Are sets the same thing as trips?

[deacsoft]

HPFAP: Trips-Three of a kind
TOP: Trips-Three of a kind
PPLTP: Trips (N)-A common term for three of a kind
SS: Trips-A slang for three-of-a-kind

I think this is more a csae of an unclear definition. Not a matter of who's right or wrong. Judging from the definitions from respected poker minds/books the definition can be used either way.

[AngryCola]

Grr............
You keep saying the same thing, but you don't seem to get why you are wrong.

TRIPS ARE THREE-OF-A-KIND
SETS ARE THREE-OF-A-KIND

Sigh.

BUT

Sets use both your hole cards.
Trips use a pair on the board.

You keep saying, but it says "Trips= three-of-a-kind."

Of course they are three-of-a-kind! But they AREN'T the same thing.

EDIT- In fact, you didn't even seem to notice the other posters were agreeing with you. Of course, both sets and trips = three-of-a-kind.

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
sets use both your hole cards.
Trips use a pair on the board.

You keep saying, but it says "Trips= three-of-a-kind."

Of course they are three-of-a-kind! But they AREN'T the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why isn't that stated in their definitions?

[AngryCola]

Sigh..you just aren't listening.

One last time, the definitions you are quoting (except SS) are correct.

Yes..

SET = Three-of-a-kind
TRIPS = Three-of-kind

You can believe whatever you like, but it is a fact that-

TRIPS = three-of-a-kind with A PAIR ON THE BOARD
SETS = three-of-a-kind using BOTH YOUR HOLE CARDS.

I'm sorry you keep running over the same mental block here, but that's the way it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Then why isn't that stated in their definitions?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is plainly stated in SSHE. Do you really think 2+2 would put out a book with incorrect information? The definitions from the other 2+2 books aren't wrong, they simply don't elaborate any further.

[AngryCola]

Also note that the SS definition...
"Super System by Doyle Brunson, page 546: SET A term used to describe Trips or Fours (four of a kind), as in a set of trips. "

...refers to a set as four-of-a-kind OR three-of-a-kind.
It also calls four-of-a-kind "fours" as opposed to "quads".

Still, the only real thing wrong in that statement is that a set is used to describe trips. It may have been true then, but it's not true now.

But the funny thing is you don't even seem to notice the difference between that definition and all the others your quoted. The SS quote isn't saying the same thing as the other books you listed.

[snowlarbear]

i hope quads are still quads, at least.

[AKQJ10]

AngryCola, i had always understood the "conventional" definition (to the extent that such exists) to be different:

Trips - three-of-a-kind
Set - in Hold 'em, trips made from a pair in the hole and a matching community card.

In other words, I understood sets to be a subset of all possible trips. But i could have just misunderstood.

At any rate, it certainly seems that many have differed on this point.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I had this argument before, deacsoft, you are wrong. I thought you were right, but you aren't. Sorry man.

[deacsoft]

I concede, sir, you are correct.

[AngryCola]

I really didn't mean to get into that heated of a discussion about it.

You have always seemed like a pretty smart guy, and it bothered me you were overlooking something fairly simple. I might have been frustrated because of my own failure to explain the issue properly.

It really isn't that big of a deal. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]