[jbright]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You also have to take into account the reverse implied odds, where you catch your set and still lose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell me about it! In the hand in question, villain had A4o, giving him a rivered straight. Because I didn't move in on the flop, I let him pick up his OESD relatively cheaply. (Yes, he was still making a mistake by calling on the flop. But I should have made it a bigger mistake.)

[/ QUOTE ]

that's yet another reason why you need a deeper stack to play for a set - or lots of other hands for that matter. You need to have enough chips to both take away a drawing hands odds on the flop, and then again on the turn. if you had a deeper stack, you couldve bet the pot or more on the turn and forced the OESD out. Your only other option with a smallish stack is to push all-in on the flop, but that often makes fold the villains you want to pay you off.

again, this isn't just true for playing a set - it applies to TPTK, two pair, a flopped str on a two-suited board, etc.

moral of the story is always have as big a stack as you're comfortable playing with so you have the largest array of moves at your disposal (and if you're uncomfortable risking the amount of a full buy-in or even 2 or 3 in one hand, then consider dropping down to lower stakes).

I also started as a limit player, and learning to appreciate the meaning and power of stack sizes was essential to making a succesful transition to no-limit.