JJ. Your range for your opponents hands is far too narrow here. That being said, it both helps and hurts an argument for folding 88.

3) Saying that you would run away from any 'picture' board is WAY too nitty considering you have no reads nor relative hand ranges. Like I said above, you have no idea of knowing what these guys held with only a PFR and a call. Granted an AK8 board may bother you some, standard opening range even for tight players would include AK, AQ, KQs, etc - hands that you CRUSH. Only AFTER significant flop/postflop action could you even consider mucking 888 here.

In his book Dan Harrington says (and I paraphrase): Whenever I hear stories of people throwing away sets because they thought the other guy had a set, I think to myself "Idiot." And this mentality is spot on. Flopping a set is such a monster in NL Hold'em, that even with a scary board you're often stuck to the hand. A QJ8 board is a board MANY hands will play strong (AKs, AQ, QJ, KQ, K10) that if you're folding bottom set for fear of QQ/JJ you're giving up SO much value.

Set over set is part of NL hold em. You'll go broke here once in a while and that's just part of the game. But folding set over set, or not calling pfr's with 'set mining' hands for fear of set over set is a -EV mentality and will cost you value in the long run.

My goal is to win money. Sometimes, that mean set-mining with a low pair. Sometimes, that means folding a pair after a small raise, when I recognize a bad situation.

Winning SSNL players have referred to small pocket pairs as gold. Many of the times people think small pairs are greatly profitable, the pairs are only marginally profitable, and only from the gross mistakes of their opponents. Failing to recognize this leads people to try to set-mine when it is unprofitable, in tougher games where people are less likely to stack off with AK unimproved, or to have AA when they raise, and when the implied odds are just not present.

I agree.


Fear is sometimes irrational, and sometimes a healthy respect for danger. It's healthy to fear playing Phil Ivey for high stakes. It's healthy to fear playing a mediocre hand out of position. It's healthy to fear making a bad gamble.

It's a mistake to undervalue a set, and it is rarely right to fold a set with 100 BB stacks when no flush or straight is possible. There just isn't enough room to find out that you are behind. However, it is also a mistake to overvalue the possibility of flopping a set. The several ways to lose against an overpair add up to about 20%, which means you only expect to gain about 60% of the effective stack (in a heads-up pot), even if you can get all of the money in. The difference between 60% and 100% is huge, and an advantage gambler should recognize it and act accordingly.

Here is a joke I tell my students: "Small pairs are bigger than big pairs, because small pairs can flop sets and stack people." It is worth thinking about what is wrong with it. 33 is worse than TT. How much are you making per hand with TT? Most winning players don't make much from TT, and many lose money with 33, or lose money when calling raises, because they play it for set value too frequently.

Thanks guys for taking the time to write such great answers to my question - and I’ll definitely go back and find that section in Dan Harrington’s book [I’m now working my way through volume 3, the workbook, and my results show I could do with some revision.]

Also good to know that “running away from any 'picture' board is WAY too nitty”. Truth is I’d probably call anyway, even a monochrome AK8 board – I just didn’t want to admit that on here as I thought that would show me up for a maniac. I can't think fast enough so I take the easy option and click quick.

But having said that, my results are much better since I turned my aggression up a couple of notches, and playing my small pocket pairs aggressively last night [after reading this post] really taught me something about bluffing! I’ve been saving bluffing practice until I got a bit more experience – way to scary for a newbie like me. But last night, after I hit a set and everyone folded, I started to open raise all pairs (yes, even 22) just to sweeten the pot for later betting rounds. Then I got tired of missing sets so I’d c-bet anyway (about half the pot, just as HoH recommends I think) and pick it up every time. [I'd typically raise x3 or x4, three limpers follow, flop, c-bet (6 or 8 more bets) – and it’s mine!]

And it worked a treat too until some guy caught on and decided to give me a push – just as my 33 matched a 3 on the board [what irony, three threes!] – and yes, I got all his stack!

OK, I know this is old news to you old pros, and that it depends on how the table plays so I won’t be trying it every day, but for me, to see this stuff really work – magic!