Fold THIS set?????

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Game # 334875091 - Texas Hold'em No Limit EUR 0,50/1,00 - Table "Las Palmas"
Game ended 2006-05-22 02:37:08 GMT+01:00

Players:
Teddy_TTL (EUR 99,90 in seat 1)
Bobby29 (EUR 85,75 in seat 2)
Caines__ (EUR 92,00 in seat 3)
Henitruk5 (EUR 140,30 in seat 4)
b99999s (EUR 186,90 in seat 5)
BlagDahlia (EUR 74,35 in seat 6)
JosVerbeck (EUR 99,00 in seat 7)
Bigboned (EUR 98,50 in seat 8)

Dealer: Teddy_TTL
Small Blind: Bobby29 (0,50)
Big Blind: Caines__ (1,00)

Henitruk5 was dealt: 7d - 7c

Henitruk5 Raise (3,50)
b99999s Fold
BlagDahlia Fold
JosVerbeck Fold
Bigboned Fold
Teddy_TTL Fold
Bobby29 Fold
Caines__ Raise (12,00)
Henitruk5 Call (9,50)

Flop Td - Ac - 7s

Caines__ Bet (17,00)
Henitruk5 Raise (65,00)
Caines__ All-In (62,00)
Henitruk5 uhhh...... a little late to fold now lol

Am I misreading the HH, or is his flop reraise only $14 more? You can't be asking if you should fold for $14 here.

Thx for even taking the time to reply Samsonite

This was kind of a rhetorical question. Obviously in a million years I could never fold.

You can guess the results though (the dreaded and obv AA). In the past 3k hands I have gotten action on 7 flopped sets. I have lost 5 of them on set over set. This was kind of a "tilt" post... I probably shouldn't even have posted. It was just one of those " If I don't at least post this 5th set over set in the past 9 hrs of playing I just might throw my cpu into a blender" moments.

you shouldn't have raised 77 UTG and you shouldn't have called a reraise.

I don't mind the raise w/ 77 at an 8 man table.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

you shouldn't have raised 77 UTG and you shouldn't have called a reraise.

umm...why not? what the hell is wrong with raising 77 UTG? what would you do? fold? limp? folding is fucking retarded, and limping is weak and transparent as hell.

fold to pre-flop 3-bet

Originally Posted by bair

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

you shouldn't have raised 77 UTG and you shouldn't have called a reraise.

umm...why not? what the hell is wrong with raising 77 UTG? what would you do? fold? limp? folding is fucking retarded, and limping is weak and transparent as hell.

limping is weak but usually the best option of the three imo

although you can play it either way, just a matter of style I guess.

against an aware player you will NEVER get paid off on your sets when you limp.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

you shouldn't have raised 77 UTG and you shouldn't have called a reraise.

umm

this is wrong

i don't think i've ever been at a 9-10 handed table where i felt it was incorrect to open-limp a small-medium pair..although i agree it is somewhat weak.

i dont agree with open limping anything, you are pretty much announcing "im going to fold after the flop, and if i dont i have a monster." if someone knows someone else open limps small-medium pairs, you will never make a penny off that person.

Originally Posted by bair

i dont agree with open limping anything, you are pretty much announcing "im going to fold after the flop, and if i dont i have a monster." if someone knows someone else open limps small-medium pairs, you will never make a penny off that person.

good thing we don't really have to worry about this til we move up a few levels in stakes.

well, most people (even some good higher stakes players) will often just call down with their overpair when faced with postflop aggression unless the board is particularly scary for them.

fwiw i know a couple consistent 10/20 winners on stars who, while i know they mix it up, say that they normally openlimp pp's like this. not that they are perfect or anything, but i dont think someone who beats that game is making too many big fundamental mistakes.

i dont actually disagree with most of what you said, i still just think it's a matter of style

There's not a single "right" way to play these hands. Against truly aware players, you should mix your bets up every now and then. That said, I do generally feel it's overly weak/passive to open limp with PP from early or mid position.

Also, you want to increase action w/ these hands. It's much easier to get paid off well if you hit your set with a raised pot than if everyone just limps around.

Finally, as Bair said, it's patently obvious you have a low/mid PP if you limp/call from early position. I've become very aware of this lately and have been able to avoid sets easily b/c of it. Martin's right, though, that there's probably about ten players at the lower levels paying enough attention for this to matter and four of them are posting on this thread.

2 things :

-on B 2 B nl100 I will take down the blinds more than 50% of time with utg raise no matter what my cards so no reason to limp only to see overs pop up and lose to bb's Q2o

-I am calling 9,5o to get into a pot with 17€ in it + Villain's 79€ in the tank. So I'm being asked to pay 9,5 for 96€. Villain's is playing with has cards face-up. Which is why i wanted to cum in my pants when the 7 hit first but vomit when the A hit third. It was QQ-AA obv. Point is I was taking a 10-1 shot for the 7.5-1 (approx) to make my set. Subtract the set over set situations (which unfortunately occured here) and this is still a profitable call.

the open raise is fine but just fold to the 3-bet. It's not +EV to call here.

Post flop, just get the money in. AA is stacking you. Play it in a way where you can stack AK (shouldn't be too hard since this is a dream flop for AK).

fwiw I tend to think that in spots like this, open raising and open limping is pretty close and are both slightly +EV. But that's just a guestimate and there is no way of calculating that for this specific table and stuff like that.

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

you shouldn't have raised 77 UTG and you shouldn't have called a reraise.

umm

this is wrong

i'd love to hear your reasoning

^^What the storyteller said.^^

Originally Posted by Lukie

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

you shouldn't have raised 77 UTG and you shouldn't have called a reraise.

umm

this is wrong

i'd love to hear your reasoning

I'd love to hear yours

Originally Posted by Lukie

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

you shouldn't have raised 77 UTG and you shouldn't have called a reraise.

umm

this is wrong

i'd love to hear your reasoning

The statement was wrong. It is very often +EV to raise 77 UTG, and it is very often +EV to call a reraise with it. Particularly when poor players don't reraise big enough.

The EV of the 3bet call was questionable in this case, but depending on the probability villain has AA/KK it COULD be profitable.

Quoting myself pretty lame but...

"-I am calling 9,5o to get into a pot with 17€ in it + Villain's 79€ in the tank. So I'm being asked to pay 9,5 for 96€. Villain's is playing with has cards face-up. Which is why i wanted to cum in my pants when the 7 hit first but vomit when the A hit third. It was QQ-AA obv. Point is I was taking a 10-1 shot for the 7.5-1 (approx) to make my set. Subtract the set over set situations (which unfortunately occured here) and this is still a profitable call."

It seems that many peopl think that this is not as obviously +EV (getting 10-1 stacking odds preflop) on the flop as I thought... Why not?

Is it because :

1 - VILLAIN COULD POTENTIALLY LAYDOWN QQ-AA TO SNIFFED-OUT SET?

lmao, random nut-camper on B 2 B beats your typical party fish, but this would be an insane assumption.

2 - VILLAIN HAS KK-QQ AND WILL FOLD TO POSTFLOP AGGRESSION WHEN OVER(S) HIT(S)?

No argument here.

4 - VILLAIN IS RERAISING ME WITH AIR?

Imo this is quasi-impossible. This is not HOLL vs Rekrul. This is B 2 B w nutcampers galore. I raise UTG having just arrived at the table (information not disclosed in post) ; in my experience showdowns in this exact situation when UTG is reraised on B 2 B 8-max are exclusively AA-QQ. This is my 6th bonus whore on B 2 B and I'm starting to get a solid grip on this tight-ass-weirdo network.

5 - I AM OOP AND WILL HAVE LESS CONTROL ON POT-SIZE THAN IF I WERE IN POSITION?

Don't think this is terribly relevant because I am playing this hand for a check-fold on the flop or stacks.


Even with all these potentially anti-stackfest factors working against my odds being necessarily 10-1 for the 2 outer on flop 9.5€ flop call I am not convinced this is by any means a clear fold. If someone can explain to me where the "questionable" aspect of this call can be found please elaborate.

This is potentially a leak in my game. At tight tables I will call any 3-bet preflop getting 10-1 odds on villain's stack with read on table being tight and non-lagg (air reraise possibility) read on villain.

In Fnord's stickified "Calling preflop raise with small pair"

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/forum/poker-83.htm

he presumes 10x stack-size to calling ratio necessary. This is dependant on villain being accurately read for big pair preflop. Yet most will agree that assuming an open-raiser has big PP (unless his pfr is like 3% or something ridiculous) is a bit of a stretch. However, the current discussion centers around being 3 bet preflop. If we can't put random villain on big PP (AK-JJ in some instances) here to apply 10x "rule", where can we?

Someone please explain to me (without just replying "fold preflop to 3-bet) why this flop call is -EV. I may have conjured up some straw-man arguments here but I am trying hard to see how this could be -EV. I don't see how it could be (CLEARLY -EV that is) and I want to improve.

Originally Posted by Lukie

the open raise is fine but just fold to the 3-bet. It's not +EV to call here.

Post flop, just get the money in. AA is stacking you. Play it in a way where you can stack AK (shouldn't be too hard since this is a dream flop for AK).

What does this mean (2nd part)