Set-mining in 3-bet Pots

I think I've got a bit of a leak with my mid-low pocket pairs. I understand the odds and implied odds I need to set-mine against a standard raise, but I find myself occasionally calling 3-bets with PPs in order to set-mine, but I don't think I'm always getting the right price.

I think it's safe to assume that it's easier to win a whole stack in a 3-bet pot than a standard bet-call pot. So, doesn't this factor in? Here's a hypothetical situation in which we are in the SB position.

$0.10/$0.25 No Limit Hold'em (full ring)
BB ($25.00)
SB ($25.00)
Button ($25.00)

SB dealt (4♣ 4♦)

action folds around to Button
Button Raises to $0.75
SB Calls $0.75
BB Raises to $2.50
Button folds
SB? ...

Given the stack sizes, and no reads on the BB, are we getting a price to call here, with the intention of check-folding any flop if we don't hit our set? How about if the Button also calls? How about if the BB raises to $3?

1. Set mining is harder out of position.

2. Limp/Limp screams pp/set mine to people who are paying attention so you implied odds go down. Of course reads matter here.

3. $6.25 total pot with $22.50 left in the stacks give you a SPR of 3.6/1 which is not good for set mining. For set mining a SPR of 13 is really good (if I remember correctly and am calculating it correctly, I am just getting back into playing regularly again after 2 months off).

4. I have seen it several times in the forums from members I trust..."Don't set mine in 3-bet pots"...

As usual FWIW.

1st set mining OOP sucks. I'd either fold or raise 44 depending on the BTNs steal stats, but I'm rarely flatting unless the BTN just never folds to 3bets AND he's spewy postflop. So I don't like the initial call and you're not getting the odds you need to set mine after the BB raises (I want to get at least 15x my call in implied odds).

As a general rule, unless stacks are deep, you can't profitably set mine in 3bet pots.

That's good stuff WV and Steve. One thing I really haven't been paying enough attention to when set-mining is position.

So, in the same scenario as above, if the Button calls, is it then worth a call for us in the SB? We'd need to call $1.75 to see a flop in an already $5.75 pot.

If you were the button and calling the SB's 3-bet and the BB's call maybe. But I would have to have some indication that I could outplay them in addition to just the set mining. ie. they are very hit or quit players so I can easily bet the flop if checked to me and be 80% sure I can take the pot. Or they are very loose I have pocket 10's so I can shove the flop if it comes low and expect to be ahead if called kind of stuff.

In general no though. The SPR would be even worse at 3/1. You are still out of position and can get in a weird betting situation where people can make good decisions against you. If you donk they can fold, no gain. If you check they can check back and now what on the turn. Or you can check the BB checks, the Button bets. now what? Sticky and situational.

Just don't do it.

Do you think the stacks are big enough?

Is 10:1 really enough for set-mining in a cash game?
Harrington is advising 25:1 and I think Miller 15:1 to make up for the times you hit your set but don't get to play for stacks

I personally use 12/1 to account for when you hit but don't get paid, hit but still lose, and miss completely. I got that from PNL recommend by WVHB though so not my idea.

In this example though no.

The SPR is so low that it makes AA/KK easy to play that is what SPR is for to create favorable situations like this that make the cards almost play themselves. That is why raising AA and KK is the right play. If for example you create an SPR of 13 that creates a sitation where you or the villian can make pot sized bets on the Flop, Turn, and the River. AA or KK will rarely stand up to 3 pot sized bets. By reducing the SPR you can get all in quicker and reduce the implied odds that you give off. That is also why middle pocket pairs and SC play well with middle SPR's near 13, they create stronger hands that can stand more betting and combined with the potential for your villians to make mistakes are favorable for you. OF course SPR targets are just that targets, you can't always hit them and it doesn't always work when you do hit them but this is poker we are talking about. Not basket weaving

I am a micro stakes donkey so please don't take this as gospel or anything. Just what I see and learned, right or wrong.

Well OK.. but to get a SPR of around 13 (in this example) stacks would have to be around $75 which gives implied odds of about 40:1 for the SB and around 30:1 for a non-blind (which is more in line with harrington's 25:1 than the usual 10-12:1)

How are you calculating SPR's? If everyone has the same size stack then they all have the same SPR once all the preflop betting is done. The effective stacks divided by the pot at the flop.

If the total pot at the flop is $6.25 then the effective reaming stacks would have to be $81.25 for 13/1, $7.50 would be $97.50 for 13/1. So now you are seeing why you can't set mine in 3-bet pots unless stacks are really deep. This is still just talking about set mining. When you add in other factors it might become profitable with a lower SPR as I said above.

Unless I am misunderstanding your question.

Is that one for me?

Ninja edit. Yes.

What I'm saying .. and I have only thought of this because of this discussion is that most people use 10 or 12 : 1 for a rule of thumb of setmining.

But Harrington advocates 25:1 in cash games.

Can you think of a situation where you create an SPR of 13 AND get 12:1 implied odds (if you are calling a bet then half of the pot is your call.. so implied odds are going to have to be 26:1 in order to satisfy the SPR criteria)

Another way of saying it is 25:1 implied odds is the same as an SPR of 13 in a HU pot

I haven't read HOC so I am not sure what implied odds formula you are talking about. It sounds like they come out to about the same thing in the end though.

Implied odds = effective stack / Cost of call (half the pot)

SPR = effective stack / the pot

So Implied odds (HU) are roughly twice the SPR.

So how can setmining with implied odds of 12:1 be correct if that gives an SPR of about 6:1

EDIT

Im challenging the idea that 12:1 is correct for set mining (as a rule of thumb) and attempting to replace it with 25:1 LOL

It doesn't I said you want an SPR of ~13 which is right about what Harrington I guess advises with Implied odds of 25. Different way of getting to the same place it sounds like.

I just put an edit on my post.

Yeah it is just another way of getting to the same conclusion.

What I was pointing out was that on the one hand you aim for an SPR of 13 and on the other take 12:1 odds which gives an SPR of about 6

I see I think. I am just mixing up my words. I did say 12/1 odds but I meant that as an SPR. Sorry about that.

No probs... easy mistake to make.. and 12:1 is also the implied odds that many people advocate using for set-mining... so you can see why I thought thats what you were saying.

Looks like we are singing from the same hymn sheet now

I have read both HoC and PNL and I think you're a little confused Steve. PNL says you need to be getting 12:1 to set mine (not an SPR of 13). They talk a lot about an SPR of 13 as a good SPR for bluffing and bad for TPTK because essentailly stacks are too deep to stack TPTK profitably in most situations.

Harrington does advocate looking for at least 25:1 to set mine but HoC is totally focused on high stakes cash games were players might not stack quite as lite as they generally do a lower stakes.

Like I said in my 1st post I'm now looking for about 15:1.

the thing people need to take into account in regards to playing small pairs is that they're often useful beyond set-mining, generally in position

in other words, if you can steal a raised pot when you don't make your set, or can get implied odds on a draw (such as 66 on a 754), you can play them profitably without getting 12:1... this is generally better when you are the one with the initiative (when you are the one that raised), so it's generally better to be raising with small pairs than open limping them. for this reason its also often profitable to 3bet with small pairs, but not profitable to call 3bets with them with the intention of hitting a set and jamming (because you won't get to steal any pots this way)

So in that case what SPR works best for small pairs setmining?

What, Impossible!

I think you are right. I am combining concepts in my head. I will read up on it tonight. which of course translates into I am micro stakes donkey for a reason.

Well TBH Steve im quite enjoying this discussion... Its a lot better than the 'All-in or fold cuz he ain bluffin' type ones that we often see.

Im learning from this one!!

In a HU pot I want an SPR of AT LEAST 7 but really the higher the better if your opponent is willing to put it all in with worse. I don't generally look at it in terms of SPR though as I'm deciding if set mining is good in a particular situation.

So before you could contemplate set-mining a 3-bet pot, stacks would need to be around 200BB

Now I am really thinking about this becuase a ~12:1 call for set mining situation sets up a bad SPR if the target is 13, which I swear is what was recommended for SC and small PP. If the SPR of 13 is recommended (I know that is a big if) then which is more important/advantages to the player, the SPR or the call to stack ratio?

I will look at PNL tonight and see if I can come to a conclussion.

Depending on how big the 3bet is I'd say you could start considering it @ 150bb deep. Also you're more likely to get someones entire deep stack in a 3bet pot so you might even be able to do it a big smaller than that but not much.

you guys should seriously stop playing pairs "for set mining"


yea sets are cool and indestructible, but there's so much value in playing them beyond just trying to make sets and shipping in on flops

I agree but the OP was about set mining in bet pots. Then I went and got my concepts all confused.

Also there is a fine line between playing pp for more than set value and FPS. I flirt with that line a lot unfortunately.

Good advice man, and a good post in general i've learned a ton from this lol, are we only 3betting pp's IP though?? I imagine we can't go around 3betting 66 from the BB after a CO raise b/c our initiative in the pot doesn't count for much then if a high card or 2 comes down on the flop??

It totally depends on the villian and how he responds to 3bets and 3bet pots. If someone folds too much or plays fit or fold on flops you can raise small PP for sure. If someone calls too much and doesnt let go easily I am not raising(although I will raise KQ type hands for value).

this

Thanks guys, this discussion may help me plug some serious leaks in my game. I have been set mining out of position in 3 bet pots too and not considering the implied odds.

Hey Vanquish, good points mate u took the discussion and turned it in it's head looking at the situation from a different perspective. and i also learned what "set mining" means he he the whole idea of raising with small pocket pairs i like for balanced strategy as if u do hit a set u r more likely to stack someone if they hit TopTop than if u limped. i personally like the idea of Harringtons 20 times their bet in the Villans stack to account for the times u miss. caling a 3 bet out of position is def a bigdraw back in any situation but missing with a spp and being first to act postflop would have to be up there with the worst you just dont know where u r at so with relative position it gives u another way to win the pot. good postings people wd.