88 -- play the set as a vulnerable made hand, or as a draw?

Nick C · #1 01-31-2005, 04:32 AM

When I flop a set, sometimes I'm not sure whether I should be building the pot or protecting my hand. So, in this posted hand, what do you think?

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is SB with 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
2 folds, MP1 calls, 1 fold, MP3 calls, CO calls, 1 fold, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: (5 SB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (5 players)

I figured, someone's going to like that flop, so I'll check and see what develops. (I didn't think there was much danger of it getting checked through. Also, although my PT stats don't exactly confirm this, based on my read at the time, I thought there was a good chance BB would bet.)

But then when CO raised, I wasn't sure how I should proceed.

Hero checks, BB bets, MP1 calls, MP3 calls, CO raises, Hero 3-bets, BB folds, MP1 folds, MP3 folds, CO calls.

I decided not to try to get tricky during the rest of the hand, so it sort of plays itself.

Turn: (7 BB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, CO calls.

River: (9 BB) 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, CO calls.

Final Pot: 11 BB

Should I have just called two-cold on the flop, despite the potential gutshots and so on, or was the check/3-bet correct?

I think I played this okay, but I'm not sure. I haven't won any humongous pots in awhile -- should I have gone for one here?

rmarotti · #2 01-31-2005, 04:36 AM

An almost surefire strategy for sets:

Bet: 100% of the time

Check: 0% of the time.

Nick C · #3 01-31-2005, 04:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
An almost surefire strategy for sets:

Bet: 100% of the time

Check: 0% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a little dogmatic, but I don't have any strong disagreement with it, for 2/4.

However, at the time, BB struck me as LAGgy, especially on the flop, and I thought maybe people who had very little chance to beat my hand would call him, but would not call me.

I planned to checkraise, but then CO sort of interfered and turned it into a cold-call vs. check/3-bet decision.

Edit: Plus, with BB acting LAGgy on the flop in previous hands, I didn't really want him raising if I led and driving out people who were almost hopelessly behind me, in this smallish pot, only to go on (after he had gotten it heads-up with me) to quickly fold on the turn or river.

The Dude · #4 01-31-2005, 04:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
An almost surefire strategy for sets:

Bet: 100% of the time

Check: 0% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
This rule works well for people who are incapable of thinking at an 8th grade level.

That said, you played this hand fine.

rmarotti · #5 01-31-2005, 04:54 AM

Yah, you're right, it is dogmatic, but I wasn't trying to be a dick or anything. I just think that the flop check is dangerous, even if the guy is LAGgy. I think you have to be about 99% sure it isn't going to get checked around to try this play. I also think against your avg SSH player that pushing hard, early, and often is the best/only line with sets.

I feel a little dirty talking about sets that way. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Ni han.

rmarotti · #6 01-31-2005, 04:58 AM

Alright, now i'm just confused. I've had this advice delivered to me from experienced posters almost verbatim on numerous occasions. I've checked flops with sets and got my little (apparently seventh grade) ass slapped by 2+2ers time and again. I fail to see any decent justification for checking a set on this flop w/o far more detailed reads on the players, and even then I'd find it hard to press the "check" button.

rannerboy · #7 01-31-2005, 05:02 AM

I would have bet out on the flop and taken it from there on.

I think there's a great possibility that someone behind you will raise this flop, giving you a chance to choose whether to just call or to 3-bet depending on where the raise came from. Not many people would put you on a set after betting out this flop while check/3-bet screams monster.

I also think there is a good chance that people behind you with top pair or two pair will just call the flop waiting for the turn to raise you, giving you the opportunity to 3-bet.

So, I would definitely bet this flop. But then again... I'm still a noob so my thinking might be a bit off. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The Dude · #8 01-31-2005, 05:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yah, you're right, it is dogmatic, but I wasn't trying to be a dick or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't sweat it. If anybody was being a dick it was me! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I make no apologies.
Edit: I didn't realize you weren't talking to me. I take back the soft tone.[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to be about 99% sure it isn't going to get checked around to try this play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mathematically speaking, it's actually about 50%. Less if it's the BB who's likely to bet the flop aggressor.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think against your avg SSH player that pushing hard, early, and often is the best/only line with sets.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is usually the best line, but nowhere near always. And it's really not that hard to recognize the situations where calling as opposed to raising is the best. I dont' know why everybody is so in love with the "always jam your sets on the flop" rule. Maybe they just like to not have to think.

rmarotti · #9 01-31-2005, 05:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Mathematically speaking, it's actually about 50%. Less if it's the BB who's likely to bet the flop aggressor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I fully understand that number. Could you elaborate?

[ QUOTE ]
I dont' know why everybody is so in love with the "always jam your sets on the flop" rule. Maybe they just like to not have to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least it's an ethos. . .

shant · #10 01-31-2005, 05:15 AM

I would've just called the check-raise because you ended up shutting out a lot of people who would have called 2 bets.