Are the sets worth it?

[PrayingMantis]

Hi all.

3 situations, that happened recently, made me think.

1. I lost with 33 to 99, on a 2-3-9 flop. (and went out of SNG.)

2. I lost with 44 to 77, on a 4-7-7-x-x board. (Went out)

3. Won a very small pot with TT on a 3-7-T-Q-8 board.

The first two are examples of spots, where I was pretty sure I'm way ahead, and then I realized I'm way behind. The third is an example of a flopped set, that brought home almost nothing.

There's a concept, regarding SNG's, that advocates limping with PP's on early rounds, when the blinds are low and the stacks deep. Why do you do it? to try and spike a set, or get out cheaply. Most of the time (a little less than 90%) you get nothing, and lose 1BB. But here, well, as you see, I made it with 33, and with 44 (low FH), and lost with both much more than I wanted to, while with the tripe T I got nothing.

Conclusion: it might be that the danger in flopping a 2nd or 3rd set, or even a low FH, and the no-value (sometimes) of floping a nut-set with TT, makes limping with pairs, surely below 88-77, not very profitable, and even -EV? what do you think?

I know this is a very small sample, but my thoughts are more theoretical...(I hope).

BTW, I know I didn't put full hand histories here, but let's assume I played all three hands perfectly after the flop. In other words: assume somebody else played them... /images/graemlins/grin.gif



PrayingMantis

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Set over set is rare. You just hit one of those weird disruptions of the space-time continuum. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

There's a saying from limit HE: If you flop a set and lose, and you *don't* lose a lot of money, you played it wrong.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The set-over-set or quads-over-your-set thing is SO rare i NEVER worry about it. It's only happened to me a handful of times in years and years of regular play.

the sets ARE worth it if there are two criteria that are met:

1) you can get away cheep if you miss (this includes the blinds being small when you limp)

2) you have a good chance to bust someone when you hit, i.e. the implied odds are there. So if you limp for 20, but collect 600, it was worth it. Rarely will you make NOTHING or VERY LITTLE on your set. I find that I often wind up busting someone when I play a hand where I flopped a set.

Also, you can generally assume someone WILL play virtually EVERY hand like a moron.

al

[Lou Krieger]

[ QUOTE ]
3 situations, that happened recently, made me think.

1. I lost with 33 to 99, on a 2-3-9 flop. (and went out of SNG.)

2. I lost with 44 to 77, on a 4-7-7-x-x board. (Went out)

3. Won a very small pot with TT on a 3-7-T-Q-8 board.

The first two are examples of spots, where I was pretty sure I'm way ahead, and then I realized I'm way behind. The third is an example of a flopped set, that brought home almost nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every time you play a poker hand there is usually the possibility of a monster under the bed, but that shouldn't stop you from being aggressive when you believe you have the best of it.

Set over set is pretty rare, and the only way around losing some or all of your chips in these situations is to fold to any raise when you have flopped a set that is not the current nuts. If you do that, you'll seldom lose to set over set, but you'll find yourself blinded out of a tournament very quickly.

Playing a hand and losing with it is not the end of the world. And if you can't find enough positive EV in a set, you'll almost never find a hand worth taking a stand on.

Look at the bright side. Flopping a set should cause you to silently jump for joy, not bemoan the possibilities of a bigger set just waiting to pounce on you.
_______
Lou Krieger
Raise your game with Lou Krieger, author of "Interrnet Poker: How to Play and Beat Online Poker Games," at Royal Vegas Poker.
http://www.royalvegaspoker/lou

[Prickly Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a saying from limit HE: If you flop a set and lose, and you *don't* lose a lot of money, you played it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, I concur with Kurn. I think this saying certainly applies to NL SNGs as well.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
The set-over-set or quads-over-your-set thing is SO rare i NEVER worry about it. It's only happened to me a handful of times in years and years of regular play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now I feel better, knowing that what happaned to you a handful of times during years and years, happened to me lately TWICE in ONE hour (set over set, quads over a boat)... /images/graemlins/frown.gif
I guess on-line poker DOES educate you faster... /images/graemlins/confused.gif


Thanks for the reply, I think that what made me wrote this post was a really unlucky streak, which I tried to handle rationally.

And it's possible I'm not making the best out of my flopped sets, when I get them. I might be playing them a bit too aggressive (which should work good with low buy-in's calling-stations, but not with others), or that I SP them too much. Anyway, that is something I have to work on.


PrayingMantis

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I feel better, knowing that what happaned to you a handful of times during years and years, happened to me lately TWICE in ONE hour (set over set, quads over a boat)...
I guess on-line poker DOES educate you faster...


[/ QUOTE ]

I was cracking up, I missed the point that it was twice in ONE HOUR!!! I'm still nearly in tears....

In the immortal words of the great Cartman:

"Ow! My ass!"

TRUST ME, these things are VERY rare! the rare times my opponent flops a bigger set than I do, well, he'll just win my money if he plays it right.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the bright side. Flopping a set should cause you to silently jump for joy, not bemoan the possibilities of a bigger set just waiting to pounce on you.


[/ QUOTE ]

A similar lament as was stated in my last post on this thread.

Curious Lou, you have certainly played more than I, what estimation do you have as the frequency of set over set? I say "extremely rare," tho I realize this is not a mathematical estimation. I don't really expect you to give a precise # either, but perhaps you have further comments on this. I think I have been on the losing end of set over set about ten times in nearly as many years of playing an average of 20-25 hours (or more) a week. Lately, playing pro, of course I play more than 20 hours a week, but I still virtually never see this happen.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[TomCollins]

I have never made more money and gotten an early chip lead other than flopping a set. I can't think of something better to happen in a tournament early than flopping a set. They are bound to win or lose a huge pot.

[Cornbread Maxwell]

Of course sets are worth it. If my opponent had $2000 with AA, and I was holding 44, I'd call a preflop raise of $100 even if I KNEW he had AA, simply because I would feel like I could get all his money if I hit a 4 on the flop.

Little pocket pairs and suited connector cards (to a lesser extent) are a prime example of maximizing return while minimizing risk. You can usually win a big pot with these types of cards if you can get in cheaply, simply because often times you will be able to throw your hand away after the flop. Ask any pro NLHE player and they almost always will tell you they would rather call a raise with 22 or 33 rather than KQs or AQo.

[PrayingMantis]

But don't you worry, I have a lot more of these semi-stupid questions, regarding the most basic, common, and obvious SNG strategy.

In certain Japanese martial-arts it's called Kihon, the basic drills, and even the great masters work through them everyday.


Thanks for the replies,

PrayingMantis

[triplc]

The beauty of low pocket pairs is that they are so hard to diagnose when the flop hits them. If I have AA, and the flop come 832 rainbow, what am I worried about. How many time am I going to lay this down, even to a raise.

Not to get caught up in watching pros play on TV, but watch Phil Ivey play. He plays low/middle pocket pairs every time he gets them. The reward is so huge, that the risk is worth it (layman's terms for saying the implied odds are huge). I'm never so happy as when I've got 44 and a AT4 flops, because it usually means I'm getting some more chips in my stack. And when the guy has AA or TT...oh well, there's another SNG starting up in a few minutes. Tough break. Move on.

CCC

[CrisBrown]

Hiya P.M.,

I'm late getting to this thread (taking a break from work), but I think you are doing something we all do from time to time: letting statistically unlikely outcomes cloud your clear strategy. It's rather like the people who hate AA, because they remember only the pots they've lost with the hand. When they say this at the table, I always say "I'll be more than happy to take all of the AAs you're dealt."

And that's how I feel about flopped sets. Yes, they'll lose sometimes. In fact, I've more than once flopped a set that I've had to fold without so much as a bet, because it fell to a flush or straight board and an ultra-tight player ahead of me pushed in. But they will win FAR more often than they lose.

That having been said, one of the most common mistakes I see (and sometimes make) is calling into a reraised pot with a small pocket pair. At the lower buy-ins this might not be too bad an idea, because people will reraise on comparatively weak hands. But against better opponents, you are too often calling into an overpair, and that's when a flopped set -- even if you hit it -- can often bury you to a higher set.

Cris

[Wayne]

[ QUOTE ]

I know this is a very small sample, but my thoughts are more theoretical...(I hope).


[/ QUOTE ]

Someone can do the exact math, but if both you and your opponent both have pocket pairs, if you flop a set, your opponent will also flop a set 1 in 12 times.

Your set might be bigger or your opponents might not have pockets. Don't fear the monsters under the bed. Sets are very profitable.

[ThaSaltCracka]

This is a very stupid thread,
if you don't like flopping sets you should stop playing poker.

[PrayingMantis]

This is a very stupid comment.
If you don't like ever rethinking basic notions, you should stop trying to improve your poker. Better watch TV.




PrayingMantis

[ThaSaltCracka]

if by rethinking you mean, dropping the value of a very strong hand for no other reason than the fact that you lost with it twice, then I am fine not "improving" my poker game in that respect.
BTW I like watching TV, it cracks me up like your dumb posts do.

[PrayingMantis]

1. By rethinking I mean rethinking.

2. I've lost two times in a row with flopped sets, but next time I busted two players with it. Don't worry, I'm not dropping any value, I'm asking questions. It's something you should also do.

3. This thread is 4th out of 55 threads in this forum, by number of views (423 views, when I write this down). 1st one is Mason's welcome thread, so among the poker-strategy related thread, this one is 3rd. Not bad for such a dumb stupid thread.

4. I like watching TV too. I'm happy if it cracks you up like my dumb posts, and that's why I said you better watch TV, since it looks like you are not able to gain anything from this forum, or contribute to it in any interesting manner.



PrayingMantis

[ThaSaltCracka]

fine I agree that everyone should be asking questions about there play. There are no dumb questions........ just dumb people, like yourself.

the simple fact that you said you busted two people later on with sets should have told you that sets are very powerful. so next time you lose with a strong hand, don't post about how much you hate good cards because you always lose to a rare monster hand, instead realize that happens in poker. Then move on and destroy someone with your next powerful hand.

Everyone has bad beats, ridiculous ones that seem impossible, everyone gets out drawn every now and then, and people sometimes are drawing dead without knowing, much like yourself with the set of threes against the set of nines( okay technically your not drawing completely dead, but basically)

all I was trying to say without having to go into great depth, is that Mantis you were whining, deal with the losses and move on.

[Slacker13]

If you play me you are more than welcome to fold any and all sets.
I've seen more sets beaten online than in B&M play but, I still play them like the monsters they are.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't know why I am doing this but I will be nice I guess. Mantis if you want to know probably the best way to play pocket pairs before the flop, read Sklansky's book, if you have read it before read it again, it will answer the question for you. Now if you don't have the book let me quote something then. "High Cards and high pairs do best against fewer opponents. Straight and/or flush cards and small pairs prefer more players to insure action when they hit there hand..... It is the reason it is always correct to play any pair when there are many callers before the flop." (p.42)

Now if this needs to broken down for you let me know?
you should use the correct strategy associated with your pocket cards in relation to posisition, with number of callers in consideration as well.

[PrayingMantis]

Sorry for the late reply, I was busy taking 2nd place, the 2nd time in a row, at the 2+2 weekly 2-tables SNG on stars.

I have some really good stats at these events... /images/graemlins/smile.gif



Regarding your post. Well, this will be my last word on this subject.

[ QUOTE ]
dumb people, like yourself

[/ QUOTE ]

You called this thread stupid, my posts dumb, and now it's me. When someone calls me dumb to make a point, I conclude he has no point. That's the end of the conversational road. But I'll carry on a little bit, since I'm in a good mood.

[ QUOTE ]
the simple fact that you said you busted two people later on with sets should have told you that sets are very powerful

[/ QUOTE ]

That specific hand (it was two people I busted with one set /images/graemlins/cool.gif) happenned AFTER I made the post, but it actually doesn't matter: I was busting players, and making money with flopped sets (like everybody else here) also before I lost these two times with them, and posted my question. My thoughts were theoretical, and If you had the ability to read properly, you would have understood that this post wasn't about bad-beats, or about "dealing with losses" or whatever.

It was about implied odds.

And it got some really interesting replies, from very serious posters here, who didn't think it's dumb, and who had insightful things to say (among them was Lou Krieger). Sometimes you get the most precious information by asking knowledgeable people "stupid" questions. Someone I appriciate told me once that I should ask a stupid question every day. That's the only way a human being should live his/her life.

[ QUOTE ]
Mantis you were whining

[/ QUOTE ]

Last thing I'm doing is whining. For some reason, it seems like it's you who's doing the whining here.


GL,

PrayingMantis

[PrayingMantis]

Thanks for the advice. I've actually read the book and have it with me, but it's a a good point you're making by quoting from it. I almost always limp with most PP's early on at a SNG, unless it's EP and it's an aggressive table (then I sometimes muck my baby pairs). High pairs need, of course, different approach.

Peace,

PrayingMantis

[ThaSaltCracka]

that is why I said it was such a dumb post, now me calling you dumb may have been carrying on a little. Obviously your not dumb, most people who play poker are not dumb, I was just trying to get under your skin a little, which apparently worked. Anyways........... thats all I have to say.

BTW nobody likes a bragger /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW nobody likes a bragger

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever heard of bragging rights? Not too often one has an opportunity to claim them... /images/graemlins/grin.gif


PrayingMantis

[ThaSaltCracka]

so you were playing for bragging rights and not money? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[PrayingMantis]

There's not much dead money in a 2+2 SNG, and dead money is what you usually look for in an SNG. So moneywise, it's not a good game, but if you take in the educational value, the opportunity to meet other 2+2ers and see who's got the ugliest icon, plus the bragging rights you get if you win and yes, the small money (I'm netting 64$ at my four 2+2 events, but it's a microscopic sample, soon I'm gonna lose it all), it's a great deal.

Not to mention the great delight in being smashed by Poker Jon's huge stack. Now that's a bully.



PrayingMantis