Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds

[DesertCat]

You played it exactly right. This is a standard bread and butter play at low limit holdem, in fact if you don't make plays like this you won't win. Playing like a rock at a typical loose low limit table is a recipe for slow grinding losses. My only comment is that you probably want to dump it on the flop if you miss your set. Your implied odds start getting very thin at that point.

Now, if you were playing 20-40 with a bunch of rocks, it's an easy fold. I think most of your advisors on this thread don't understand the correct strategies for small stakes hold'em.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, the likliehood of set over set is very insigifigant to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

And rightly so.

While that situation does come up from time to time, it's hardly a good enough reason to stay out of a pot in which you hope to flop a set.

[imported_piki]

I think few people replying here are playing a bit scared. Of course ugly things can happen when you flop your set, in this particular case, if our Hero wasn't already behind, he loses the pot about 50% to an OESD, a flush draw and a higher pocket chasing his set, if all that is simultaneously out there. But heck, why do you care? That would be 3 players paying you off for your coinflip win, I love it.

Or maybe a straight is already made. You still have about 1:2 odds to hit full house and take it down and enough players int the pot to make it +EV. Barring a higher set, these are about the worst thing that can happen to you, and all bring you money. And as it was already pointed out, a set over a set is such a rare occurence, it doesn't really matter.

Point being, a set has huge equity on just about any flop, and regardless of what people are drawing to, you are going to win a lot more than your 'fair' share. In most cases, you'll have everyone drawing very slim anyway.

I agree with Stew's play. He has the benefit of a good read and great position. The raiser will be betting into you on the flop and on the turn and most probably he'll pay you at least 3BBs to see the showdown. Given the pot size on the flop, you only need him to get at least even on your money. All is good.

-pix

[DesertCat]

Let me elaborate on my logic since you were asking about implied odds.

You will hit your set on the flop about 1/8 of the time. When you do, your worst case victory scenario is the other players fold the flop to Villain, you check raise the turn, and Villian calls you down. That's risking 2 small bets preflop to win 15 small bets total, so marginally -EV.

Well that's because it's your worst case scenario, and it's what is more likely to happen in a tighter, higher limit game. At small stakes you can count on at least two players calling the flop ("it's a big pot"), and one calling the turn ("it's an even bigger pot"), and inexplicably folding the river ("I didn't have nothing anyways"). So in reality you are risking 2 SB to win 21 SB, which is +EV.

And I'm assuming that one of the lemmings didn't hit the flop for top pair or two pair, which mean's he reraising villain on the flop. Pot size 25 SB + easy.

If you only had a single limper before the raiser, it's probably a fold.

Villain only has two outs four times to make a higher set (since you took one of the flop cards to make your set). So you have a one in six chance of playing against a higher set (actually less, he might fold to crazy action if it gets to three way raising).

But you have a strong read on his hand, he has no clue to yours, so you can save bets when beat. If he hits an A or K on the river, for example and bets into you, you are probably calling. And you have a 1/15 chance of hitting quads when he hits top set, and boy will you get paid off then.

The key point is that if you have many callers who will call too much, and for two long, they are putting money in the pot at a huge disadvantage to you. That extra "almost dead" money is what provides you your implied odds to take the long shot to hit your set.

If your table doesn't meet this criteria, or you don't have enough limpers on a hand, then fold. And read SSH by Ed Miller, it explains all of this in depth.

[steve968574]

[ QUOTE ]
[T]he likelihood of set over set is very insignificant to me.
***
I could say with about 75% certainty that pre-flop one of the additional A's or K's were gone as the two limpers liked to play hands with any one big card.
***
I would never incorrectly fold a set if an A or K came in this scenario, at worst I'd check-call it down, there is too much money in the pot to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to isolate this set-over-set situation and see if my analysis of it is valid.

I'll start with your assessment that exactly one of the A/K's is already spoken for, so that there are only five of them available for the flop. So, two chances (given that you flop your set) out of 47 cards (your pair, the other pair, the single A/K are known) to flop one of those five cards. That is, 1 - (42/47*41/46) = 20.35% chance that an A or K will accompany your seven on the flop.

So pre-flop, you have a 1-in-5 chance that you will face a post-flop scenario in which it's even money that your opponent has a higher set.

Viewed from the pre-flop perspective, that's a 1-in-10 chance of facing a higher set. But that's a little misleading, since the post-flop betting posture on which your your tactic depends will be significantly altered by the presence of that A or K.

Now, running from this one aspect of the hand would be playing scared. However, the significant (1-in-5) chance of ending up in a post-flop situation where it's a coin toss whether or not your opponent has a higher set, I think would have to be factored into your implied odds.

Add to that the possibility of QQ, which you acknowledged above, and the set-over-set scenario looms even larger. Which, I admit, may still not be determinitive, depending the other factors affecting implied odds.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[T]he likelihood of set over set is very insignificant to me.
***
I could say with about 75% certainty that pre-flop one of the additional A's or K's were gone as the two limpers liked to play hands with any one big card.
***
I would never incorrectly fold a set if an A or K came in this scenario, at worst I'd check-call it down, there is too much money in the pot to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to isolate this set-over-set situation and see if my analysis of it is valid.

I'll start with your assessment that exactly one of the A/K's is already spoken for, so that there are only five of them available for the flop. So, two chances (given that you flop your set) out of 47 cards (your pair, the other pair, the single A/K are known) to flop one of those five cards. That is, 1 - (42/47*41/46) = 20.35% chance that an A or K will accompany your seven on the flop.

So pre-flop, you have a 1-in-5 chance that you will face a post-flop scenario in which it's even money that your opponent has a higher set.

Viewed from the pre-flop perspective, that's a 1-in-10 chance of facing a higher set. But that's a little misleading, since the post-flop betting posture on which your your tactic depends will be significantly altered by the presence of that A or K.

Now, running from this one aspect of the hand would be playing scared. However, the significant (1-in-5) chance of ending up in a post-flop situation where it's a coin toss whether or not your opponent has a higher set, I think would have to be factored into your implied odds.

Add to that the possibility of QQ, which you acknowledged above, and the set-over-set scenario looms even larger. Which, I admit, may still not be determinitive, depending the other factors affecting implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you are correct that there is a 1 in 5 chance that an A or K will hit the flop, however, keep in mind, that has to coincide with me flopping a set to be potentially harmful (in other words, set over set scenario). If I don't flop a set, then there is no set over set problem.


However, you incorrect regarding the 1 in 10 chance that there will be set over set on the flop. There is a 5% chance that two people will FLOP a set on the same hand, which the last time I checked is 1 in 20 not 1 in 10.

Nevertheless, let's imagine I do flop a set and an A or K hits the board. Do you really think I'm going to play the hand scared that I could be beaten by a higher set? NO, and if anyone does, they are playing scared poker, plain and simple and at the lower-limits, they are not taking advantage of prime profit opportunites, by not trying to build a huge pot when they have flopped a set.

If I happen to lose somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-8 big bets b/c of set over set, then so be it...It's happened before. In fact, the last time I played at Caesar's, I had JJ on the button, raised a player who had recently sat at the table and I had no read who was in late position. 5-6 others saw a flop of Q,J,6...turn was a blank and river was a 6. No, he didn't have pocket sixes he had pocket queens. Fortunately, we were three-handed on the river, so I only lost four bets on the end, whereas it probably would have been more like 5 or 6.

That's just the way it goes, as I said, those things happen, but they DON'T happen a lot more than they do and if you aren't taking advantage of your profit-making potential when they do, then you are missing bets and missing bets in a low limit game is problematic as it is difficult to compete with the rakes and tokes the way it is.

Oh yea, one other thing, I still don't know why you keep bringing up QQ, if you would have read the whole thread I said I did not think anyone had QQ, but it's certainly possible, as is every other hand.

The only thing that I had speculated on was that I was pretty sure the player to my right was raising with either and only pocket Aces or Kings.

[godofgamblers]

Set over set already has all this controversy, yet you did not address many of my other points. Straight draws hit with your 7 with a tricky player in the pot, and if they have a draw you know they will call it in a multiway pot and could hit bigtime. If you're willing to chance being dominated, and coin flip at best with other hands with the hopes of catching a set, you might as well played suited connectors the exact same way. Huge underdog, but huge payoff if you hit. I don't think its a very good play, but it's not a bad one either.

[steve968574]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't know why you keep bringing up QQ, if you would have read the whole thread I said I did not think anyone had QQ. The only thing that I had speculated on was that I was pretty sure the player to my right was raising with either and only pocket Aces or Kings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stew, you were the one who brought up, in your original post, the possibility that the raiser had QQ:

[ QUOTE ]
I knew when calling the raiser he had an overpair and most likely AA or KK. In fact, I discounted any other hand except QQ as I'd never seen him table that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You allude to what would happen if the seven didn't flop:

[ QUOTE ]
keep in mind, that has to coincide with me flopping a set to be potentially harmful (in other words, set over set scenario). If I don't flop a set, then there is no set over set problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

My entire analysis, of course, was premised on the presence of a seven on the flop. That's because the point of my post (and yours) was, What must be factored into implied odds? When computing implied odds, you have to examine what the betting scenario will be, post flop, if you make your set. That scenario includes the possibility of the villain's pair making a set. Again, that factor may not be determinative, but it can't simply be dismissed. As you said,

[ QUOTE ]
I would never incorrectly fold a set if an A or K came in this scenario, at worst I'd check-call it down, there is too much money in the pot to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your betting posture would be affected by the presence of an A or K (it would make you consider calling when you otherwise wouldn't), which of course impacts pre-flop computation of implied odds.

As for the odds of a set beating a set:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a 5% chance that two people will FLOP a set on the same hand which the last time I checked is 1 in 20 not 1 in 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, we have to assume the presence of a seven on the flop, because the entire point of this exercise is to construct a made-set, post-flop betting dynamic. Given your set, you have a 1-in-5 chance of facing a situation in which it's even money that your opponent has a higher set. The chance of ending up in that situation is what's important, not the pure chance, from the pre-flop perspective, of your opponent making his set.

You said in your last post,

[ QUOTE ]
let's imagine I do flop a set and an A or K hits the board. Do you really think I'm going to play the hand scared that I could be beaten by a higher set? NO, and if anyone does, they are playing scared poker

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually reckless poker, simply ignoring an even-money chance that you are facing a higher set. You had it right in your earlier post, a check-call would be more like it.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
So pre-flop, you have a 1-in-5 chance that you will face a post-flop scenario in which it's even money that your opponent has a higher set.

Viewed from the pre-flop perspective, that's a 1-in-10 chance of facing a higher set. But that's a little misleading, since the post-flop betting posture on which your your tactic depends will be significantly altered by the presence of that A or K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your odds of that particular opponent hitting a higher set are closer to 14-1 preflop. The opponent has 2 outs twice, but about 1/3 (2/6 cards) of the time the other high card opponent has one of villains outs.

Since A or K hits the flop 20% of the time, about 65% of the time your opponent holding AA/KK missed their set. Another way to look at it is that an Ace on the flop is more likely to show up if your opponent has KK, than a K.

[steve968574]

Actually I was basing my analysis on Stew's familiarity with the table and his feel that exactly one of the other A/K's was accounted for. Stew has been insisting that the pure chance of villian hitting his set on the flop, as viewed from the pre-flop perspective, is pretty low, and you correctly agree with him; however, you and he both miss my central point.

Stew's 1-in-5 probability of facing an even-money 2nd-best-set scenario on the flop skews his pre-flop implied odds calculation. Stew has admitted that he would have to consider calling in that situation. This leaves only an 80% chance that his optimal post-flop betting scenario will materialize, and that only takes into account the set-over-set implications for his implied odds, leaving out the straight and flush draw implications which others have alluded to.

The conclusion being that going in with 77 against AA or KK, even with the table conditions he describes, is not supported by the implied odds he claimed in his original post.