Can you lay down a set?

... and should you?

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

Hero ($26.10)
MP2 ($27.20)
MP3 ($32.25)
CO ($60.85)
Button ($24.75)
SB ($41.45)
BB ($22.80)
UTG ($23)
UTG+1 ($40)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with 9, 9.
1 fold, UTG+1 raises to $1, Hero calls $1, MP2 calls $1, MP3 raises to $2, 4 folds, UTG+1 calls $1, Hero calls $1, MP2 calls $1.

Flop: ($8.35) 9, A, Q (4 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $8, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, UTG+1 raises to $38

Originally Posted by LeFou

... and should you?

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

Hero ($26.10)
MP2 ($27.20)
MP3 ($32.25)
CO ($60.85)
Button ($24.75)
SB ($41.45)
BB ($22.80)
UTG ($23)
UTG+1 ($40)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with 9, 9.
1 fold, UTG+1 raises to $1, Hero calls $1, MP2 calls $1, MP3 raises to $2, 4 folds, UTG+1 calls $1, Hero calls $1, MP2 calls $1.

Flop: ($8.35) 9, A, Q (4 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $8, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, UTG+1 raises to $38

i don't think i could ever fold this. what range do you put him on? what does his preflop line suggest? does it suggest AA/QQ? i don't think it does.

EDIT: i'm sure there are good times to fold bottom set but this is definitely not one of them.

No and no.

To quote Harrington on Hold'Em: "Whenever I hear someone tell me a story about how they laid down a set because they somehow knew that their opponent had a higher set, I think to myself, 'Idiot' "

I think you're good here the majority of the time, so nothing wrong with calling imo.

Actually, if I remember the Harrington correctly he said this is his response when someone determined this "by an elaborate chain of reasoning". Like, e.g. a guy who folds a set headup is an idiot 99% of the time.

But I don't think the reasoning is that elaborate here. 4 ppl in a reraised flop. I'm *counting on one of them to have a AA-QQ -- probably the one making the C/R all in?

I'm not saying I folded ...

I'm with martin, I don't put UTG+1 on AA unless he's horrible, because I'd expect him to 3-bet MP3's min-re-raise. I think his range is AK/AQ/QQ mostly, maybe A9s or KcJc.

Call, he probably has an A with either a 9 or Q as kicker.

this is your ideal scenario. The only hands that beat you are AA and QQ. If you lose your money here, its just one of those 'bad luck' things. folding here risks way too much value. I think its more likely he has AQ than AA or QQ.

Originally Posted by mixchange

I think its more likely he has AQ than AA or QQ.

Now we're getting somewhere. Let agree that AQ is more likely thus:
AQ: 38%
AA: 31%
QQ: 31%

I win 83% of the time in case 1. thus I win .82 X .38 = 31.5%
I win 4.3% of the other two cases, thus: .042 X .62 = 2.6%
Total 34.1%

I think it's a pretty borderline case, but since I only have $16, and there's $32 in the pot now, I called. If I had the full $38 what do you think?

Another thought: I don't think this is a bluff 10% of the time, or even 5% of the time, so I didn't account for bluffs.

Originally Posted by LeFou

Now we're getting somewhere. Let agree that AQ is more likely thus:
AQ: 38%
AA: 31%
QQ: 31%

There are 9 ways for him to hold AQ, and 12 ways to hold AA or QQ, so the correct percentages should be:

AQ: 43%
AA or QQ: 57%

And you also have to consider the likelihood that he plays a big pair that way preflop (and a set on the flop) versus AQ and two pair. That's a pretty poorly played AA or QQ, IMO, so I would shade the percentages a bit further in favor of AQ, maybe call it 55% AQ/45 or 50/50.

There's also the possibility of KcJc, KcTc, QcTc that might play the hand this way.

Easy call, IMO.

I'd say something like:

AQ: 40%
QQ: 25%
AK: 20%
AA: 10%
A9/other: 5%

So many more ways to make AQ/AK, and I think a lot of opponents would play either one this way.

Any read on this guy?

If he's even a touch loose then call.

If he's very tight/rock solid its super tough but maybe fold... although I'm still not sure I could!

If you have no read then you have to call really. There are way more loose players at that level than rocks from what I have seen.

Originally Posted by Scrimmage

To quote Harrington on Hold'Em: "Whenever I hear someone tell me a story about how they laid down a set because they somehow knew that their opponent had a higher set, I think to myself, 'Idiot' "

I think you're good here the majority of the time, so nothing wrong with calling imo.

I remember this quote well. I agree that calling is the right decision here. Even if there is a 60% chance that you are beat then calling is still the right move because of the pot odds.

Groovy, guys. I called but wouldn't say it was "easy". Guy showed AQ sho nuff. MSGP ftw.

Originally Posted by koolmoe

There are 9 ways for him to hold AQ, and 12 ways to hold AA or QQ, so the correct percentages should be:

AQ: 43%
AA or QQ: 57%

Your logic is wrong here. You're describing a situation where a deck contains only 4 aces and 4 queens & you give villain two cards.

Zook has the right idea for estimating the breakdown. It's based on the action, not card likelihood. Like in the second half of yr post. This is what makes EV calculation so fuzzy in NL.

This hand is easy - not because you should never fold a set, but UTG+1 really almost never has QQ or AA here - MP3 might, but he already folded.

UTG+1 4x PFR and gets min reraised with callers in between, he is 4 betting here with AA. I think A9 is more likely than AA. QQ is somewhat more likely.

Originally Posted by LeFou

Originally Posted by koolmoe

There are 9 ways for him to hold AQ, and 12 ways to hold AA or QQ, so the correct percentages should be:

AQ: 43%
AA or QQ: 57%

Your logic is wrong here. You're describing a situation where a deck contains only 4 aces and 4 queens & you give villain two cards.

Zook has the right idea for estimating the breakdown. It's based on the action, not card likelihood. Like in the second half of yr post. This is what makes EV calculation so fuzzy in NL.

My "logic" is not wrong. I was simply estimating the unconditional probability before revising my estimate based on the action. If you are familiar with Bayesian estimation, you might understand the process I was using. BTW, I limited his universe to AA, QQ, and AQ simply because you did as well.

Starting from those unconditional probabilities, I can't figure out how you got 38% and 62% because Villain did not play that hand like AA or QQ.

Sorry, man, I think I understand the process now. Just seems weird to start with the raw probability like that. I generally go the other way mentally..

So my numbers came from:
Three hands fit these actions, thus opp will show each 1/3 the time. I cut AA & QQ a bit and add the difference to AQ.

Upon further reflection I should've cut AA & QQ to 20% each, making it 60/20/20 and an "easy" call.

I just see oversets under the bed sometimes.

Originally Posted by LeFou

Sorry, man, I think I understand the process now. Just seems weird to start with the raw probability like that. I generally go the other way mentally..

Sorry if I sounded harsh - that wasn't my intention at all.

I think it's important to include hand frequencies in your offline analysis (probably won't be able to do it organically at the table) because it helps to add texture to your opponent's range (think of it as a topographical map instead of a plain road map). Doing this helps to root out the monsters under the bed sometimes.

AK is well within this guy's range.

at these stakes it isnt even a decision. get it all in.

its quite often people will overbet 2 pair, people tend to play sets like AAA and QQQ with smaller bets hoping to entice you.

people will try to defend things like 2p with flush and straight draws out because 2p doesnt hold up much better than top pair, but a lot of people strangely are willing to put all their chips in middle, when its really not an all in and many players can make a lot more money when they stop going all in with 2p.

the big hint here is the pre-flop betting, AA and QQ make it more expensive to go