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

[ML4L]

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