[steve968574]

[ QUOTE ]
[T]he likelihood of set over set is very insignificant to me.
***
I could say with about 75% certainty that pre-flop one of the additional A's or K's were gone as the two limpers liked to play hands with any one big card.
***
I would never incorrectly fold a set if an A or K came in this scenario, at worst I'd check-call it down, there is too much money in the pot to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to isolate this set-over-set situation and see if my analysis of it is valid.

I'll start with your assessment that exactly one of the A/K's is already spoken for, so that there are only five of them available for the flop. So, two chances (given that you flop your set) out of 47 cards (your pair, the other pair, the single A/K are known) to flop one of those five cards. That is, 1 - (42/47*41/46) = 20.35% chance that an A or K will accompany your seven on the flop.

So pre-flop, you have a 1-in-5 chance that you will face a post-flop scenario in which it's even money that your opponent has a higher set.

Viewed from the pre-flop perspective, that's a 1-in-10 chance of facing a higher set. But that's a little misleading, since the post-flop betting posture on which your your tactic depends will be significantly altered by the presence of that A or K.

Now, running from this one aspect of the hand would be playing scared. However, the significant (1-in-5) chance of ending up in a post-flop situation where it's a coin toss whether or not your opponent has a higher set, I think would have to be factored into your implied odds.

Add to that the possibility of QQ, which you acknowledged above, and the set-over-set scenario looms even larger. Which, I admit, may still not be determinitive, depending the other factors affecting implied odds.