Line check - limped pocket pair flopped bottom set.

[Erpel]

Villain (CO) is 39/7/2.1 after 45 hands - this was before 45 hands, but his stats were in that range before also.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (6 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

BB ($25.75)
UTG ($18.90)
MP ($25)
CO ($13.20)
Button ($8.15)
Hero ($25.55)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 7, 7.
UTG calls $0.25, 1 fold, CO calls $0.25, 1 fold, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: ($1) 9, T, 7 (4 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, UTG checks, CO bets $0.5, Hero raises to $2, BB folds, UTG folds, CO calls $1.50.

Turn: ($5) Q (2 players)
Hero bets $3, CO calls $3.

River: ($11) 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO checks.

Final Pot: $11

Pre-flop - was completing the small blind acceptable?
I'm not sure a low pocket pair is the kind of hand you want to play out of position, but if playing only for set value once the set flops I'm ready to felt it anyway so not sure position is an argument for raising pre-flop.
The reason I called (I almost always raise pocket pairs) is that a 4bb + 1bb per limper raise would be $1.5 where two of the limpers have less than full stacks (UTG 12.5 times that and CO only 9 times that) - so if I end up playing for set value against either of these two villains my pre-flop bet size would have been wrong in terms of giving myself the odds. Pre-flop fold equity exists of course, but I felt that calling was more correct here.

On the flop I did the "I don't have much"-check, hoping someone would try to take down the orphan. CO complies and I do the "I don't believe you" raise. I'd seen the straight on the board and I figured this was the safest way to flush it out - let him make a small bet for value, have me re-raise to show a lot of strength and then if he has the straight he'd probably push or massively re-raise me making it possible for me to consider a fold. Not saying I would fold, but I thought this line was justified by my hand strength and promised to define exactly how strong my opponent was, if he was strong. When he calls I put him on a reasonably strong draw with perhaps a made pair or overcard to back it. Something like A8, JJ, 88, KJ, QJ, JT, J9, T8, 98, 87.

As the turn comes I'm aware that yet another straight completes and that my opponent is short stacked. I think a bet too close to pot size is going to be folded by the villain if he's behind (due to his $10.95 behind) and if I'm behind I don't want to take myself to value-town. If he does have the straight (any of them) I'm looking for my 10 outs to a full house. So my bet is a combination of value, fold equity and hoping not to pay too much for one of my potentially 10 outs.

Both my flop raise and my turn bet should still be big enough that it's incorrect for a straight draw to call.

As the river comes an 8 even more straights complete to the point where I'm happy to slow down. If he'd done a smallish value looking bet I'd have called it, but if he'd pushed his remaining $8.95 in the $11 pot (less rake) I cannot say for sure if I'd have called or folded. I had him on a straight draw and I was afraid that he'd just completed it. I guess I would have to call it though, in which case I should have shoved myself?

[Fnord]

This guy is a retarded station, value town.

Pot turn, either bet/fold or push the river (depending on how much money is behind.)

[Dont Let Up]

Preflop is fine. It is ok to raise, but completing is just as good.
On the flop i probably like to bet out because i'd hate to see it get checked through, but i think the c/r was fine though it would probably be better to raise a little bit more so you would be able to get most of the money in on the turn against CO, who is short stacked.

Turn is ok, but bet more for sure, probably near pot like Fnord said. This would make a river decision much easier for you.

I guess i don't mind putting a bet in on the river based on the guy's stats. I'm pretty sure he's going to call another bet with any 2pair. If you would've put more money in on the previous streets, a shove would suffice here, but as played i think i like a Bet / Fold using a smallish bet.

[Fnord]

Against retarded opponents, raising here pre-flop is less than ideal.

[Dont Let Up]

Yeah, you are probably right, i'm not used to playing against 25nl opponents.

[will641]

Yeah, you are probably right, i'm not used to playing against 25nl opponents.

whats wrong with just potting it till all the money is in.

[Dont Let Up]

Yeah, you are probably right, i'm not used to playing against 25nl opponents.

whats wrong with just potting it till all the money is in.

What does this have to do with not wanting to raise PF?

[will641]

Yeah, you are probably right, i'm not used to playing against 25nl opponents.

whats wrong with just potting it till all the money is in.

What does this have to do with not wanting to raise PF?

oops, i accidentally clicked the quote last message box. it has nothign to do with what you said.

[Erpel]

Ok, I should definitely have put two-pair in his range and just bet higher and for value. Played a bit too weakly by me on the turn especially. Thanks guys.

[Marshall28]

i think its probably best to just always assume u have the best hand unless the board comes out like 4 to a flush or 4 to a straight and bet as big as u can on every street. its hard to make sets.

[meeloche]

Preflop is fine, I like leading this flop actually cause it hits their limping range pretty well and you don't want them checking behind with a draw. Like others have said just keep potting it until the money is in the middle.

[bjsaust]

Surely you need to bet out on flop. Its a wet board and you want to start building your pot. c/r seems really bad here.

On the flop I did the "I don't have much"-check, hoping someone would try to take down the orphan. CO complies and I do the "I don't believe you" raise.

This strategy seems designed to win a small pot. We'd like to win a big pot here.

[Erpel]

Ok a couple more comments. When I talked about checking hoping someone else would bet I was aware that the flop hit most people's limping range and I fully expected at least one of them to have a pair or a decent draw and to be betting it to build the pot (none of them were particularly passive). By check/raising instead of just betting out I hoped to build two bets into the pot on the flop as opposed to just one (as a pot building exercise), and I figured the odds of it being checked through were probably around or below 25% making the c/r better for pot building.

The flop being both connected and two-tone is one I definitely want to price drawing hands out of, and I thought I could price them out even more with a c/r while getting them to call. I think a flop lead is perfectly fine here also, but I think the c/r accomplished the same thing and I don't think it was a worse line than betting. While betting, being raised and then re-raising would be sweet I didn't expect drawing hands or weak pairs to raise at 25nl.

On the turn bet I thought I could bet small because the villain would be committed on the river anyway - I wanted to make sure he called the turn bet. I do now find flaw with this thinking - I'd be in a better position on the river with a $13 pot and him having $6.95 behind than in the current with $11 in the pot and $7.95 behind (wrong number in first post). I was worried about the villain folding a drawing hand if the bet was too big though, and the bet sizing was imo sufficient to get the villain all-in by the river without overbetting.

Marshall28 mentioned that I should assume a set is always best unless the board comes 4 to a flush or straight. The thing is - to me it kind of did. Flop is 3 to a straight easy (with J8 and 86 made). Turn completes more straights (KJ). River makes it 4 to a straight on the board with any J or 6 completing it.

To my thinking, if there was ever a situation to even consider slowing down with a set due to straights or flushes on the board - it'd have to look pretty much like this hand. A bet on the river will fold out most hands that I beat imo (all missed straights and single-pair hands) - although some pairs would call if I'd bet more on the turn. I'd only really get called by two-pair hands, and straights loom so big in my villain's range that I don't know for sure that it's +EV to bet.

If I'd bet bigger on the turn the villain would be so thoroughly pot-stuck that I could get him to call with some pairs and it would be +EV for me to push the river. Because I bet too low on the turn he has enough behind that he can find a fold on pairs, and I begin to question if it's +EV to bet.

Btw, as played I don't see bet/fold on the river as an option. The pot is $11 and the villain has $7.95 behind. There is no bet size that allows him to raise an amount that I wouldn't call.

[bjsaust]

You're over-thinking it.
bet-raise-bet-raise until all your money is in the middle. Sets are easy, they dont take a whole thread to work out. c/r scares off a lot of hands you want action from, it screams strength (the whole purpose of it).

Sounds like you've been reading limit strategies.

[Erpel]

You're over-thinking it.

Yes

Sounds like you've been reading limit strategies.

No

My point with this thread/discussion is really to ask the question - is it ever appropriate to be afraid of straights or flushes when you have a set? I know at micros the answer as a general point is no - people play poorly enough that they could be spewing with crap at any point and you should just maximise your value (and yes I misplayed the hand). But if not a hand like the one here - what hand could possibly justify a set not being played like the nuts? Does anyone have an example?

[Robb]

c/r scares off a lot of hands you want action from, it screams strength (the whole purpose of it).

I forget who gave me the advice, but basically he said to play a set just like any TPTK hand or big draw that I'm cbetting. As soon as you stray from your standard postflop actions, even tards know somethin's up.

I have a tendency toward FPS (fancy play syndrome) on sets, trying to get cute to get all the chips in the middle. But that usually backfires and lets even dumbasses know I've got a hand. Sometimes, villain just doesn't have enough of a hand to come along for 2/3's or pot-sized raises until we're playing for stacks. So he folds. But if he has anything (and a lot of times when he doesn't), we get to play for stacks MOST OFTEN by just betting right out on the flop, turn and river (if there's enough behind).

[Erpel]

In a normal raised pot I do (normally) play my sets like TPTK - in this hand I decided to go for c/r because the pot was limped and I wanted to build it with two bets rather than one on the flop (accepting the risk of it being checked through). Being first to act I also didn't know which stack I was playing against, information I would try to use to inform my bet size decision. Btw, $1, $3, $9 (PSB) would limit me to $13 by the river given just one bet per street (and no overbets) - possible to get to all-in with carefully applied overbets, but not as easy as with 4 bets. If I manage two bets in any street (which requires someone else to bet/raise) I could get to a full stack more easily - and I figured the check/raise was more likely to give me two effective bets (called) on the flop than any other street. Given the present flop bet/raise size (turn pot at $5) a $5 turn bet followed by a $15 river bet (or slight overbet at $18 or so) could get any stack all-in.

That said I agree that a $2.5 raise on the flop and (as played) a $4-5 bet on the turn would have been better - and would have made the river commitment decision easier. Not so much from the point of view of me shoving, but rather from the point of view of villain calling a shove with worse.

I do recognize fancy play syndrome as something I need to consider in my game, but I don't just try to eliminate sets from fancy play - I also try to play other hands in a fancy way (like air).

I understand that check/raise is seen as stronger than a straight bet and is more likely to be regarded a monster and have people fold. While I agree that sets are (almost) always looking to get all-in, betting them hard and as strong hands does tend to provoke the occasional fold. Given a choice I'd rather provoke the occasional fold on a very drawy board like this one when I have a set (and bottom set at that) than on a dry board where no straights or flushes are possible. Maybe this is the wrong way to think about value - maybe I get more value from my sets on boards where villains have more reason to call (almost drawy boards by definition). I'll need to think about this some more. Similarly I should size my bets so drawing hands make a big mistake by calling rather than a small one when I am well ahead and draws are drawing to hands that beat me.

Anyway - over-thinking. I'm not really over-thinking this hand as such, but using this hand as a launch pad for me to think about some hand value, bet sizing and value extraction considerations. I could go ramble in a corner, but I feel putting my thoughts into writing help me process the thoughts and understand principles better.

[griffey24]

I haven't read the other posts yet.. but my two cents:

Bet the turn harder, almost pot. All the hands he called the flop with have now improved (where improved means they either now have top pair + OESD, or some pair plus insider or some two pair). All of these hands will call a pot size turn bet.

On river, it's VERY possible our hand is behind. But it's also very possible our hand is ahead. Were you going to c/c river? If you were planning on c/c, then b/f is just way better. Almost his entire range has some piece of this board and some showdown value so he's rarely rarely betting worse on river, so you can't really induce. Just bet 2/3 pot, let him make a mistake, and fold if he shoves.

[Alexos]

you should bet at least 4.25$ on turn, and I pretty much always vbet this river about half pot against retarded opponents.