[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you are correct that there is a 1 in 5 chance that an A or K will hit the flop, however, keep in mind, that has to coincide with me flopping a set to be potentially harmful (in other words, set over set scenario). If I don't flop a set, then there is no set over set problem.


However, you incorrect regarding the 1 in 10 chance that there will be set over set on the flop. There is a 5% chance that two people will FLOP a set on the same hand, which the last time I checked is 1 in 20 not 1 in 10.

Nevertheless, let's imagine I do flop a set and an A or K hits the board. Do you really think I'm going to play the hand scared that I could be beaten by a higher set? NO, and if anyone does, they are playing scared poker, plain and simple and at the lower-limits, they are not taking advantage of prime profit opportunites, by not trying to build a huge pot when they have flopped a set.

If I happen to lose somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-8 big bets b/c of set over set, then so be it...It's happened before. In fact, the last time I played at Caesar's, I had JJ on the button, raised a player who had recently sat at the table and I had no read who was in late position. 5-6 others saw a flop of Q,J,6...turn was a blank and river was a 6. No, he didn't have pocket sixes he had pocket queens. Fortunately, we were three-handed on the river, so I only lost four bets on the end, whereas it probably would have been more like 5 or 6.

That's just the way it goes, as I said, those things happen, but they DON'T happen a lot more than they do and if you aren't taking advantage of your profit-making potential when they do, then you are missing bets and missing bets in a low limit game is problematic as it is difficult to compete with the rakes and tokes the way it is.

Oh yea, one other thing, I still don't know why you keep bringing up QQ, if you would have read the whole thread I said I did not think anyone had QQ, but it's certainly possible, as is every other hand.

The only thing that I had speculated on was that I was pretty sure the player to my right was raising with either and only pocket Aces or Kings.