Detecting Set Over Set

[shipitfish]

I'm a big believer that NL HE players should sometimes be able to lay down sets in full ring games when set-over-set is a strong possibility. But, having been known for seeing monsters under the bed, I figured I should ask.

NL HE $200-buy-in $1/$2 blinds online: Limped pot with five players including big blind. I have $225, Unknown Player has just joined and bought in for $200 and has the big blind. I limp in cutoff with 4 4.

Flop is K T 4. I lead $5 into $9.80 when it is checked to me., I am check-raised to $25 by the Unknown Player. I make it $50 to go. At the time, I was really thinking about getting away from the hand if he came back over the top. He did, for all his chips, and I eventually called, thinking that I didn't know the player that well and sometimes players go crazy with top two. I figured he'd have raised preflop almost all the time with KK so his range is only KT and TT (most players where I play don't semi-bluff with the nut flush draw, but I guess I could throw specifically A Q to the mix). Also, the average player (which I have to declare him since he just joined) will sometimes raise from the big blind with TT, so that contributes a little bit to the odds he has that in the big blind. The statistics I could compute in the 15 seconds I had (no time bank on this site) seemed to indicate that even if he is twice as less likely to make the play with KT/A Q than he is with TT, I should probably call for roughly 1.5-to-1. Of course, he had TT, or I wouldn't be telling this story.

I can't really take a turn from his check-raise due to the heart draw, so I think the reraise was right most of the time. Maybe I should have reraised more on the flop, in which case it would have been an auto-call due to odds. His over-the-top for all his chips made it possible for me to fold, but I just couldn't do it. Should have I?

My game selection has gotten so good that I basically never get stacked anymore drawing this thin, so I'm hyper-aware when I do and want to be sure I did it right.

Comments

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

as you probably know, i'm a fan of a bigger flop bet. i'd make it $7-$9...probably closer to $9 with as draw heavy as this board is.

after being faced with a significant check-raise, i'm just going to push it in. i don't like the little 3-bet..it's giving too much info for too cheap. as played, a 3-bet push is a bit of an overbet, but your opponent either thinks he has the best hand (and will call) or has a draw to beat you and will call with a bad price (or fold). if you had bet $9 and the check-raise was to $45, then a push makes even more sense.

i wouldn't hate just calling the check-raise and letting him bet again on the turn or playing it cautiously if a scare card comes up. i'm not too worried about draws since not many people check-raise semi-bluff draws, even big draws.

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

oh, also...if you're going to fold to the push, i REALLY hate the 3-bet. that bet is practically inviting your opponent to move in with a big draw.

It's probably not worth thinking about

[(Anonymous)]

I don't really see how you can fold this given those pot odds.

I feel like Rory here, but in this case, it doesn't seem worth thinking about. How much EV is there to be squeaked out by this analysis? Using the methodology of "if my opponent had my cards, how much would he lose in this hand," it seems that nearly all opponents would also get stacked. So really, the most EV in set over set scenarios comes out of your starting hand selection where sometimes you choose not to play a low pocket, when your opponent would choose to.

Of course you must adjust that decision to play a small pocket by counting how often your opponent will stack or lose a lot with some non-set hand. It seems the games you play justify playing low pockets, so you just have to accept that sometimes you will flop and underset and happily get stacked. Then, some number of hands later, that same dude will flop an underset to you, and you'll get your money back. 0 EV.

I mean, you're playing these games because random unknowns will stack off with AA or AK vs your set. So how can you be so confident that this isn't one of those situations that justifies the reason you're even in the game?

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I really hate the way I did that three bet. The move in was better. I probably should have done that.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm coming around to use the lead for the pot size more. I'm trying to use both and mix them up (my 3/4 or 1/2 pot leads and your full pot ones) to see how it works.

I'm also playing in loose-passive games and your games tend to be more aggressive. You get the benefit of continuation bets sometimes not getting called, and then your huge hand bets looking just like continuation bets. Your opponents, at least in those 2/5 games, are more sophisticated than the competition I'm up against right now.

That all said, as I started this comment with: I'm trying to move on to those pot sized bets sometimes. :)

Re: It's probably not worth thinking about

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

You wrote:

So really, the most EV in set over set scenarios comes out of your starting hand selection where sometimes you choose not to play a low pocket, when your opponent would choose to.

I totally agree with this. I try in tougher games where my opponents are better at trapping to avoid playing pairs below 8s more sparingly. But...

Of course you must adjust that decision to play a small pocket by counting how often your opponent will stack or lose a lot with some non-set hand. It seems the games you play justify playing low pockets, so you just have to accept that sometimes you will flop and underset and happily get stacked.

Oh, yes, where I am playing, at least 80% of the people at the table are gonna to stack off with any TPTK or better, and most top pairs.

So how can you be so confident that this isn't one of those situations that justifies the reason you're even in the game?

In this particular spot, I knew he had at least KT because of the check-raise. It has to be KT or TT. I think I basically agree with you and swolfe.

set over set

[engelke830.livejournal.com]

I don't really have any comments on the thought process of the hand. However, reading through your post, I got the feeling that you knew he had a set of tens and talked yourself into expanding his possible holdings into king ten and ace queen. If you have good instincts, the best advice is to trust them. Sometimes your subconscious picks up on something and you just know you are beat or ahead. So in this case, if you "knew" he had the tens, I advocate making a tough fold. If you really thought king-ten or worse was a strong possibility, then its tough to get away from the set.

Re: set over set

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I felt he had a TT “twice as often” as KT. In other words, I just felt that half the time he had KT, he would bet out. I couldn't eliminate KT entirely. Since I did believe he'd make the check-raise with KT some of the time, and since KT is a more common statistical hand as TT, much that “sureness&rquo; was offset by the mere statistics of the cards. In live poker, I might have been able to make the laydown based on a visual read, but online, you just have to go with the math.

[roryk.livejournal.com]

there are too many draws to think about folding a set

if the board was like K74 offsuit then you could think about folding it

Re: set over set

[roryk.livejournal.com]

based on this there is no way you can fold.

he has two ways to have TT and six ways to have KT, so even if he bets out half the time with KT then he is still more likely to have KT than TT so it is impossible for you to even think about folding since you are more than even money against the range you are putting him on.

throw in the times he is overplaying some sort of hand you beat or a draw and shoving your money in there should be a no brainer.

Re: set over set

[roryk.livejournal.com]

two ways to have TT and nine ways to have KT even

draws unlikely here, but calling still correct

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

While the analysis still says “no fold” if you eliminate all draw holdings, there is almost no way (like 99.99%), he has a draw other than A Q or A J. He'd have to be a complete anomaly on this particular site at this particular time. No one on the site in question at the limits I'm playing get frisky with their draws. They always check and call with draws, maybe bet out half the pot. But a check-raise? It's happening so rare you can ignore it. Now, since gutshot straight flush nut draws don't come that often, so I can throw in the specific two hands I mention because they are rare enough to excite some player, but generally speaking, these are meek players who do the obvious.

That said, we're all in agreement that unless I can virtually eliminate KT from the mix based on the action, I have to call because there's too many KT combinations.