Calling 3bets for set mining at mid-stakes

On January 17 2008 02:05 vegable wrote: You need to get out of your "TAG bubble" sir, that question is entirely player dependant.

This question was specific to TAG players. Believe it or not, I am aware that other types are out there.

You act as if sets have 99% overall equity vs their range.. it's usually around 90% on average and that affects matters a great deal.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

990 games 0.032 secs 30,937 games/sec

Board: 7c Tc Qd
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 85.657% 85.66% 00.00% 848 0.00 { 7h7s }
Hand 1: 14.343% 14.34% 00.00% 142 0.00 { AcAd }

Not as far ahead as you'd think

so you're both sitting with 100bb

you raise 4x bb with a low pp
villain reraises to 26, 18 more to call and your effective stack is 192.

correct my 10x amount rule but 192/18 is most certainly more than 10.

even if you're saying it's a .49 cent loss on average i'll take that price for the consideration that im getting great image value and will get paid off easier in the future.


i say it's a sick easy call pf.

and to make up for our 15% equity that soah is talking about or whatever, we have a wider 3b calling range making us a much harder player to play against.

On January 17 2008 03:08 CrownRoyal wrote: so you're both sitting with 100bb you raise 4x bb with a low pp villain reraises to 26, 18 more to call and your effective stack is 192. correct my 10x amount rule but 192/18 is most certainly more than 10. even if you're saying it's a .49 cent loss on average i'll take that price for the consideration that im getting great image value and will get paid off easier in the future. i say it's a sick easy call pf.

the Pot would be 27+2+1+8=$38 and effective stacks would be $173 so $19 to potentially win $38+$173 = $211 so we're getting 11.1-1 on the call which means if we know his range is QQ+ AK then it's about the price we're looking for.

sometimes i do.. sometimes i don't...

On January 17 2008 03:09 CrownRoyal wrote: and to make up for our 15% equity that soah is talking about or whatever, we have a wider 3b calling range making us a much harder player to play against.

against a range that narrow and with us being told they're stacking off 100% of the time then that doesn't seem like a great idea, calling with a range beyond pocketpairs.

yeah but who cares what his range is pf, no one is stacking off 100% of the time with qq or kk

I wanna know why this is a fold if it is.

even if it's barely -ev on paper it seems +EV realistically to me.

On January 17 2008 01:56 sniderstyle wrote: sthief09 from deucescracked had a good analysis of this situation If you know your opponent has AA KK QQ and wif you do flop a set, you will get the money in. There are three outcomes You flop a set and win: This will happen 9.8% of the time netting you +209$. EV = 209 *.098 = +20.482$ You flop a set + lose: This will happen 2.2% of the time netting you -193$ EV = -193 *.022 = -4.25$ You don't flop a set: This will happen 88% of the time netting you -19$ EV = -19 * .88 = -16.72$ Total EV: 20.482 - 4.25 - 16.72 = -.49$ So even if you know your opponent is going to stack off in the 3 bet pot, it is still minus EV to call with a small pp to set mine. And in todays games, you hae to have a REAL strong read for that.

that number shouldn't be 19, it should be 18 making this a +EV move even without metagame.

I've always wondered about this... I normally fold but just don't really have any idea about the real math of it... I feel like you can sometimes take the flop away without your set so that also changes things a bit eh?

It's pretty marginal either way

but the point is, this is assuming hes going to stack off 100% of the time you flop a set, which isnt even close to reality. Because of that, it really depends on how the table dynamic is going. And yes, if they guy is tilting and feel that this will drive him over the edge, youd want to call and own him. But vs an opponent with no reads, you can fold pre and be very happy with that decision.

On January 17 2008 03:27 CrownRoyal wrote: even if it's barely -ev on paper it seems +EV realistically to me.

lol? Something -ev on paper is +ev in real life?

This is really -EV, there is no doubt, and so many people would fix leaks by not calling those 3bets pf.

On January 17 2008 03:09 CrownRoyal wrote: and to make up for our 15% equity that soah is talking about or whatever, we have a wider 3b calling range making us a much harder player to play against.

I need an explanation of this

On January 17 2008 09:39 exalted wrote: Show nested quote + On January 17 2008 03:27 CrownRoyal wrote: even if it's barely -ev on paper it seems +EV realistically to me. lol? Something -ev on paper is +ev in real life?

I think he means in meta game and potential tilt factor and so on.

yes but i don't want to be break even with sets, i want to actually win money with them.

On January 17 2008 12:36 ggplz wrote: yes but i don't want to be break even with sets, i want to actually win money with them.

Aren't we greedy?

its almost always -EV to call for set value especialy against a GOOD tag player that although might be tight still 3bets light. So really please everyone keep doing it to me because im making so much money off morons haha +_+

On January 17 2008 01:56 sniderstyle wrote: sthief09 from deucescracked had a good analysis of this situation If you know your opponent has AA KK QQ and wif you do flop a set, you will get the money in. There are three outcomes You flop a set and win: This will happen 9.8% of the time netting you +209$. EV = 209 *.098 = +20.482$ You flop a set + lose: This will happen 2.2% of the time netting you -193$ EV = -193 *.022 = -4.25$ You don't flop a set: This will happen 88% of the time netting you -19$ EV = -19 * .88 = -16.72$ Total EV: 20.482 - 4.25 - 16.72 = -.49$ So even if you know your opponent is going to stack off in the 3 bet pot, it is still minus EV to call with a small pp to set mine. And in todays games, you hae to have a REAL strong read for that.

wtf, did everyone miss this? end of thread.