in complicated set land, who is king?

can villain have anything but KK here? or is folding weak?

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (9 handed) Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

MP3 ($30.85)
CO ($8.20)
Button ($28.50)
Hero ($48)
BB ($29.50)
UTG ($107.80)
UTG+1 ($51.70)
MP1 ($30.85)
MP2 ($30)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 8http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es/diamond.gif, 8http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif.
UTG raises to $2.25, 3 folds, MP3 calls $2.25, 2 folds, Hero calls $2, 1 fold.

Flop: ($7.25) 8http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif, Khttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es/diamond.gif, 3http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif (3 players)
Hero checks, UTG checks, MP3 checks.

Turn: ($7.25) 4http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es/diamond.gif (3 players)
Hero bets $5, UTG raises to $13.5, MP3 folds, Hero raises to $27, UTG raises to $83.5, Hero ???

Final Pot: $108.75

Do you have stats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PokerMuzz

Do you have stats?

---

Does it matter?

We have the 2nd nuts in a raised pot get it in. Don't fold sets on these boards ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deanglow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PokerMuzz

Do you have stats?

---

Does it matter?

We have the 2nd nuts in a raised pot get it in. Don't fold sets on these boards ever.

---

qft

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deanglow

We have the 2nd nuts in a raised pot get it in. Don't fold sets on these boards ever.

---

ok. My thought process was that I'm repping 88/33/44 and making it obvious, I look like I'll definitely be calling any push and villain seems happy about it.

Put villain on a range based on line and stats of 13-9-3. Thoughts?

For what it's worth, I tanked, then made an unhappy call.

Some players with those stats raise 33 UTG. He could then check flop. I'm getting it in no matter.

And maybe fold pf. I know nobody else likes that, but I also think it's likely it's a losing play. Fullring aggression and postflop skill has gotten to the point that we almost never are getting set odds, and you're likely not playing this for anything but. I do call otb, but I play much better ip than oop, as do you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Some players with those stats raise 33 UTG. He could then check flop. I'm getting it in no matter.

And maybe fold pf. I know nobody else likes that, but I also think it's likely it's a losing play. Fullring aggression and postflop skill has gotten to the point that we almost never are getting set odds, and you're likely not playing this for anything but. I do call otb, but I play much better ip than oop, as do you.

---

I don't think it is so hard to play these hands IP or OOP. Would this hand change at all if you were OTB? We are still getting it in.

Oh I'm felting a set here pretty much always from any pos. What I mean is that when we call from any position from raises from any position (even UTG) then we almost always need to steal unimproved. Even super nits raises AK UTG and a tonnnn of players have gotten better at folding to sets. I think our set odds in multiway pots (especially when OOP from opener) reduces drastically. What else is he gonna put us on when we're putting a lot in? Most good players in SSNL fullring just don't ever bluff here, and decent players have learned this.

My current play is that I'm folding small PPs here, but I really don't know where to cutoff. Sometimes I call with 88, sometimes fold, I guess. I'm experimenting. I spend a bit of time trying to tweak PT stats/results, and this is one of my more current applications.

When IP, at least for me since I actually play real good IP vs my opposition, I will be able to steal unimproved a lot more often than when I'm OOP, and I believe that has become necessary in these current games. Part of my personal problem is that I do not play OOP well. I guess I'm decent, but I still know I spew too much. Calling from the blinds is really one of teh most difficult oft occurring situation we can put ourselves.

I like OMGClayAiken's Well. He quoted from one of his erstwhile coahces (I think) 'Saying position is important in poker is like saying distance and direction is important in golf'. In this hand, we're already in a tough spot being against a raise in a multiway pot that is hard to play unimproved. When we're OOP, not only do we make it more difficult for us to outplay our opposition, we make it EASIER for our opposition to outplay us.

Calling with small PPs in this hand for set value exclusively is spew. The question is if we can steal enough for it to be +ev, but I know most of us can't.

This raises an interesting question for me... playing PPs for set value only being spew. My rule of thumb has been that if I can get in PF w/ a mid - low PP for 4xBB raise or less, where the PFR has 15x raise behind him, I'll call it (assuming there's little to no chance of getting re-raised). The 1:8 set hit, plus other made hands or steals, make this EV+. I've also been working under the idea that a multi-way pot is actually better for me if I'm playing a PP that must set because when it does I've got a bigger pot to take down and better odds that at least one person will stay with me thru multiple streets. Plus, I like the UTG PFR here 'cause of their raising range is tighter and they're more likely to stay w/ me post-flop. Is this flawed logic?

If I flopped more sets I would win more hands. :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Calling with small PPs in this hand for set value exclusively is spew.

---

Challenging thought. There is $80 available to me in the stacks in the hand, and I need to make $18 when I hit. Guess I'm relying on
1) the check-call flop, check-raise turn line if I hit - and I'm not that good at that line.
2) Other caller hitting with their 55
Thanks.

I think we're actually often getting worse odds the more multiway it is. Pot odds are better, but implied odds go down a bit, and that's what we need.

I have AA I raise UTG three callers flop is J96 sb checks I bet two folds sb raises I know I'm up against a set waaaay more than if this had been HU to the flop. Vs decent hand readers we actually get better set odds when HU. There's still a problem, though. Very very few regs are nitty and bad enough to raise only big pairs and stack off with scared overpairs/tptk. Everybody (EVERYBODY. Like 95%) knows about rudimentary pfr merging and cbetting. This is very bad for set hunting.

Decent MP 8pfr raises, folded to me in BB with 66 getting 30 to 1. Often times I'm vs AJ+ KQ+ 77+. Lol at thinking I can sethunt this. I personally cannot crunch any numbers since I'm stupid, but my experience so far has me considering this.

You need to make more than $18 when you hit. I dunno how much, but set over set is very costly, and as we all know, that seems to happen a lot.

1. We can't have any specific line designated when we're pf, and we won't be able to rep anything other than a big hand.
2. Counting on coolering somebody is not gonna cut it.

It would be nice to know the numbers exactly, but like I said, I'm dumb with them. I am sure that $18 won with each set to breakeven is low and possibly way low.

Of course, I could be way wrong. I am intrinsically pretty horrible at poker and even worse with numbers.

Wow, folding preflop is absolutely not an option imo. We are getting 3:1 already, I think you only need to make about $8 on average when you hit and that really should be extremely easy.

$8 is from 7:1 to hit - 3:1 odds so we need to make 4x our investment when we hit.

Those numbers are wrong. You may be right that it's not a fold, but we're losing and losing big when we hit more often than when the original setmining numbers were speculated (which I believe were still wrong then, but not nearly as much as now).

And making at least $8 more each time won't happen. When we hit the hands will go down more like:

Win 8 more
Win no more
Win 50 more
Win 30 more
Win 20 more
Win 60 more
Lose 50 more
Lose 50 more

or something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badgers

I think you only need to make about $8 on average when you hit and that really should be extremely easy.

---

Obv we aren't going to make it every time, but it's like 1 bet! When we hit our set we are so far ahead of opps stacking off/ calling 2 streets etc. ranges it is untrue!

I agree that the setmining numbers are flawed though. I remember looking back at some older posts where ppl were advocating calling a button raise for set value with only 10x implied odds! Here we have ~25x stacks against 2 opps, one is an UTG raiser... It's an extremely easy call imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Of course, I could be way wrong. I am intrinsically pretty horrible at poker and even worse with numbers.

---

... but extremely good at providing pictures of smoking hot asians...

but that aside... so 15x implied are no longer good when playing for straight sets? I agree that people are playing waaaay tighter even down where I play (at least at FT where I've been for a while) and so I rarely am able to come close to stacking anyone but a shortie when I hit. Is 20x a better line? 25? I've already had to dial back the number of low - mid PPs I'll play for set value 'cause of tables reppin >50% 1/4 - 1/3 stacks.


Sarbox Axiom #37:
Play with bigger stacks so I make more with my nuts. :shock:

With PPs I play position more than anything. I'm calling raises from any fullstack ip, and a lot of PPs from half stacks. I 3bet or call and crai a lot of flops as a blind defense. I hate playing vs raises from anything from the blinds if I need to hit to win. I do believe that's bleeding money.

Using the 10 to 1 which is now 15 to 1 was originally for when against 3bets. I believe that number should go nowhere below 15 to 1, but that's kind've a moot point since when you're 3bet if you're getting 15 to 1 it's usually from a crappy player who stacks off lighter.

I don't play full ring but I often bet the flop here as AA and AK aren't folding and KK is just tough luck. I only pay to KK here and I am willing to take this pot any day. And as to as played - never fold; you are not even full.

Felt this each and every time you can and you'll make lots of monies.

Also, I think the preflop call is a lot better than folding because of the overcall. If there was no overcall, I'd fold sometimes depending on UTG.

I say the preflop call is necessary because we only need to get an additional $9.75 of our opponent's money into the pot on average to reach our break even point of 7.5:1. Obviously we're going to lose sometimes even when we hit our set, but the flop pot is going to be too big to turn this down in relation to our stacks and the amount of money we need to make on our good sets to be profitable.

I hate calling from the blinds with most hands too, but PP's vs. an EP raiser with a caller between is my favourite hand to call with from the blinds.

I don't know if I agree that simple set-hunting is no longer profitable vs. a single pf raise. Although I have never been one to just set-hunt.

I think if you lead some scary/low flops here both when you have the set and when you don't, you will take down a lot of pots unimproved and make yourself a little bit harder to play against in the long run. plus it makes you a bit more when you do have the set and they decide to raise you. especially if they have seen you donk then fold, they can raise with a lot more hands.

wufwugy, when you play PP's for position, is the choice to do this based on the fact that you will still have some value to fall back on if you are played back at, or is it an informal randomizing tool, or a little of both?

with low PP's it is definitely easier to play them IP, but they are still profitable OOP. if you can't play a PP strictly for set value anymore, then it means that you have some FE when OOP. In position you have something that can be played as a bluff catcher or as a value hand.

How can you even think about folding here

only one hand beats you

unless you have your superuser account turned on, its super fist-pump awwwwwwwwww iiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnn, beat him into the pot, you can't push all your chips in fast enough

Pgil, I'm just better at reading hands when I have pos. Which is the way it should be. I SHOULD be better at reading hands OOP, though, but I find it really hard.

Position is just awesome with any hand. We get away with bluffing more often without putting as much in the pot, our opposition gets the opposite; we don't look weak by checking, our opposition is the opposite; we act last, which is so good.

As far as pf goes, I'm sure that the absolute best is to call and take shots at a lot of pots postflop. I personally don't know how to do that effectively. UTG stats can be quite important there, though.

re preflop: uhhhhh we have a PAIR OF EIGHTS.....

as played its very easy to get it in here

re preflop: uhhhhh we have a PAIR OF EIGHTS.....

as played its very easy to get it in here

i never thought we'd see a day when we could even discuss with any seriousness folding here preflop. this is 50NL FFS.

2005 PartyPoker where art thou?

my issue is with the playing pp's for set value is spew comment.

i dont agree.

if you have deep enough stacks, calling raises with pp's just gets better for set value.

if villain truly has KK here, and raises 4X, and we have 88 and call. we hit our set and go to town. we will likely win a decent pot, but it will be hard to get a stack because of the small starting size of the pot and our valuebetting small because we are afraid to drive off a customer. however, if villain raises to 10X, but has 100 bb's, why arent we still calling? do you ever think he is dropping KK as an overpair when he put in such a large raise? its actually easier to stack him with 88 here because we KNOW he likes his hand. if the flop comes high and he cbets, i know i'm bad. if i hit, he cbets, i stick him in. simple. exaggerated example, maybe, but simple.

the simplest way to set hunt profitably is to call large pfr's HU against deep stacks. when they are HU with you, they think they have the nuts everytime.

uhhh when u call pre here u are calling for 88 value not for set value.

also calling 22 is profitable as well, and it isn't all that close either.

wufwugy, I just misunderstood your statement. thought you were saying that "if I play a hand purely on the basis of position I want it to be a PP", which kind of had me confused. when in actuality you were saying "when I play a low PP, I would like to have position", which just makes a lot of sense.

If you are playing for set value it is a lot easier. If you are playing on the strength of your 88, then having position would be ideal. OOP, do you donk a lot of flops renton? what is the range we are putting our two opponents on if we think our 88 is good pf.

in this spot with another opponent and no set, I would usually prefer to check and let the original raiser bet, then see what the caller does. we do have relative position on the flop after all, so we might as well use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

set over set is very costly, but as we all know, it doesn't happen often enough to matter much

---

fyp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chopper

my issue is with the playing pp's for set value is spew comment.

i dont agree.

if you have deep enough stacks, calling raises with pp's just gets better for set value.

---

But then being undersetted when felting becomes more likely, and likewise having set vs overpair less likely. My comment is basically player dependent. If opposition sucks then set mine all day. If opposition is real good then it actually may be neg ev to set mine exclusively vs them under nearly all circumstances.

It's not like I've started folding 88 here, just speculating on a strategy that has struck me as possibly having changed from plus ev to neg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

uhhh when u call pre here u are calling for 88 value not for set value.

also calling 22 is profitable as well, and it isn't all that close either.

---

Well, we SHOULD be, but the trend among decent players when calling a low/mid PP in the blinds from a raise and call is to set mine exclusively, and I think that could be neg ev, not playing the hand for its pair value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

set over set is very costly, but as we all know, it doesn't happen often enough to matter much

---

fyp

---

It seems to me that set vs set hands have become a larger percentage of hands played now than pretty much ever in this game type since there are fewer losers and more winners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

uhhh when u call pre here u are calling for 88 value not for set value.

also calling 22 is profitable as well, and it isn't all that close either.

---

Well, we SHOULD be, but the trend among decent players when calling a low/mid PP in the blinds from a raise and call is to set mine exclusively, and I think that could be neg ev, not playing the hand for its pair value.

---

im almost positive that just the set value of these hands makes them profitable all by itself.