99 Set hand - Page 2

parttimepro · #11 03-21-2005, 12:28 PM

This very much looks like villain has AA or KK. He checks behind on a flop with no obvious draws to encourage bluffs on the turn. Now that he's shown weakness and you've apparently fallen for it, he sets the hook and tries to end the hand there.

Yes, he could have JJ, or even KQ. I'd still push here, because 1) you should call a push by him on the river, 2) if he does have a straight you have outs, 3) you have to get a little scared if the river is an 8, Q, K, or A.

In short, why are you playing 99 if you are afraid to get it all in when you hit a set and there are few plausible hands that beat you?

swolfe · #12 03-21-2005, 01:25 PM

So, like I said, I pushed, Villain called. I forget what the river was (didn't pair anything), and Villain took it down with K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] for the straight.

The big raise after my turn bet made me think KQ immediately. I couldn't think of anything else that a reasonable player would play that way. AK or AQ may check behind on the flop, but neither would raise the turn. I couldn't imagine any overpair (especially JJ) checking behind that flop.

Obviously, being results oriented, I should have bet out on the flop, but in this situation, with the PF raiser on my immediate left, I like to check-raise a good portion of the time to try to get some dead money in from the other caller or to extract some money from a missed AK that would otherwise fold to my bet. I'm surprised that anyone thought this was a bad move. Without a read, I'd expect a PF raiser to bet out 90% of the time, and the most of the times that I miss the check-raise, my hand will still be good on the turn.

I posted this hand because it's an example of where I had a very clear idea of what Villain probably had and thought that there was a large chance that I was beat, but couldn't lay down the set. I wanted to see what others put Villain on and see if I was just seeing monsters (and happened to be correct in this case).

meow_meow · #13 03-21-2005, 01:43 PM

I think part of the reason betting out on the flop is preferrable is that CR'ing is what most players do do when they set up on the flop. Betting out reveals much less about your holding.

swolfe · #14 03-21-2005, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think part of the reason betting out on the flop is preferrable is that CR'ing is what most players do do when they set up on the flop. Betting out reveals much less about your holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

i suppose, and i'll bet out almost every time...but this situation, where i have a likely bettor on my left, who will most of the time fold an unimproved AK or similar, i think that the check-raise makes some sense.

jbright · #15 03-21-2005, 04:39 PM

i don't think the flop c/r is a bad play either. It's a fairly safe flop against a set, and the pre flop raiser will bet here when checked to prob. 90% of the time. why not try to get an extra pot-sized bet from AK, AQ, TT, 88, etc instead of letting him muck to a bet?

villain just happened to have the only hand out there that would check behind (it's the only hand I might pfr then check behind w/ this flop in his shoes anyway), and then just happened to hit his gutshot.

I understand the reasoning that checking flopped sets from EP usually loses more money than it makes, but in this case it seems like a solid play.

Wayfare · #16 03-21-2005, 04:43 PM

Why are you check raising your set on this board?

Just bet out.

swolfe · #17 03-21-2005, 04:57 PM

thanks, i agree..this was my exact thought process when i decided to go for the check-raise. i'd like to hear some other people's thoughts on this...

again, i almost always bet out with sets, but this particular scenario it seemed to me more +EV to check-raise since i will (most of the time) get an extra PSB or two from the raiser betting and the limper caling (sometimes).

i was going to try to noodle up some math to support this, but there are too many ways the hand could play out if it sees the turn. i could probably throw something together, but i have to do SOME work today [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

meow_meow · #18 03-21-2005, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]

i don't think the flop c/r is a bad play either. It's a fairly safe flop against a set, and the pre flop raiser will bet here when checked to prob. 90% of the time. why not try to get an extra pot-sized bet from AK, AQ, TT, 88, etc instead of letting him muck to a bet?

villain just happened to have the only hand out there that would check behind (it's the only hand I might pfr then check behind w/ this flop in his shoes anyway), and then just happened to hit his gutshot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you misunderstand the way the typical opponent plays. YOU would probably muck to a bet with those holdings, but I'd say most PP 100NL players would probably call a pot sized bet on the flop with AK, KQ, TT at least - basically any gutshot and most likely any two overcards.

jbright · #19 03-21-2005, 06:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you misunderstand the way the typical opponent plays. YOU would probably muck to a bet with those holdings, but I'd say most PP 100NL players would probably call a pot sized bet on the flop with AK, KQ, TT at least - basically any gutshot and most likely any two overcards.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess like most things, it's table-dependant. I know I've bet the pot with a set in EP before and gotten disappointing folds all around (including from pre-flop raiser). I think there's an argument for both the bet and the c/r.

maybe one strategy is to bet very small - 1/3 pot say - and give the genius with say AK his "implied odds" to hit his 6-outer (which hero wants him to hit of course). against a dim villain this small EP bet also represents a weakish hand like QJ or KJ, and vil might raise hard with AJ or QQ, allowing hero to go over the top.