playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

5/10 NLHE 1k stacks, UTG raises to 30 someone calls, i call in LP with 44. Flop comes A64o. UTG leads out for 50, he is an okay player. Not sure how to get money in here with a set, can't think of any lines where it's not obvious what I have.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure how to get money in here with a set,

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if you have any kind of a read on him, that helps to answer, but if you're putting him on an ace/blank, or you think you've got him all but drawing dead, I like the minimum raise here, (assuming he checks the turn)3/4-pot-size-bet the turn, then same size bet the river (if he's gone this far, he'll pay you off another turn-pot-sized-bet). This is, of course, barring any drastic board changes.
In any case, that's how I milk the cow.
Good question, btw. I'm interested to see how other people answer.
Keep playing player.
E

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well, if you have any kind of a read on him, that helps to answer, but if you're putting him on an ace/blank, or you think you've got him all but drawing dead, I like the minimum raise here, (assuming he checks the turn)3/4-pot-size-bet the turn, then same size bet the river (if he's gone this far, he'll pay you off another turn-pot-sized-bet). This is, of course, barring any drastic board changes.
In any case, that's how I milk the cow.
Good question, btw. I'm interested to see how other people answer.
Keep playing player.
E

[/ QUOTE ]

I like not doing this.

scrub

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

i agree. doesn't the minraise make it even more obvious what he has?
unless you do it a ton, minraise just screams i nailed the flop, please call.
i make a normal raise here hoping he puts me on a worse A than him.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

I like min raise for the rep of an Ace. I find mid level players, like the one described, will call with A/9 or better with this lay. He'll want to see another card for the ace alone, so you don't want to run him off, but if you're confident he won't bust you by the river, just milk him down. Obviously this won't work on better players, or aggressive players who will be coming at you anyway, but why chase him off or let him get suspicious of the trap? The min raise is just to keep him committed to the later bets.
I'm not trying to beat anyone with a stick on this play, I'm just trying to wean a little money out of a guy that doesn't want to pay to show down. There are a ton of reasons why you could be betting min raise here, and I like the weak representation for a constant call. He needs two runners to win, so you can give him the first bet for free, but if you raise the turn, he'll probably run there. finessing a little more out of him on the flop tends to keep him in for the long run if he calls there.
Again, that's just my opinion.
If you disagree, that's fine, but say more than "I disagree." I'm interested to hear how other players get the maximum pay off in this situation. Again, good question.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

Hey Bruiser,

[ QUOTE ]
5/10 NLHE 1k stacks, UTG raises to 30 someone calls, i call in LP with 44. Flop comes A64o. UTG leads out for 50, he is an okay player. Not sure how to get money in here with a set, can't think of any lines where it's not obvious what I have.

[/ QUOTE ]

If raising the flop here makes it obvious that you have a set, we have a problem...

Raise it up and hope he has AK. If he has KK or something, you probably aren't getting much more anyway unless he thinks you're a nut. So, make maximizing your profits when he has an ace your priority.

ML4L

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

Heh... ML4l, what else would you raise this flop with?

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

Hi ML4L,

Have read a lot of your posts and respect your opinion so was wondering what you think of a smooth call here?
There is $140 in the pot (if the MP also calls then $190) and when Bruiser calls $240.
The turn will probably put a flush draw out there and if UTG has TPTK they could try and protect with a pot sized bet.
I can't see how Bruiser would lose money here (UTG could just as easily fold to a flop raise) unless it was a non-ace scare card pairing the board.
A raise on the turn may bring in the MP and UTG may pay off bruiser suspecting the draw or even bluff, as from his posts he has quite a LAG image (no offence Bruiser [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Am I way out? I don't know [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

I like a flat call here. I'd vary between flat calling and raising your standard amount about 70/30.

As far as raising hands go, I'd be inclined to raise with any two pair, A-K, A-Q, and maybe even a straight draw if I suspected the other guy didn't have an ace, or if I thought he might fold a weak ace ( folding a weak ace would mostly depend on how tight you've been playing ).

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

Minraising gives away your hand unless you constatntly minraise with hands where your opponent is drawing more live.

If you're minraising enough with holdings where your opponent is drawing live that you're not giving away your hand here, you have bigger problems than how to play a set in this spot.

Raising a set here some of the time is great. Minraising is retarded.

scrub

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

If you raise a large amount, he might suspect you have a set, but it won't be obvious. The most likely holding I would suspect would be A 6s or A 4s. If he has a big pr, he's trying to see whether or not you have an ace, and if he has AK or AQ, he's betting for value and will likely call a lot even if he thinks you have 2 pair.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

[ QUOTE ]

Raising a set here some of the time is great. Minraising is retarded.


[/ QUOTE ]

Retarded is a little harsh.

A lot of people will minraise here with an A testing the preflop bettor especially after hes thrown out a weakish bet. I feel like the minraise has its merits here used occasionally.

AK is likely to put in a reraise to which you can flat call and likely get the money in on the turn. If he calls, then you can bet about $175 on the turn and give him a real tough decision. If he doesn't have AK the money probably isn't going in anyway unless your beat.

Not necessarily the best line, but I wouldn't say retarded.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

Scrub brings up a good point in that the main thing you should be thinking about is how you've been playing your previous hands at this table. You would play this hand very differently if you just sat at the table vs. having been at the table for several hours. If you just sat down, then ok, you could argue a case on how to extract the most amount of money from the avg. 5/10 NL player on which you have no read and no experience against. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to give good advice without knowing anything about the previous hands played.

Have you been caught bluffing the villian or viceverca? What was the betting pattern for the hand in which you were caught bluffing? Have you been shown to bet draws super agressively? Is the villian willing to hold on to TPTK to the bitter end?

The answers to these types of questions will make the answer much more clear. The ability to answer these questions and come up with a good line of play is an essential skill to a good poker player IMO, and you probably know this.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

You play at PS a lot, so the players there won't really make any crazy moves so much. I like raising to about 2.5 times his bet, something he is likely to call with a pretty good hand. If he has top 2, chances are, he doesn't expect a set. Even AK/AQ will be reluctant to fold.

If he has garbage, you aren't really going to be making much off of him anyway. Against overaggressive players, check calling until the river usually works best.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Heh... ML4l, what else would you raise this flop with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, if I raise in this spot, it's usually a bluff. Most hands that would raise from EP and then bet half the pot on the flop are going to have a tough time calling a raise. If I'm playing loose and saw the flop with A6s, A4s, 64, or 75, I'd probably go ahead and pop him too. And, again, I'll raise a set here, because there isn't much point in waiting until the turn. If he doesn't have an ace, you aren't getting more action on the turn. And if the guy can lay down AK to a flop raise from you here, you should be running him over...

To me, calling the flop and raising the turn if he bets screams "set" a lot more than raising the flop.

That having been said, I don't think any specific line is so much better than the others that it makes a difference. So, I probably raise the flop, but maybe I wait until the turn or river. Because sometimes when he has KK and checks, you can fire in an overbet on the turn/river and get called by someone looking to pick off a bluff...

I love hands that I can't screw up.

ML4L

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

Hey imperious,

I think a call is fine too. I'm not sure if I buy into the flush draw theory (what does he think Bruiser called the flop with?), but you're right about this being a good play against someone who is going to fire big on the turn.

If I'm EP, you're probably going to make more from me by raising the flop than taking any other line. That's why I've suggested that as the default line. But, again, this is a tough hand to screw up. Most lines should yield substantially the same amount...

ML4L

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

If I bluff in a situation like this I normally call the flop to see what he'll do on the turn, it just seems cheaper that way, and I'll have more information. In the game I minraised the flop and then bet $250 into a $300 pot on the turn. I was hoping he'd think it was strange because 1) I never minraise, 2) minraising and then betting the pot seems like a strange line, hoping he'd get suspicious. Probably a stupid line, he folded the turn.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

[ QUOTE ]

If raising the flop here makes it obvious that you have a set, we have a problem...

Raise it up and hope he has AK. If he has KK or something, you probably aren't getting much more anyway unless he thinks you're a nut. So, make maximizing your profits when he has an ace your priority.

ML4L

[/ QUOTE ]

m4l4 is like the new matt flynn

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

I agree that playing a set in a solid NL game is immensely tough to make good money off and disguise.
I do agree that representing a big Ace is probably the best approach-Then proceed to bet near-pot or slightly smaller than pot size value bets, provided nothing too scary hits.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

in a lot of situations you just aren't destined to make a ton of money with whatever you have, because your opponent doesn't have much. as a general rule I don't worry about the minimum amount I can squeeze out of the hand, but rather the maximum I can make if he does have a big hand. I generally think this strategy is best against all but the loosest 3 barrel bluffers. in this situation if the guy can't stand a flop raise and a turn bet, he really doesn't like his hand. note that you don't need a set to make this play if he will lay down an A.

--turnipmonster

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

Definitely need more info on UTG's betting style/table image/ability to laydown quality hands...but with no reads and no background information, I certainly agree with a larger than min-raise bet in order to represent an Ace. If he's got one...he'll probabaly check/call or bet/call raises until showdown and you'll get paid off. If not, he'll fold before he can hit his overset, and you'll probably get all the money possible on this hand [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] On a side note...If he does call your flop raise and then bets out on the turn, I suggest flat calling here, and then betting the river pretty hard since he's already shown that he'll put a good amount of money into this hand.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

[ QUOTE ]
in a lot of situations you just aren't destined to make a ton of money with whatever you have, because your opponent doesn't have much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we would want to make at least $210 on average here to make the preflop call profitable.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

This is easy.

You have bottom set on a fairly uncoordinated Ace high flop. Raise baby, raise. Make it look like you have an ace that doesn't want much action, if he's got a big ace you stand a good chance at winning a big pot.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

First, I would never say "i disagree" then say nothing else. That is moronic. Not even sure why you would preface with that.

He is a midlevel player? He said he is an okay player, at 5/10 NL. That really is not a midlevel player. He is going to smell a rat on the minraise.
So if you don't want to run him off, wouldn't a flat call be better? I'm not saying that is what I would do, since I would raise. But based on your not wanting to run him off, a minraise gives away more.

Next, I am not trying to wean a little money out of the guy..I want to double through him. That is the entire reason to play 44. Otherwise calling $30 hoping to just make $130 on something that flops 1 in 7 times is just not a good play.
You play it for one reason..to win a monster pot!

Next he raised UTG..I don't see him having A9 here. I'm really hoping he has AK or AQ and will pay me off.
A minraise gets me an extra $50 and starts to give away my hand.
A flatcall also looks a little suspicious, he likely bets one more time then is done with it.

But since so many people slowplay trips, making a raise with it looks more like an A. So if he has AK, he will think he is ahead since you don't have AK, or he'd expect a reraise, nor a set since you'd probably trap.
So I am trying to break him..so I make it $150 and now AK is in a quandry as if he calls the pot is now $400 and anymore betting, which he'll do with AK unless I am the biggest rock ever, which Bruiser is not, he is going to lose a monster. He ain't ditching AK.

Ok, what if he doesn't have AK or AQ. Well, he is done with the hand no matter what anyway. KK or QQ was taking a stab at it, no reason to flat call and let him hit his set and break you for free. AJ knows his hand is no good, of course you would like to give him a free card, but AK is the most likely hand here, maybe AQ.
I'm playing to win $500-1000 here, which can happen often against AK.
You are playing to win $130 here.

Again, you play small pp to try to break a guy/win a huge pot. That is like most of the reason to play with deep stacks in NL.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

In late position you need to be calling these small raises with quite a few hands. Maybe not AT but AQ and 76s and A5s and 44.

You also need to generally raise when you flop something, unless its a cynch he's got you beat and will call the raise. So if you call the raise with 76s and the flop is A64 and he bets, you should raise; generally a little more than a pot-sized bet; which is what you'd do with AQ. Ditto for the set. Use the set to help steal these pots on the flop.

Playing the way you do (appearantly calling with AK on that flop), sure its tough to make any money with a set. Newsflash: if you only raise with sets they aren't going to call.

- Louie

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

I raise in many situations, just not on this board. On this board I call a lot, in fact I would call with AQ and 76. What is the value in raising with those hands?

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

So it seems as though your mission has to be to make 210 bucks or so to justify your preflop call. He's already given you 125 of that (preflop and postflop betting plus the blinds plus the other caller). You need to make another hundred. There's a good way to do that and leave the possibility open of a pretty decent pot-smooth call the flop. That way he'll probably put you on an ace and bet out the turn to see how good it is. Call the turn if he bets it, if not bet a medium-sized amount (around 120). In either case you're representing an ace well enough that if he checks the river you can value bet him for a couple hundred and he'll be stuck because of the size of the pot. There's a chance he's betting out with KK or QQ getting ready to give up the flop. The risk of that being the case and him sucking out are small enough that you can lay the trap. I say slowplay until the river and then figure out how much you can get him to call.

Let Me Clarify Something...
 

[ QUOTE ]
So it seems as though your mission has to be to make 210 bucks or so to justify your preflop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, Foxwoods, because you aren't the only one in the thread to say this, but this is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've EVER seen propagated on this forum...

I cringed when I read it the first time and should have said something then. But now that I've seen it again, I felt obligated to say something.

Briefly, here's the problem. This ain't limit poker. The whole 7-1 or whatever rule doesn't apply. There are several reasons for this; I'll let people figure them out for themselves. But, here's the thing. Even if it did apply (which again, it CERTAINLY does not), you wouldn't have to win seven times your preflop investment EVERY time. It would be an average. Your goal when flopping a set should not be to win $210. It should be to double-up.

Sorry to make an example out of you, but it needed to be said... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

ML4L

Re: Let Me Clarify Something...
 

Is it not the same in limit? That your average expectation for hitting a set needs to be 7.xx times the money it costs to call?

Obviously in NL it's easier to get the money all in with a set vs. overpair, but I dont know if he was implying that you needed to make 7x the investment *every* time...

Re: Let Me Clarify Something...
 

For what it's worth, in limit the preflop situations where a call with a PP will be profitable are much more clear cut. There are just a lot more situations where it's almost impossible to show a profit with a call because it's too hard to get enough money in later in the hand.

I think that's what ML meant, not that it's not also an average in limit.

scrub

I\'ll Just Spell It Out...
 

Hey all,

Sorry for the tone of my last post; it probably wasn't very helpful. Here's my point...

[ QUOTE ]
So it seems as though your mission has to be to make 210 bucks or so to justify your preflop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with the statement is twofold. First, the 7-1 rule exists in limit because, when you call a raise with a pocket pair, flopping a set is usually going to be the only way to win a multiway pot. Against typical opponents, you aren't going to be able to run a scratch bluff or win unimproved.

Compare this with no-limit. When you are in position, your opponents are often at your mercy. What if Bruiser called with 44 here and the flop came A63? Instead of auto-mucking because he missed his set, he should play the hand the exact same way that he did when he flopped his set. He gets the pot on this hand regardless of whether or not he actually flopped his set. In NL, your steal equity in position is a HUGE factor in determining the value of your hand. This is why, in big-bet with relatively deep stacks, it can become correct at times to see a flop with ANY two cards on the button, even in a raised pot (this idea should not be overblown, though).

The second problem with the statement is that, as posters have alluded to, making or not making at least $210 on this particular hand would have no bearing about the correctness of the preflop call, even if a "7-1" rule existed. The key is to average more than $0 on the hand in all the instances that it is played. In limit, you probably won't show an overall profit with pocket pairs unless you are making at least 7-1 on sets, because you will be folding most other flops. But, just because you don't make 7-1 EVERY time you flop a set doesn't mean that you should have folded your pocket pair.

Make sense?

ML4L

Re: I\'ll Just Spell It Out...
 

good post mike. against opponents who think and generally play well, steal equity goes way up and showdown value goes way down. in other words, if bruiser's opponents generally will not pay him off if he plays a set a certain way, then bruiser should play other hands that way until they feel obliged to start calling him down, whereupon he must adjust his game.

what a dance, what a game.

--turnipmonster

Re: I\'ll Just Spell It Out...
 

hm, good point turnip

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

good post.

Re: playing a set when it\'s obvious you have a set
 

That's assuming that you're not going to be able to take down pots on appearance alone. If the board comes scrambled, you feel he's weak, then you're going to take down what's in the pot as is... This also doesn't account for those golden hands where you are going to make up to several grand on a thirty dollar pre-flop call. I'm not really arguing with you on the overall ratio in order to justify a call for profit, I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily need to be all at once. If a player has a semi-weak ace, a lot of mid level players will call down just because. If he has a strong ace, or two pair, he probably will. In this situation, if I feel he's weak, I prefer to wean what I can out of him. If I feel he's strong(but not stronger...) I'll try to double through.
Again, this is just a personal preference. If other players find that this manner doesn't suit them, that's fine, I'm just saying that this is how I handle the situation.
E