"No Set, No Bet" seems flawed

[ebaudry]

Prevailing logic seems to be that (in the early rounds of a STT) you want to see the flop cheap with small pairs and then abandon them if you don't hit a set or an OESD.

It seems to me there is a pretty glaring omission to this when you are in late position and some jerk has minbet or thereabouts and a couple people have called.

I hoping to get an idea what size bet to replace the "X" with in order to make calling here for implied odds correct. I know its a small #, but it seems like it might be bigger than first impressions:

"So I'm on the button with pocket Sixes. Including the blinds who both limped and myself, 6 players saw the flop. The flop came 28Q rainbow, there are 180 chips in the pot on Level 2 of a $30+3 STT at Party. The small blind bets "X", the big blind folds, the 3 limpers all call, and I call because of the implied odds of an unlikely but probably huge payoff if I hit my set on the turn."

So odds-wise, if X=50 I would be be choosing between folding or putting in 50 for a chance at 380, which is wayoff from my 2-outer. However I know I'll fold if I don't hit my set on the turn [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] and being last to act with so many players in front makes doubling up a possibility.

So what do y'all think?

Is X very small (perhaps less than the 30 minimun bet on this round, hence folding is easy)?

Is X worth knowing because of how many turn sets one might be giving up by employing "No set, no bet"?

Is the whole question ridiculous because you should be saving your chips for when you can be the aggressor and not waste "ammunition" on hopelessly long drawing odds?

Thanks, hope this isn't an ancient topic, I'm new. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Eric