What do you do here?

[tewall]

The problem with trips is you're hand isn't that good, especially with a poor kicker. That's because you only have once card that's working. So if you lead out with it and get played back with, there's a good chance you're in trouble.

On the other hand, if you check it, a lot of players will take a shot at the pot, thinking they'll represent the missing card. If you had led out, they would have just folded.

So the idea is not to slow play it, as if it were a monster hand, but to play it carefully, like top pair/lousy kicker on a non-paired board.

[spacemonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
If you bet, what's your plan? If I'm reading your logic correct, it sounds like your plan is to fold if you're raised, and if called, assume you're ahead and keep betting. Is that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends. But yes, that's the basic idea. I don't fold every time I'm raised, it depends how much the raise is, who the player is, how many other people are in the pot (v.important), position, my chances of housing up. And keep betting if flat called, though with no draws on I'll get suspicious.

[crockpot]

i would check to induce a bet, but against a strong player i would consider an all-in because all-ins in this type of situation are almost always signs of weakness. unfortunately, the texture of the board makes it unlikely he has anything to call you with besides a pocket pair or ace high. so checking is probably the better play.

i would usually flat call a bet, but it depends on the player. not many free cards will beat you, but if the guy is willing to call an all-in with a hand like a medium pocket pair, you may as well take advantage of it. if you're up against a better hand, you're screwed, but you can't let go of this hand unless the guy is playing super-passive.

[Bill Haywood]

Rather than check, another option is to make a wimpy-sized bet. Their call will give a wee bit more of a win, and might induce a big bluff. A check looks to much like a trap. A check may induce a bluff, but it may be a small one, and they are gone once you come over the top. An all-in might also work, because it is often perceived as a bluff. I'm not so worried about another set with a better kicker. I think you'll come out ahead in the long run by playing it hard.

[tewall]

If you bet to find out where you are, and get called, why do you assume you're ahead? And if you bet to find out where you are and get raised, the question begs to be asked even more? What did you find out by betting?

Betting will be better than checking if you're more likely to be called by a worse hand than that the worse hand will bet if checked to. Plus you'd like to be ahead most of the time when you get called.

I think checking to find out where you are is a better play. If someone bets, you can take the factors you mentioned into consideration and try to decide if you're ahead or not. If you think you're ahead, and the board is threatening, you could raise to protect your hand. Otherwise, call and check the turn. See if the guy bets again, and make a decision whether or not to continue based on the opponent.

This way of playing seems to win more when ahead and lose less when behind. Betting to find out where you are is often a poor idea because you're betting hands that are too weak for a value bet and too good for a bluff.

[tewall]

I think you're overvalueing the hand. It's not that good. You've only got one card working for you. The hand can easily be beaten, and if you get action you're probably behind, assuming you play it fast.

If you play it slower, you might get action from people trying to bluff you. This seems more likely to me than hoping for someone to make a bad call, although the idea of going all-in is an intriguing one, so it looks so much like a bluff it might get called enough to make it worth while.