flop a set, fold a set

mike l. · #1 02-05-2004, 07:50 AM

here's a little hand i played earlier tonight. 8-16 good full live game. i have 99 in the sb. some fool limps, another fool calls, good tightish older player in cutoff raises, idiot cold calls on button, i call, bb calls, others call.

we see this flop: AdKh9d. i bet, folded to solid who raises, button calls, i 3 bet, both call.

the turn is Qd. i check, solid bets, button calls all in, i checkraise, solid 3 bets, i fold.

comments?

latz · #2 02-05-2004, 08:06 AM

Big pot mike- I would have to know this guy very well to make this lay down. Actually I'm not sure I know any player well enough to fold this. Small chance he has AK, small chance he has 10Jd (straight flush draw on flop) and you are drawing very live. Even in the likely event he has big set, you still have some pot equity- 2-3% chance of hitting quads and collecting 20+ big bets on riv.

SinCityGuy · #3 02-05-2004, 10:26 AM

I don't know. For the same price, you could have called the turn and seen a showdown at the river. Your chances aren't good, but they're zero with the turn fold. He could have A-Kd.

As I always point out, I'm just an average player, so I respect your opinion and that of most of the other posters here.

SinCityGuy · #4 02-05-2004, 10:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Even in the likely event he has big set, you still have some pot equity- 2-3% chance of hitting quads and collecting 20+ big bets on riv.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possible, but maybe not very likely? AA or KK would probably have pounded the flop with a 2-flush on the board. It's possible that he might have QQ and spiked his set on the turn.

Inthacup · #5 02-05-2004, 10:38 AM

If you're going to make goofy folds like this, why not just call down instead of check-raise the turn?

Cup

Tommy Angelo · #6 02-05-2004, 11:00 AM

"If you're going to make goofy folds like this, why not just call down instead of check-raise the turn?"

Because the way mike played it, he wins one bet on the turn when the guy has a hand he would not call one bet with, and he wins three bets turn-and-river combined when the opponent has AQ, AJ, AT, instead of only two by betting out both streets, and mike loses only two bets when he's beat. Good play IMO.

Tommy

SA125 · #7 02-05-2004, 11:16 AM

I respect the opinion of the old hands of the game, but still see the problem about what you're getting for the 2 bets on the turn. One is a chance to win it there, more bets on the river, or concede the 2 bets. The other is to spend the same 2 bets, win even bets and make sure you're not mucking the winner.

Is it a matter of needing those extra bets to be a winner over the long term? Because I would guess there's a pretty good balance to it with losing bets in hands conceded.

Inthacup · #8 02-05-2004, 11:21 AM

mike loses only two bets when he's beat

Hmmmmm, Tommy's first reply to my posts is to tell me I'm flat wrong? We're off to a good start!

I guess I'm just not convinced that he's behind a set. If this player is "tightish" but he's 3-betting on the turn, with a flush and straight possible, I don't know how reliable Mike's read is.

If this is the kind of player that will raise a set on this board, I don't think it's unreasonable that he'd 3-bet AK here as well. Esp. if he has the K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Cup

Tommy Angelo · #9 02-05-2004, 12:37 PM

"Hmmmmm, Tommy's first reply to my posts is to tell me I'm flat wrong? We're off to a good start!"

Hi cup!

As I recall, your entire post was one question, and I answered it. How can a question be "flat wrong?"

(Or am I wrong to ask? :-) )

"I guess I'm just not convinced that he's behind a set."

Fair enough. I'm convinced that the likelihood of the opponent having a set -- factoring in the money mike was going to lose if he did, also factoring in the money mike would make if he didn't -- was such that folding was correct. The reason I'm convinced is because mike was there at the time and he folded. I'm not saying the play was correct simply because mike made it. I'm saying that the play is so spectacularly unusual that the fact that mike made it means that it is spectacularly unlikely that mike was wrong.

Tommy

SoBeDude · #10 02-05-2004, 01:06 PM

Lets see,

Solid raised preflop. Solid raised the flop. Solid 3bet the turn after getting check-raised by an opponent I'd guess he respects.

Mike has bottom set. The straight and the flush are out. Any set solid might have beats mike's. There is no reasonable hand that solid has that mike beats.

But...

If solid has the str8 or the flush, then mike has 10 outs to improve on the river. Whats wrong with check-call the turn to see the river for one bet and have a decent chance (with correct odds) to draw to the winner?

-Scott