Too weak tight? Flop bottom set - Page 5

Popinjay · #41 03-07-2005, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you play 22 pre-flop if you would fold when you hit a set with this board?

[/ QUOTE ]

In poker there are so many different situations based on cards and the people playing. In the majority of situations when you hit a set with 22 you will be making good money, that is why you play it. Attempting to use general broad rules like the not playing 22 because you fold if you hit a set is how people get in trouble in poker.

SpeakEasy · #42 03-07-2005, 06:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you play 22 pre-flop if you would fold when you hit a set with this board?

[/ QUOTE ]

In poker there are so many different situations based on cards and the people playing. In the majority of situations when you hit a set with 22 you will be making good money, that is why you play it. Attempting to use general broad rules like the not playing 22 because you fold if you hit a set is how people get in trouble in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. I am not advocating a broad, general rule for not playing 22 -- unless you play it like this! Thus, the fairly rhetorical question.

My point to the question is that if you won't forge ahead with a raise or re-raise with a set of 222 on this board, you will always be playing 22 incorrectly, and should therefore save your pre-flop bets with 22.

In other words, get you money in there with this set on this board! I disagree with the laydown, and even more with the flop call.

Chaostracize · #43 03-07-2005, 06:17 PM

...an awful lot.

FoxwoodsFiend · #44 03-07-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So you lose your stack here to a higher set every time, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I am willing to lose my stack on set versus set because the vast majority of times you get your stack in on this type of board you're winning. But there are ways to get the proper information to make sure folding is correct. Reraise him to get him to muck 99 or 10 10, and if he pushes then you can consider folding. Or if you don't like that, call then lead the turn. There are many lines where you can pick up information instead of folding a set because somebody raises you 100 bucks.
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, we are talking about a specific hand, so comments like "tight players do not only raise with sets, and thinking that they do is an absurdly negative E.V. attitude" are borderline useless.

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell? Tight players not only raising with sets isn't borderline useless just because it's a general rule and this is a specific hand-every hand you should think about what is probable instead of worrying about the fact that in this particular instance you might be wrong.

FoxwoodsFiend · #45 03-07-2005, 07:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It depends so much on whom the opponents are.

[/ QUOTE ]
A for effort on using whom, F for knowing when to do so. http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20021113.html

Triumph36 · #46 03-07-2005, 07:34 PM

"on" is a preposition. Whom is used for genitive, dative, and accusative, I believe.

As for this hand, if you get all your money in, and he calls, you will be losing. Calling and leading the turn sounds like a better line than just folding, but if the player is very ABC, he will not be raising here. And for the claims not to play 22, very often on high card boards, you will be winning a pot bet from a TPGK that doesn't realize he is behind until the turn. If it's six to the flop, there must be a QJ or QT or K9 in there. Such a hand will call a bet when bet into, or will bet if checked to, if they hit the top pair. This is where 22 will make money in an unraised pot when it hits a set.

Post-Oak · #47 03-07-2005, 07:36 PM

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I am willing to lose my stack on set versus set because the vast majority of times you get your stack in on this type of board you're winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please talk about the specific hand. I realize that a set is a relatively good hand.

[ QUOTE ]

But there are ways to get the proper information to make sure folding is correct. Reraise him to get him to muck 99 or 10 10, and if he pushes then you can consider folding. Or if you don't like that, call then lead the turn. There are many lines where you can pick up information instead of folding a set because somebody raises you 100 bucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to need to see a specific line. It is $110 to you and there is already $350 in the pot. Tell me how it is possible to raise here and get away from losing your stack to a higher set. Seriously, I need specific numbers from you. Anything else is useless. So far you have contributed next to nothing to this thread.

[ QUOTE ]

What the hell? Tight players not only raising with sets isn't borderline useless just because it's a general rule and this is a specific hand-every hand you should think about what is probable instead of worrying about the fact that in this particular instance you might be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in every hand you need to be thinking about the specific situation. Thinking "I have a set!!!!!" does not qualify.

Post-Oak · #48 03-07-2005, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. I am not advocating a broad, general rule for not playing 22 -- unless you play it like this! Thus, the fairly rhetorical question.

My point to the question is that if you won't forge ahead with a raise or re-raise with a set of 222 on this board, you will always be playing 22 incorrectly, and should therefore save your pre-flop bets with 22.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the villain raised preflop and the same board came down? Would it surprise you greatly that most competent players would put him on a different range of hands and have a completely different plan of action?

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, get you money in there with this set on this board! I disagree with the laydown, and even more with the flop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to learn to think beyond "I have a set" and adjust to differing situations. Your hand is important. The board is important. The range of hands you could be facing is important. Position is important. The opponent is important. Pot size and stack size are important. You have to consider everything.

blueballer23 · #49 03-07-2005, 09:44 PM

So since "on" is a preposition, is the usage of "whom" correct here?

VanVeen · #50 03-07-2005, 09:57 PM

"Please talk about the specific hand. I realize that a set is a relatively good hand."

What an incisive reply! Oh, wait, no.. Implicit in FoxwoodFiend's comment is the assumption that many players who could reasonably be described as "sound" are willing to get their stacks in on this flop with a hand worse than 222, and such an assumption is apposite to the hand under discussion (ya know, since it's a hypothetical hand against a generic villain). While I take issue with his premise (most reasonable players aren't going broke here with the worse hands in their likely range, not even at 50nl), your rejoinder is nonsensical and needlessly dismissive.

"Yes, in every hand you need to be thinking about the specific situation"

What the hell are you talking about? Here, I will make it easy: if your opponent will raise with hands that aren't sets, and he will do this with some frequency, then folding the flop when it's $110 to you with $350 in the pot isn't the best play. Foxwood is basically taking issue with Ciaffone's definition of "sound", as are many of the other dissenters in this thread. In most games being played today there are very few opponents you should be folding this flop to, period. You should proceed charily, but you shouldn't abandon the hand when facing such a modest amount of aggression from a 'solid' player.

Basically, you're all arguing over the putative hand range of a hypothetical opponent given a general description of his play. Since everyone's model of a 'sound opponent' differs slightly, the responses, not unexpectedly, aren't the same! Good times.