do I have odds here?

[milesdyson]

the implied odds are in your favor. someone hitting a set when you hit a set is rare, and occasionally it will happen. when it does, you'll lose lots o' bets. however, when you do flop the set on most boards, you're money, and you're getting beyond enough to call the two back to you.

also, factoring in that we will have odds on the flop shouldn't matter much at all. if we can see a turn for one bet, we do (because it's profitable). if not, we fold. if the flop is A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] we can fold for one.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
By my count there are 14 bets in the pot when it's 2 to you (7:1, and that won't really improve with bets going in from the players behind you, even if it isn't capped) and you need about 8:1 to call for set value, without discounting that for the times that you're going to hit your set and still have to give it up because there's an A-J on the board and somebody's still going nuts. Because you can't possibly think you're best, even preflop.

And, you're looking at some serious reverse-implied odds if you don't hit on the flop, because you WILL have the odds to call one (you're OOP, and then you'll probably have to call at least one more after that when it gets raised behind you) to try and catch a 7 on the turn, even with paint on the flop. Ugh.

Call me weak, but I fold this preflop when it's 2 back to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not weak. It's just bad poker. The logic is on very very shaky foundations.

1) Worrying about set over set is silly. Yes, it happens. But set over set is rare enough that it does not merit being counted as a major possibility. When you see A-J on the board and someone is going crazy, you will still see overpairs and two pair hands far more often than you will see sets.

2) Preflop is not about the immediate odds about flopping a set. If you have immediate odds to flop a set, you've got implied odds which are probably 3-4 times BETTER than that you should be considering.

3) Are you implying that you would fold a set? Folding sets is generally a bad idea. The times to *CONSIDER* folding a set are when you're faced with 4-flushes and double-paired boards bigger than your set. But many times in those cases, the donk factor is large enough to make the pot odds worth looking up players.

You should essentially *NEVER* fold a pocket pair after committing a full small bet to the pot. I have *yet* to see a realistic scenario where this is the case. (The closest I've come is that someone mucks one of your two set outs face up, thus killing your odds of catching a set.)

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not weak. It's just bad poker. The logic is on very very shaky foundations.

1) ... But set over set is rare enough that it does not merit being counted as a major possibility. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But, how do you compare the odds of set over set to the odds of a 7-way preflop capped pot?*

[ QUOTE ]
2) Preflop is not about the immediate odds about flopping a set. If you have immediate odds to flop a set, you've got implied odds which are probably 3-4 times BETTER than that you should be considering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, under normal circumstances I agree. But, under normal circumstances when I'm playing a mid-pair I either have position or an outside chance that I can win UI. In this case I don't have either. I won't even be able to represent a monster hand if I miss on the flop, because of the likelihood that somebody else ACTUALLY has that hand.

I also, don't agree about the implied odds. I think there's a much greater chance than not that you'll be losing a lot of the "family" once the flop comes and they see that their 65s has completely missed. Add in that any high pocket pair (except AA) is going to have to slow down to aggression on the flop, and I disagree with the "3-4 times" qualifier.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Are you implying that you would fold a set? Folding sets is generally a bad idea. The times to *CONSIDER* folding a set are when you're faced with 4-flushes and double-paired boards bigger than your set. But many times in those cases, the donk factor is large enough to make the pot odds worth looking up players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. I'm a lifetime member of the "if you lose with a set and don't lose a lot you played it wrong" club. But if you're ONLY playing for set value, and in this pot I don't see how you could not be, it then DOES become about immediate odds, since I'm likely not going to be able to continue past the flop if I don't hit my set.

[ QUOTE ]
You should essentially *NEVER* fold a pocket pair after committing a full small bet to the pot. I have *yet* to see a realistic scenario where this is the case. (The closest I've come is that someone mucks one of your two set outs face up, thus killing your odds of catching a set.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to get into a war over this, but this is nuts. Same hand, but make the preflop action: 1 fold, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls, MP2 raises, MP3 3-bets, 3 folds, BB caps, UTG+1 folds, Hero ? You calling 3 with 77 and only 3 opponents?

*Now, I just went back and looked at the OP, again, and noticed for the first time that it's a 0.10/0.20 game. Perhaps I need to be giving less weight to the fact that it was capped 7-ways preflop, I don't know. But if that has any weight at all, I don't see how you're playing this.

[milesdyson]

im gonna have to agree about "never folding a pocket pair after putting one in" being wrong. i've folded after RAISING preflop.

folded to me w/ 77 on button, sb and bb are both very rockish. i open raise, sb 3-bets, bb caps, i fold. and to hate my life even more, the flop drops Q77.

[bozlax]

I'm just happy to have gotten ONE thing right. Maybe.