bottom set on flop

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
If, instead of smooth calling on the flop, OP had raised, would this make the decision any easier?

On this board in an unraised pot I would raise on the flop in OP's position 100% of the time. I am less worried about stacking someone and more concerned with getting my money in when I likely have the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

My read is that UTG+1 has AA or KK and is trying to isolate on the flop. The real question is whether the first raiser have an overset (cataclysmic), a straight (willing to call and take big side pot) or 2-pr (cha-ching).

If OP raises, I think you are still getting your stack in the middle if table image is not a factor and villain's ranges are as I defined above. I think the same result result occurs here.

It almost never correct to slowplay a set. Either somebody's got a hand and will go along for the ride or you will take down a smaller pot. Why give a 3-straight, 3-flush hand infinite odds to draw out by checking? It is a dangerous game to try to let villain draw out a second best hand. I think most villains will give you action with TPGK and 2 pair.

Confucius say, "Better to win a small pot than lose a big pot."

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If, instead of smooth calling on the flop, OP had raised, would this make the decision any easier?

On this board in an unraised pot I would raise on the flop in OP's position 100% of the time. I am less worried about stacking someone and more concerned with getting my money in when I likely have the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

My read is that UTG+1 has AA or KK and is trying to isolate on the flop. The real question is whether the first raiser have an overset (cataclysmic), a straight (willing to call and take big side pot) or 2-pr (cha-ching).

If OP raises, I think you are still getting your stack in the middle if table image is not a factor and villain's ranges are as I defined above. I think the same result result occurs here.

It almost never correct to slowplay a set. Either somebody's got a hand and will go along for the ride or you will take down a smaller pot. Why give a 3-straight, 3-flush hand infinite odds to draw out by checking? It is a dangerous game to try to let villain draw out a second best hand. I think most villains will give you action with TPGK and 2 pair.

Confucius say, "Better to win a small pot than lose a big pot."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - so basically you're saying you advocate raising the flop (which OP did not do). I think by not raising (OP, why did u just call the flop?) he does not define his hand and now it's possible that original raiser is making a move with a draw, putting OP in a tough spot after UTG+1 tries to isolate.

It seems, unequivocally, that with stacks this deep, OP can not get away from bottom-set on this flop.

[4_2_it]

I think we are in agreement in betting out the flop. AA or KK isn't going anywhere. It's the other caller that is of concern. If they come back over the top you now have a tough decision. I hate laying down sets unless there is a Broadway card or monochrome flop because you still have redraws if someone hit their miracle flop.

Betting out gets OP more information than checking.

[OneCentRob]

I agree, the call on the flop was a weak play and cetainly a mistake with all those draws out there. But (stupidly) that was what I did, so I had to play it from where I was.

In the end, I folded. I figured one of them for a set. If it was SB, the side pot wasn't going to compensate me much, and there was still a good chance that I lose to the draw. If it was big stack then I lose all my chips. I'm not sure it was the right play, but I'm sure it wasn't a terrible one.

Result: SB showed a set of 9s. UTG showed K9o!

[elus2]

[ QUOTE ]
My read is that UTG+1 has AA or KK and is trying to isolate on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

his range is a lot wider than that.