setmining from blinds - Page 2

when you call with a little PP (22-99) you have to consider how tight his range is and how agressive he is against you postflop. I didnt do the math about this, becouse you need a big sample size and history to determine when it's good to call against some players.
My formula is to fold or 3b 22-66 against Loose openers in the BTN/CO and call most of the utg raisers with 22-99. TT is a raising hand mostly

HOW ABOUT

not calling !!!

it's so much more fun and then you don't have to worry about dumb numbers and percentages, take that fat bitch of a load off your mind, put some lead ear-rings on it and sit it on your opponent

On May 18 2008 22:27 sOah wrote: HOW ABOUT not calling !!! it's so much more fun and then you don't have to worry about dumb numbers and percentages, take that fat bitch of a load off your mind, put some lead ear-rings on it and sit it on your opponent

wat

if calling is profitable then we should call

unless 3betting is more profitable

which is extremely doubtful

On May 18 2008 22:48 [vital]Myth wrote: unless 3betting is more profitable which is extremely doubtful

well obviously we generally want to do what's most profitable in a vacuum but there will be a lot of people who end up playing their hand very face-up because their oop calling-range consists of KQs AJs and 22-88 or w/e

it's going to be opponent dependant and table dependant (i.e. if we have a rampant squeezer behind then we have to figure whether we want to 3-bet of fold as opposed to calling)

I dunno but I would generally say that people don't 'fill in the gaps' enough in their play to make certain moves profitable although on paper they may seem profitable. Also, general metagame implications are pretty hard to calculate (speaking for both sides of this part of the argument, generally opting to 3-bet vs generally opting to call small-medium pocket pairs).

As for trying to "calculate metagame implications", I think with the right approximations, you get close enough to know a few things at least. There's enough room for error that you have that elasticity in your play to adjust when you "feel" (for lack of a better word) when you should deviate.

then again, this is just me saying "w0mg myth EV mathz = nuts" without being too overt. Meh. =p

On May 18 2008 16:38 TalentedTom wrote: as a general rule of thumb you genereally wanna win ~13x your investment if your setmining with PP's - are you playing full ring or 6-max?? cause 99-TT arn't really setmining hands

6max obv.

from myths calculation and some other reactions i would assume then that my best approach to V's raise in utg+1 to button would be to fold 22-88 pf and reraise 99+. if V is utg then call 22-TT (or reraise TT if hes not a total nit?).

once i can open my game to like 25/20 i should prolly incorporate reraising more small PPs from blinds, but until then its -ev.

any additions to this?

I hate calling out of the blinds with low pp's if it turns out to be a headsup pot.

I don't care about the math, I just know that it's not profitable. What the fuck. You're gonna win a full stack maybe 20% of the time. If you do call with them, you'd better have a plan of also calling down a barrel on bad flops and check/raising on A-high flops as a bluff or w/e. And you gotta know the opponent to do that.

You shouldnt be using a rule of thumb here imo, in some situations its profitable to setmine from the blinds, but more often than not I think its a marginal play and will get you into trouble.

Wow, PT3 is good for this kind of thing...



Since this is spread all from 100NL to 400NL it's best just to look at the BB stats. I lose 0.6BB each time, but if I look in the position tab, it shows me a net profit of $300 as the diff without blind, so overall it looks about breakeven, and I almost always set farm small PPs and fuck around on quite a few flops.

Anyone else to post this? Just look in filters, it's easy.

edit: well I contradicted myself by showing my difference without blind as $. It's +0.15BB

On May 18 2008 22:08 [vital]Myth wrote: @ all posts saying 60% is way too high, etc. yes, you are right. but if you only get your stack in the middle 25% of the time when you flop a set, you should call with any 2 and play just like a set every time, and thereby win the pot at least 75% of the time (some suckout equity on top of that) so.. -.-

i dont think losing a whole stack every 1/4 hands can be counteracted by winning 3 times with flop and turn bets
the other guy wont even have better than a mid pair 60% of the time so even if you spew hard the whole time he wont stack off to sets 60% of the time

anyway to the question, im pretty sure its fairly marginal if you call every time regardless of other conditions
I generally fold but i think if you really thought it was the best place to work on your equity you could generate a nice profit if you picked spots against the right players(such as someone playing any 2 as a set)

On May 19 2008 07:11 Shabbzoy wrote: Show nested quote + On May 18 2008 22:08 [vital]Myth wrote: @ all posts saying 60% is way too high, etc. yes, you are right. but if you only get your stack in the middle 25% of the time when you flop a set, you should call with any 2 and play just like a set every time, and thereby win the pot at least 75% of the time (some suckout equity on top of that) so.. -.- i dont think losing a whole stack every 1/4 hands can be counteracted by winning 3 times with flop and turn bets the other guy wont even have better than a mid pair 60% of the time so even if you spew hard the whole time he wont stack off to sets 60% of the time anyway to the question, im pretty sure its fairly marginal if you call every time regardless of other conditions I generally fold but i think if you really thought it was the best place to work on your equity you could generate a nice profit if you picked spots against the right players(such as someone playing any 2 as a set)

I think his post was a little more to make the point that if you can't get your stack in more than 25% of the time you probably aren't playing aggressively enough without a monster, and also to illustrate that its kind of silly to think your opponents are folding whatever they have 75% of the time (but hey, if they are then hes right).

We tend to feel like "they always fold when I have a monster, but never fold when I'm bluffing" because the big losses with bluffs and the times you don't get paid with a monster tend to stick out in your mind. His example essentially helps to dispel those kind of thoughts, and illustrates thats if they really are folding to your monsters a ton then you literally should play all your hands like monsters and expect folds a huge % of the time until you realize they're adapting blah blah etc etc

Against me youre gonna win a full stack with bottom set about... 5% of the time.

setmining from the blinds is so retarded

people are too good for you to do it. they pot control and read hands/board textures well enough so that youre just going to lose money doing it

i two pair mine from the blinds

i never mine for hands, i just mine for weakness

or i just mine for the opportunity to lead with no information

if somebody bets i just raise
if i'm first to act i just bet

win every pot

I dont know why people are calling it setmining?

I tend to either play back at a variety of boards or handread decent enough to show my hand down when its good most of the time..
Like if your plan is to c/f every flop you miss then dont call pre

Generally I lean towards folding vs both good lags and good tags, and lean towards calling vs bad tags (will regularly stack off with an overpair) and reraising vs bad lags (will frequently call and fold to cbet when they miss)

Folding a pair preflop for a normal raise with 100 bb stacks doesn't feel right to me Not saying you have to play set or fold but folding pre seems ugh?