Typical preflop situation

[kidpoker22]

Yeah the implied odds are sweet if you flop a set, with a hand like 66 you're still vunerable to loosing a huge pot to an overpair that flopped top set. If you're up against two overpairs--you are certainly up against one--it's a -EV play. Still, depends on your opponent.

[roy_miami]

How often does this situation come up? Once every 20000 hands, maybe? If calling has a positive expectation of 1 BB per hand, what are you costing yourself by folding really? 0.003 BB/hour? Is this significant enough to make anyone who folds here a long term loser? Is it even worth arguing? I don't know, maybe 0.003 BB/hour is alot, but for now I'm gonna keep folding.

Now I'm not arguing that folding is the right play, because it obviously isn't for most, but for some people it may be. I actually had this almost excact situation come up yesterday, I have notes on the capper as having low preflop raise standards I called 2 cold with my 88 (the call was based entirely on this thread), 3 to the flop of T25 the capper bet, the other dude folded on the flop, i knew this player could push AK to the river so I called down to see his KK. Obviously I don't have the discipline to get away from this hand post flop and I'm sure I'm not alone. I would think it would be especiallly hard to drop an overpair after the flop. So, at this point in my career its probably a negative play for me to see flops in this situation, when I get good enough to fold on the flop here maybe I'll start calling, but for now I'll have to live with the 10 cents (give or take a few pennys) an hour this fold is costing me.

[chris_a]

Actually, I wrote my own simulator that runs hold'em hands to showdowns. Betting is not included. There are a lot of settings, you can give a player fixed cards, random cards, or hands from a Sklansky group.

For this problem, I gave seat one 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], seat two a random hand from Sklansky group 1-4 (the three better), and seat three a random hand from Sklansky group 1-2 (the capper). I told the simulator to flop 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and two other random cards, then a random turn, and a random river. I ran 1 million hands with just those three players active.

Betting is not extremely important for this hand since your opponents will likely not fold on the flop and, of course, neither will you when you flop a set.

The results are pocket 6's won 80.1%, Group 1-4 won 9.4%, and Group 1-2 hand won 10.5%. There were splits but I counted them as half of a win (or a third in a three way split). I have a breakdown of the final winning hands, but I'll leave that info out.

So the number looks like 80% which isn't too far off from 75% but Joey's assumptions are on the conversative sides especially for the amount of bets in the pot. My group assumptions are on the loose side for a typical mid-/high-limit game.

I don't think it's that clear of a call. In a tight game it may be a fold, in a loose game it may be a call.

[etizzle]

It is incorrect that one opponent flops an overset 16% of the time that you flop a set. The fact that one of the cards is a 6 decreases the chance that he flopped a set. He now only has 2 cards that can help him.

[34TheTruth34]

[ QUOTE ]
When you flop a set, you win 75% of the time


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think you should work on your assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]



please explain

[34TheTruth34]

[ QUOTE ]
u wanna play 66 versus aa and kk????

[/ QUOTE ]


yes

[Gabe]

[ QUOTE ]
It is incorrect that one opponent flops an overset 16% of the time that you flop a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said:

[ QUOTE ]
he will hit an overset about 16% of the time with any of the other 4 board cards when you hit a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

[mmcd]

I don't think it's that clear of a call. In a tight game it may be a fold, in a loose game it may be a call.

Calling is more profitable in a tight game than in a loose game.

[chris_a]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling is more profitable in a tight game than in a loose game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a dangerous generalization. Sometimes this statement is completely false. It entirely depends on your hand and the texture of the game.

Maybe instead of replying with a one line rule of thumb in an attempt to retort my entire post that contains objective evidence from my simulator that is relevant to the post, you could actually put something with thought.

[joey_qz]

I don't know if you're asking stoxtrader or me to clarify, but I'll offer a little extra explanation.

As I explained in my original post, I offered 75% as an estimate for the probability of winning when you flop a set based on the fact that

1. An opponent with an overpair has about a 16% chance of hitting an overset on any of the 4 other board cards when you flop a set.

2. You are up against TWO opponents.

3. It is very likely that at least one of those two opponents has an overpair.

Since then, chris_a has been kind enough to provide simulation results that show that, given certain assumptions of the holdings of the two opponents, my figure was indeed in the ballpark.

Notice that, if instead of assuming that you lose 9 SB when you lose with a set, you assume 11 SB, and instead of assuming that you win 23 SB, you win only 21 SB, the 80% figure for win % with a set leads to a fold as the correct decision.
The point is that this is a very close decision.
Factors such as the tightness of your opponents (notice that chris_a, as he stated, gave the 3-better a relatively loose raising requirement, which will boost your set win %), and how aggressive you are when you flop a set have a large effect on whether this hand is profitable.
I can easily imagine situations where you win 23 sb with your set and lose 13 sb with your set, which would certainly swing this to a fold.

-joey