Bottom Set

[NoflopsHomer]

I cudnt imagine poker if i had to fold sets & stuff. I do NOT want to be in THAT game.

Get it in, if ur beat move onto the next torn.

50k deepstack in Ireland in a couple of weeks?

[TightEnd]

Anyway I pushed

He called with 33

I still think if I had taken a bit more time to deconstruct what was in front of me I can find a fold here, the 1 time in 100 I would be able to I suppose.

[TheChipPrince]

Spiked the 1-outer on the turn though presumably, nice work...

[GreekStein]

Still not getting why everyone wants to jam it in here. I'm assuming a lot of people know this Laurence bloke and he's a donkey who overplays hands because info says SET!

Ok 99% of the time we are jamming sets but in this spot, rly?

Ul though tighty, not easy to fold this.

[MANTIS01]

Still not getting why everyone wants to jam it in here. I'm assuming a lot of people know this Laurence bloke and he's a donkey who overplays hands because info says SET!

Ok 99% of the time we are jamming sets but in this spot, rly?

Ul though tighty, not easy to fold this.

We want to jam it in here cos we have the 4th nuts. Whatever poker hand you play if you don't have the nuts you could be beat. In this hand villain calls Tighty's jam with the 3rd nuts....but HE still could be beat by 2 other hands. Does villain think for one moment that he should fold to this tight player's jam cos there's a 1% chance he could be beat? Whatever the result of this hand if you get into the habit of folding sets when you know only a bigger set is ahead you will be approaching poker with the most nittiest of mindsets and that can't be a good habit to get into. You will be folding lots of winning hands in the future, and every bluff that comes your way you could break down to being a hand that is beating you. Calling and losing here is ultimately a good thing for your poker soul.

[EvilPie]

Still not getting why everyone wants to jam it in here. I'm assuming a lot of people know this Laurence bloke and he's a donkey who overplays hands because info says SET!

Ok 99% of the time we are jamming sets but in this spot, rly?

Ul though tighty, not easy to fold this.

We want to jam it in here cos we have the 4th nuts. Whatever poker hand you play if you don't have the nuts you could be beat. In this hand villain calls Tighty's jam with the 3rd nuts....but HE still could be beat by 2 other hands. Does villain think for one moment that he should fold to this tight player's jam cos there's a 1% chance he could be beat? Whatever the result of this hand if you get into the habit of folding sets when you know only a bigger set is ahead you will be approaching poker with the most nittiest of mindsets and that can't be a good habit to get into. You will be folding lots of winning hands in the future, and every bluff that comes your way you could break down to being a hand that is beating you. Calling and losing here is ultimately a good thing for your poker soul.

Do you jam with AA here? The 5th nuts?

How about KK?

Just interested as to how far down the line we go before considering the action of the hand rather than solely the cards we've got?

[MANTIS01]

Still not getting why everyone wants to jam it in here. I'm assuming a lot of people know this Laurence bloke and he's a donkey who overplays hands because info says SET!

Ok 99% of the time we are jamming sets but in this spot, rly?

Ul though tighty, not easy to fold this.

We want to jam it in here cos we have the 4th nuts. Whatever poker hand you play if you don't have the nuts you could be beat. In this hand villain calls Tighty's jam with the 3rd nuts....but HE still could be beat by 2 other hands. Does villain think for one moment that he should fold to this tight player's jam cos there's a 1% chance he could be beat? Whatever the result of this hand if you get into the habit of folding sets when you know only a bigger set is ahead you will be approaching poker with the most nittiest of mindsets and that can't be a good habit to get into. You will be folding lots of winning hands in the future, and every bluff that comes your way you could break down to being a hand that is beating you. Calling and losing here is ultimately a good thing for your poker soul.

Do you jam with AA here? The 5th nuts?

How about KK?

Just interested as to how far down the line we go before considering the action of the hand rather than solely the cards we've got?

Like I said bud, think about the other guy. Where does HE draw the line considering the SAME action of the hand?? You can't credibly say you should draw the line at the 4th nuts but not the 3rd nuts. IN SPITE of the push from Tighty after said action...villain still calls...and he was right to...but he could've been beat. Does that make his call wrong?

I had two hands live hands last night very similar to this. I held K-Q on a 3-7-K-K-10 board and faced a big river bet. I knew I could be beat based on the action but I'm not folding. Villain had 7-7. Next hand I played A-2 and the flop came 3-4-5. Based on the action I was prety certain I was beat, but still called the all-in. Villain had 6-7. Sometimes you run like that 90-stone man dude with your strong hands, but it's important to still try and run. Folding your strong hands isn't even trying to run, it's like just sitting in bed eating KFC family buckets.

Difficult to answer the A-A question considering it's a limped pot. But let's say I raised pre and UTG + LAG aggro call. I'm not folding Aces ever cos UTG could have a set, he would have to show me that set. If Tighty folds here he will go on to make lots of weak folds like the K-Q vs K-10 dry side-pot fold...cos he could be beat. 

[GreekStein]

Still not getting why everyone wants to jam it in here. I'm assuming a lot of people know this Laurence bloke and he's a donkey who overplays hands because info says SET!

Ok 99% of the time we are jamming sets but in this spot, rly?

Ul though tighty, not easy to fold this.

We want to jam it in here cos we have the 4th nuts. Whatever poker hand you play if you don't have the nuts you could be beat. In this hand villain calls Tighty's jam with the 3rd nuts....but HE still could be beat by 2 other hands. Does villain think for one moment that he should fold to this tight player's jam cos there's a 1% chance he could be beat? Whatever the result of this hand if you get into the habit of folding sets when you know only a bigger set is ahead you will be approaching poker with the most nittiest of mindsets and that can't be a good habit to get into. You will be folding lots of winning hands in the future, and every bluff that comes your way you could break down to being a hand that is beating you. Calling and losing here is ultimately a good thing for your poker soul.

Do you jam with AA here? The 5th nuts?

How about KK?

Just interested as to how far down the line we go before considering the action of the hand rather than solely the cards we've got?

Like I said bud, think about the other guy. Where does HE draw the line considering the SAME action of the hand?? You can't credibly say you should draw the line at the 4th nuts but not the 3rd nuts. IN SPITE of the push from Tighty after said action...villain still calls...and he was right to...but he could've been beat. Does that make his call wrong?

I had two hands live hands last night very similar to this. I held K-Q on a 3-7-K-K-10 board and faced a big river bet. I knew I could be beat based on the action but I'm not folding. Villain had 7-7. Next hand I played A-2 and the flop came 3-4-5. Based on the action I was prety certain I was beat, but still called the all-in. Villain had 6-7. Sometimes you run like that 90-stone man dude with your strong hands, but it's important to still try and run. Folding your strong hands isn't even trying to run, it's like just sitting in bed eating KFC family buckets.

Difficult to answer the A-A question considering it's a limped pot. But let's say I raised pre and UTG + LAG aggro call. I'm not folding Aces ever cos UTG could have a set, he would have to show me that set. If Tighty folds here he will go on to make lots of weak folds like the K-Q vs K-10 dry side-pot fold...cos he could be beat. 

I really disagree with you here Mantis. Obviously we aren't gonna be in the habit of laying down sets but here all the information to me says that we're crushed.

We know the sorts of hands villain plays from utg, which is basically any pair. AA-QQ which he would have limped to reraise with he bets out on the flop. As a tight player he doesn't check raise 2 opponents who have bet and raised, (especially as he knows Tighty's image) with just an overpair.  He's also too ABC to disguise his hand strength. To me his range here is only a set and being that we have bottom set I don't call here to draw to one out.

You also said in your post 'I was pretty certain I was beat' but still called the all-in. This makes very very little sense to me.

[daviebhoy]

I'd bet interested to know if people think if villain bets out on the flop, tighty then raises to 800 and villain then re-raises does this indicate a set too ? Would an overpair be more likely in that situation ?

I played a similar hand set over set over the weekend and when villain re-raised my min raise with 77 and then checked KJ7 flop. I thought it was incredibly suspicious as I am hoping he has AK there and AK is pretty much always betting the flop when its checked to him. He had KK and I managed to just lose the minimum by just calling his bets on turn and river.

Does this thread show us that check-raising a set on the flop is bad as it gives away our hand or in this situation does it really not make any difference coz the chips should all going in regardless of how it is played ?

[noble1]

great thread to read this one..

My thoughts are that you have to approach this situation like every hand and consider the action,reads on opponents and the texture of the flop.It also helps to not only think what your opponent has here but what does he think tightend has after seeing him re-raise a LAG?
If this was some run of the mill donkament then yes i agree folding bottom set is pretty tough..
But if we consider the opponent in this situation to be at least half sharp what would he put tightend on here to make a min re-raise pot sweetner , he has to think that tightend has something of strength here surely?
So considering he is old school conservative i do not think he has limped AA or anything as strong as this,maybe 99 88 77 but why the check min re-raise on the flop which 5 people saw and on a low flop you then see [from his perspective] bet then re-raise would it make him think 77 88 99 is strong? and to check raise to boot....
For me in this situation the possibility my bottom set are beat and the fact we are in the 1st level !! this is not to hard to fold if you have any sort of thought that our opponent has any sort of thinking ability.

[roscopiko]

Great thread, think the info is there to put them on bigger set but its such a tough fold.

Interested that no-one has mentioned 44 or 55 in his range where the play could "possibly" resemble this action so far.

[GreekStein]

Great thread, think the info is there to put them on bigger set but its such a tough fold.

Interested that no-one has mentioned 44 or 55 in his range where the play could "possibly" resemble this action so far.

With the info we have on this conservative player its easy to rule out him making this play here with a small pair and gutshot

[MANTIS01]

but here all the information to me says that we're crushed.

Dude, don't you think all the information tells UTG man that he's the one who's actually crushed? Bet...Tighty raises...UTG raises...Tighty knows UTG's range is pretty tight...UTG knows how strong he looks to Tighty...and yet Tighty still pushes over the top. The very same action gets even more intense when it gets back to UTG...so he KNOWS Tighty has a very strong hand. Would you fold 3-3 here?? I doubt Tighty pushes here with anything other than a set or the straight. So based on the action/image your 3-3 is beating one hand. Would you fold 3-3?? If you can't how can you fold 2-2?

The way Tighty wrote the hand up it was pretty obvious he was beat, but the problem with saying you gotta fold the 2-2 is that your line would now question calling with the 3-3, and where is that going to end?

You also said in your post 'I was pretty certain I was beat' but still called the all-in. This makes very very little sense to me.

If you hold  and the flop comes  and an ABC player bets, raises, and then jams. Are you folding? You can very much suspect you're beat but you're never folding. Tightend has this habit of being very aware of what could beat him and when that better hand is revealed he thinks he played bad. But it is not bad to know you could be beat but still call. In his K-Q vs K-10 hand he could easily have been beat. But it's still a call.

[Ismene]

but here all the information to me says that we're crushed.

Dude, don't you think all the information tells UTG man that he's the one who's actually crushed? Bet...Tighty raises...UTG raises...Tighty knows UTG's range is pretty tight...UTG knows how strong he looks to Tighty...and yet Tighty still pushes over the top. The very same action gets even more intense when it gets back to UTG...so he KNOWS Tighty has a very strong hand. Would you fold 3-3 here?? I doubt Tighty pushes here with anything other than a set or the straight. So based on the action/image your 3-3 is beating one hand. Would you fold 3-3?? If you can't how can you fold 2-2?

The way Tighty wrote the hand up it was pretty obvious he was beat, but the problem with saying you gotta fold the 2-2 is that your line would now question calling with the 3-3, and where is that going to end?

You also said in your post 'I was pretty certain I was beat' but still called the all-in. This makes very very little sense to me.

If you hold  and the flop comes  and an ABC player bets, raises, and then jams. Are you folding? You can very much suspect you're beat but you're never folding. Tightend has this habit of being very aware of what could beat him and when that better hand is revealed he thinks he played bad. But it is not bad to know you could be beat but still call. In his K-Q vs K-10 hand he could easily have been beat. But it's still a call.

I cannot fault this line of logic - am loving your recent posts MANTIS.
Even if i don't agree - which I most definitely do now -  i can always understand your line which is defo improving my story telling.

TBH Tighty Mantis has it pegged when he says that you are acutely aware of what beats you. It is, lets face it, one of your most exploitable weaknesses.
The fact that you pushed, would IMO mean that any "thinking" player would have to consider the fact that middle set is under threat. Was it an insta or did he at least pause for thought....?

[GreekStein]

You also said in your post 'I was pretty certain I was beat' but still called the all-in. This makes very very little sense to me.

If you hold  and the flop comes  and an ABC player bets, raises, and then jams. Are you folding? You can very much suspect you're beat but you're never folding. Tightend has this habit of being very aware of what could beat him and when that better hand is revealed he thinks he played bad. But it is not bad to know you could be beat but still call. In his K-Q vs K-10 hand he could easily have been beat. But it's still a call.

Maybe you worded it pretty badly but whenever I'm pretty certain I'm beat, I fold. It's pretty simple really. Just because we have flopped a big hand, if we have the sense to realise we're beat then we shouldn't take the attitude 'I'm not laying this down, its a set, cant be folded so let me pay the guy off to see what I knew anyway'.