party 1000NL, 33, no set, out of position

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wouldnt have limped UTG with this garbage.
if the table is weak and im running it over, ill raise... but limping with 33 is not good, IMO.
REVERSE IMPLIED ODDS.
just say no to 22-55.

[/ QUOTE ]

What reverse implied odds? Set over set is pretty rare.

[/ QUOTE ]this is just something donkeys say, no offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why even bother saying "no offense" after calling me a donkey?

And I think it betrays a lack of understanding to talk about reverse implied odds with 22-55 against a raise with <100BB stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]portays?
i doubt it.

[Kirkrrr]

Wow... possibly the most antagonistic, uselessly sarcastic thread I've seen in over a week. But anyhow:

Nothing wrong with limping with ANY pocketpair. Hit a set = golden, not = get out with no further questions.

I understand betting that flop - most/all overcards are folding. He isn't, so you're done with the hand. Calling the raise behind you on the flop was a waste of chips.
You're drawing about dead to an overpair (very likely given the betting sequence), and even overcards + flushdraw have you dominated. I wouldn't put my whole stack in to find out for sure.

Summary: Bet/Fold the flop.

Kirk

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wouldnt have limped UTG with this garbage.
if the table is weak and im running it over, ill raise... but limping with 33 is not good, IMO.
REVERSE IMPLIED ODDS.
just say no to 22-55.

[/ QUOTE ]

What reverse implied odds? Set over set is pretty rare.

[/ QUOTE ]this is just something donkeys say, no offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why even bother saying "no offense" after calling me a donkey?

And I think it betrays a lack of understanding to talk about reverse implied odds with 22-55 against a raise with <100BB stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]portays?
i doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Betrays.

And you will stack someone with TPTK/overpair >>> you will get stacked set over set.

The problem comes in with super deep stack when you will not stack TPTK/overpair but will get stacked with set over set every time.

[iceman5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wouldnt have limped UTG with this garbage.
if the table is weak and im running it over, ill raise... but limping with 33 is not good, IMO.
REVERSE IMPLIED ODDS.
just say no to 22-55.

[/ QUOTE ]

What reverse implied odds? Set over set is pretty rare.

[/ QUOTE ]this is just something donkeys say, no offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why even bother saying "no offense" after calling me a donkey?

And I think it betrays a lack of understanding to talk about reverse implied odds with 22-55 against a raise with <100BB stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]portays?
i doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Betrays.

And you will stack someone with TPTK/overpair >>> you will get stacked set over set.

The problem comes in with super deep stack when you will not stack TPTK/overpair but will get stacked with set over set every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense. If you assume that the guy wont get stacked with an overpair vs your set....and he is giving you huge action, then by definition, he must have a higher set and you should fold, hence you wont get stacked set over set every time.

Now I dont subscribe to this theory necessarily. Im just using your theory that you will get stacked set over set every time but not be able to stack him when he has an overpair...and these 2 scenarios cant both be possible.

[blendedsuit]

on the turn,
hero checked, villian bet $150.

[Klepton]

[ QUOTE ]
on the turn,
hero checked, villian bet $150.

[/ QUOTE ]

no one cares

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
on the turn,
hero checked, villian bet $150.

[/ QUOTE ]

fold, or turn your cards face up and go all in.

[Lucky]

check/fold flop. Really.