Middle set lay down

[AndrewT]

Hmmm slightly related to this situation there is a thread on twoplustwo no limit high stakes forum entitled "Final Pot Related To Blinds".  Sklansky appears to agree with a second set laydown under some circumstances.

And it's a fine example of why I can't be bothered with the strategy posts over there. I have no doubt there's some clever strategy and incisive thought, it's just that it's prone to obtuseness. You have to wade through a lot of people arguing around in circles to get to the perspicacious stuff.

Plus, every thread that Sklansky contributes to has some guy saying something like 'If you're such a great poker thinker how come I never see you winning anything'...

[not gus]

If you hit middle set on an uncoordinated flop, and someone else has top set, it's quite simple. You give the other guy all your money.

Can't argue with this.

Let's try to break this down.

What hands could you make this play with? You could have AA, KK, QQ, JJ or 33 definitely. J 8 would likely make this play for protection and 9 10 might move in here as a semi-bluff.

How would each of these hands behave preflop?

AA or KK you might call to trap before the flop. So these are consistent. 33, J8 and 9 10 are all calling hands on the button in this spot and so are equally plausible. QQ and JJ surely reraise preflop against most players, not wanting to let the blinds in cheap.  In fact, of all the possible hands here, JJ is the one you are most likely to have reraised with preflop.

This, coupled with the fact that JJ is 8 times less likely than AA or KK just from the distribution maths makes this an absolutely must call.


Awful fold.

Great for you and demonstrates the power of aggressive play.

[doubleup]

Gus - I think we all agree bad fold - but the Sklansky argument interests me.  How many BBs would you lose with middle set here?  What if the stacks were 300BBs?

[not gus]

Gus - I think we all agree bad fold - but the Sklansky argument interests me.  How many BBs would you lose with middle set here?  What if the stacks were 300BBs?

Given the range of possible hands here, I cannot envision a situation I fold here, hand 1 level 1 of the WSOP main event included.

[doubleup]

Gus - I think we all agree bad fold - but the Sklansky argument interests me.  How many BBs would you lose with middle set here?  What if the stacks were 300BBs?

Given the range of possible hands here, I cannot envision a situation I fold here, hand 1 level 1 of the WSOP main event included.

Thats only 200bbs 

The thing is, if the stacks are big enough, there must come a point against a competent player where middle set slows down or at least thinks that bottom and top set are the only possible hands.  Sklanskys argument is (I think)that it must be bad play to be willing to lose all your money to the second nuts and if you have this tendancy it will be exploited.

[not gus]

[/quote]

Given the range of possible hands here, I cannot envision a situation I fold here, hand 1 level 1 of the WSOP main event included.
[/quote]

Thats only 200bbs 

The thing is, if the stacks are big enough, there must come a point against a competent player where middle set slows down or at least thinks that bottom and top set are the only possible hands.  Sklanskys argument is (I think)that it must be bad play to be willing to lose all your money to the second nuts and if you have this tendancy it will be exploited.
[/quote]

OK then, hand 1 level 1 of the WPT championship too, thats 500 big blinds   

Other thing is, my argument is it must be bad play to lay down the 2nd nuts to what looks like a hand-protecting bet when there are many hands inferior to yours that make the same bet. If you have this tendency, it too will be exploited.

[AndrewT]

Sklansky is arguing almost purely from a theoretical persepctive. The conditions he describes for laying down the 2nd nuts are when the bet faced is in the region of 1000BB. Unless you're sitting down at the Bellagio in a 50/100 game with everyone sitting behind six figure stacks, that's not just going to happen in the real world.

[doubleup]

Sklansky is arguing almost purely from a theoretical persepctive. The conditions he describes for laying down the 2nd nuts are when the bet faced is in the region of 1000BB. Unless you're sitting down at the Bellagio in a 50/100 game with everyone sitting behind six figure stacks, that's not just going to happen in the real world.

I think that he is trying to make a more general point about losing a lot merely based on your analysis of an opponents possible holdings i.e you hold bottom set on an AKx flop after calling a tight players raise.  It is 6/4 you have the best hand if he has AA KK or AK - but with say 200BBs behind, does this analysis change as the action develops?