Flopping a set and the board gets ugly

[ellipse_87]

What are the criteria when deliberating over whether to protect or build the pot? Here, is it simply that trapping 4 players for 2 or 3 bets overcomes the certainty of getting beat ocasionally long-term by gutshots we could've folded, thus giving the play +EV?

If the PFR'r was the SB and we were directly behind, would we be raising this flop to protect?

Thanks

[jskills]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if you are going to check this flop with this many people you should be doing so with the intention of check raising to thin the field. I like the rest though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why thin the field on a drawless board like this (at the time of the flop at least).

[/ QUOTE ]

(A) The board is not drawless - anybody with a 7 has an open-ended str8 draw.
(B) Yes, you do not want to thin the field. You will only be thinning the field of thinks like AQo, which have zero chance of beating you. Anybody with a 7, as well as overpairs (which can beat you) will still call. In other words, you would only be thinning field of those people who can't beat you while those who can would remain. Thinning the field is a BAD idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct. The only hands you can protect against are hands that are drawing dead/very very thin. The hands you want to fold are almost never folding (except, maybe, gutshots, but trapping them for multiple bets certainly isn't bad). On the flop with a set you have the best hand AND best draw like 99.9% of the time, so if you're ever in doubt about which line to take, I wouldn't worry about protection. Take the line that gets the most bets in from the most number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if you guys are agreeing with the check-raise the flop idea, but check raising the flop is awful here.

If you want to get the most bets in from the most number of peoeple, check raising directly after the preflop raiser bets and making the rest of the field face two bets cold is NOT the way to accomplish that. It makes them all fold and get the hand heads up. We do not want that on this type of flop.

The correct line, as pointed out by several posters (Shant, Entity) is to simply bet out on the flop, get everyone to call one bet behind you, and hope the preflop raiser will raise the flop, thus bringing the rest of the field along for another bet.

BTW: The flop can be considered drawless in that most people calling a preflop raise aren't entering with a 7 in hand. I was not concerned about anyone holding a 7 at all. It was when the 7 fell on the turn that things got interesting.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]

BTW: The flop can be considered drawless in that most people calling a preflop raise aren't entering with a 7 in hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply not true when 3 people limped in before the raise and the other caller was the BB.

Rob

[jskills]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

BTW: The flop can be considered drawless in that most people calling a preflop raise aren't entering with a 7 in hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply not true when 3 people limped in before the raise and the other caller was the BB.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear you. Drawless is proably too strong a term here. But if the flop was T 9 Q, I'd almost count on someone holding a J. This flop didn't have me worried about pushing people out is what I was trying to say. I wanted everyone to come along as I really wasn't worried about a 7 in someone's hand. Certainly not as much as I was a 7 falling on the turn.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
if the flop was T 9 Q, I'd almost count on someone holding a J.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thinking this way seems to be a mistake. In the 2/4 game there is no significant diference between the probability that someone in your hand will hold a 7 vs. someone in the example quoted above holding a Jack.

EDIT: We shouldn't discount the posibility of adjacent cards being out too. 4's and 9's are also likely killers. Just as 8's and K's would be in your example.

[jskills]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if the flop was T 9 Q, I'd almost count on someone holding a J.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thinking this way seems to be a mistake. In the 2/4 game there is no significant diference between the probability that someone in your hand will hold a 7 vs. someone in the example quoted above holding a Jack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you are saying to some degree, but to say that there is "no significant difference" in the likelihood of someone holding a J or a 7 seems like a bit of an overstatement to me.

Can you at least acknowledge that a flop of T 9 Q is certainly more worrisome than a flop of 8 5 6?

[ErrantNight]

i don't like this at all.

don't like the c/c on the flop, nor your plan to c/r the turn, nor your rationale for betting the turn.

river is fine.

[ErrantNight]

when you're holding a pair of 8's? uhhh.... yeah....

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

I think its been said already -- you need to do one of the following:
(1) bet this flop
(2) raise this flop
(3) both (1) and (2).

The worst choice is (4) check/call.

[Supdog42]

I would have bet out immediately, but certainly a check raise on the flop is in order. I think the check/call/slow play on the flop is wrong. So many times I see slowplayed sets get beaten by cheap cards. Don't be greedy, get the money in and fast.