Micro Stakes Online NL Poker Forums

I did the same. My sample size is smaller but I am losing over the sample. However, the All in EV is actually positive, if that makes a difference.

I did the same. My sample size is smaller but I am losing over the sample. However, the All in EV is actually positive, if that makes a difference.

Of course AIEV matters. if you are getting it in vs FDs and overpairs who suck out then you have to use EV adjusted to get a true idea. There is also going to be a significant difference in the long term profitability based on your play postflop. This will include how well you max value by knowing your opponents tendencies and either slowplay multiple streets or CR the flop. in addition, your profit will also depend on how well you recognize textures and spots to win the pot when you don't flop a set. This is why preflop filters are not always going to paint the whole picture since (fortunately) there is some skill that comes into it.

as far as preflop, i think people overestimate the ev of calling.

i'd be curious for people to filter HEM for their expectation calling out of the blinds in this spot with various stack depths. given our limited ability to manage the pot size OOP, i think it is quite easy to overestimate our EV here. in addition, we will get oversetted with hands like this and we will get stacked for a lot of money.

consider what happens when you call - you need to get back postflop what you put in calling preflop. it's very easy to have a distorted idea of the profitability. many times you fold the flop and lose a small amount, sometimes you c/r and win the pot and rarely you stack someone. there are of course other scenarios, but this will describe quite a bit of your postflop play w/55 here.

in addition, should you choose an adventurous bluff, it will be a very low equity one, which is usually a poor idea against decent or better opponents.

I agree with this in general - but in this particular spot I think it's a pretty profitable call (unless like shuttle says we are going to fold a set). Your filter is a good one, but it's going to show all scenarios with small pocket pairs in the blinds. Not just situations like this where we are up against one loose passive opponent and likely two.

People need to take into account image considerations too on a call like this over large samples vs decent opponents... if you're a tight conservative player you can't expect to win that much if you start getting super aggressive post flop. If I have been playing a lot of hands at a table then I think it would be more +ev for me to set mine because people will perceive me to be a maniac or just playing what ever looks good when in actual fact I might have just gotten a good rush of hands for 100 hands.

It this spot while we're deep calling>3betting in my opinion, because I think you'll get called too often. If it was 100BB it's close - if there wasn't a limper I'd 3bet probably 99% of the time, with a limper calling and 3betting seem pretty equal to me.

On the flop you can't call - shoving is the only option here; his hand very much looks like a draw (he'd probably reraise 77 which is hard to make). If he has 64 than so be it, you're not drawing dead + he might play like this for value with a looooot of hands you beat.

And 4 $ is way too small of a reraise in this situation.

Regards

And 4 $ is way too small of a reraise in this situation.

I suppose it is a bit small. What would you recommend? Somewhere around $5 to make it a pot sized raise?

I think you can comfortably make it 8-9 $.

No it's not an easy call preflop if you are considering herofolding when you do actually hit a set.

I would argue that is is still an easy call pre even if we are going to make a hero fold in this spot since what we are dealing with is such a low probability event and will have very little impact on our long term expectation for the hand. I mean how often are we going to be in a spot where we flop middle set and the pfr gets donked into, then calls, then backraises over our field trap CR when a straight is on the board. Maybe once every 500k hands? In addition, I think although the board texture is important, the action is more important when deciding to make some monster lay down. I don't think this is the time but I do think it is close.

Calling with pairs oop is okay as long as you aren't horrible post flop. I'm a pretty average post flop player, and I manage to do okay.

Filtered for call any PF raise in the SB and BB with 22-66

Merge:
http://vvcap.net/db/L1FVMKXT6Vinpimfq1n1.png

Stars:
http://vvcap.net/db/2WQkIs3yrLyV4hrs2vME.png

can someone explain why folding PPs preflop multiway regardless of position is a bad idea?

EDIT: specifically in single raised pots

if your sample is large enough to be relevant, i.e. you think the result is reasonably close to long term reality, if your winrate for flat x hand in the bb is better than -100bb/100, then calling is better than folding (remember, folding means -100bb in the bb and -50 in the sb per 100 hands). so if you are losing at 20bb/100 by flatting 22-55 in the bb vs a co raise then it's def good to flat there.

if your sample is large enough to be relevant, i.e. you think the result is reasonably close to long term reality, if your winrate for flat x hand in the bb is better than -100bb/100, then calling is better than folding (remember, folding means -100bb in the bb and -50 in the sb per 100 hands). so if you are losing at 20bb/100 by flatting 22-55 in the bb vs a co raise then it's def good to flat there.

Well losing 20bb/100 flatting in the BB in this pot would mean you're losing an additional 19bb/100 more than you would if you were folding. I think what you meant is that if you make this part of your range and your range loses 20bb/100 on the BB then it can't be that bad but at the same time perhaps folding here would result in you losing only 18bb/100 on the blinds etc (not that I think this is the case, just saying).

Well losing 20bb/100 flatting in the BB in this pot would mean you're losing an additional 19bb/100 more than you would if you were folding. I think what you meant is that if you make this part of your range and your range loses 20bb/100 on the BB then it can't be that bad but at the same time perhaps folding here would result in you losing only 18bb/100 on the blinds etc (not that I think this is the case, just saying).

This is confusing me and I think you have this wrong. Read over what OMGClay said one more time. If you fold every time you face a raise with PP in the BB, you will filter your stats and see -100bb/100 since every 100 trials you will lose 1bb. If you call with your pairs and your winrate is greater than -100bb/100, then you are doing better than just folding.

This is confusing me and I think you have this wrong. Read over what OMGClay said one more time. If you fold every time you face a raise with PP in the BB, you will filter your stats and see -100bb/100 since every 100 trials you will lose 1bb. If you call with your pairs and your winrate is greater than -100bb/100, then you are doing better than just folding.

Yea I think he meant you're going to lose 100bb every 100 hands you get the small pocket pair and fold but if your call and can win even a small amount even if you're still losing 80bb/100 hands its still a good play. However, I tend to call that profit rather than mitigating a loss since every non blind hand goes towards remedying the loss you get in the blinds. It's semantics though, I get his point.

People need to take into account image considerations too on a call like this over large samples vs decent opponents... if you're a tight conservative player you can't expect to win that much if you start getting super aggressive post flop. If I have been playing a lot of hands at a table then I think it would be more +ev for me to set mine because people will perceive me to be a maniac or just playing what ever looks good when in actual fact I might have just gotten a good rush of hands for 100 hands.

I agree. If you are some nit then it really isn't worth it. If you play aggressively and have shown you aren't afraid to gamble then you can get paid off a lot. Similar considerations come into play for the opponent. If they are likely to fold to action then you probably aren't going to get your worth when you actually do hit a set (though you will probably pick up more dead money, though in that case 3bet/cbetting would probably work better.)

Ideally don't we want a gambler's image up against an aggro opponent? I don't have a large sample size but calling has been much profitable than 3betting here.