A strategy that I utilize (Sometimes) with Sets

2nd post here... I am sure this has been discussed, but something I do that really helps me in the 25/50NL games (.25 and .5 right?) is the way I play sets in this situation....


Typically when a player has something like JJ,QQ,KK,AA or AK AND you see your standard 3x BB raise before we get to them, they will re-raise.... Now what I like to do if the re-raise is really weak is to call and hope I hit a set if I am holding something like 22-1010.

So a scenario might be like

player 1 has a hand and raises to .75
player 2 (our AA/KK etc. holder) does a weak re-raise, something like 1.5-3 bucks.

If the re-aise is something like 3 bucks (and we are playing deep stack, with buy in of 50 bucks) I will ALWAYS risk 3 bucks to see the flop (even up to 5 (depending on his stack size). Risking up to 8ish% of my stack to hit a set 11% of the time.

Then if a set hits the flop, you check or do a simple C-bet. The holder of AA/KK etc. has to think they have the better hand, they usually re-raise pretty big here, I then like to shove or re-raise again in hopes they call.

Now this only works for flops that don't have As Ks or Qs (for me anyway). You want to avoid losing set over set.

Its a great way to bust a player and double up. A set is a very powerful thing.

I must agree with you that set is very powerful thing but I prefer to limp in with hands 22-99, if I hit the sets I'm the king and the only thing left is to make the trap, however I wouldn't risk such a big amount for a sets, as you wrote it hits 11% (I don't remmember the numbers so I count on you). so lets say you hit a set around 10% of the times and you invest between 3 to 5 bucks to check it, then you probably loose arounf 40 bucks, lets say or even 30.......or maybe just 25 for the chance that the other opponent will go all in with you for 50 buck. well I don't really like those number because probably most of the players wont have 50 bucks, anyway this is my opinion.

I try not to limp in with anything, as it can show weakness. I usually raise, or not play the hand if I had people raising in front of me and I hold a weak hand.

I predict big things for this thread. With any luck, good sayings like the classic "AK is just a drawing hand" will arise from ITT.

AK is just a drawing hand...

Oops, sorry. I must be in the wrong thread!

"25/50NL games (.25 and .5 right?) is the way I play sets in this situation...."

25c/50c would be 50NL just to inform you, a #NL the # is the full buyin $ amount so 1c/2c is 2NL, im assuming that is what the ? was about.

I like set mining with A/K.

...I have yet to hit one.

penguins are funny

Do the math. Setmining 3bet pots is a losing proposition over the long run, don't do it.

Stop that, you're ruining the fun. I wanted to hear more nuggets of "wisdom".

OK so we are playing 25NL (bb=0.25)

$3 is 8% of about $40

So playing a 0.25 bb game with effective stacks of 150 bb.

Set mining with 150bb stacks in 3-bet pots would be a huge leak in your game, you are only getting correct odds if the opponent stacks off every single time without fail. Should you see a flop, hit your set and not get stacks in, you begin to leak money

geez flopping a set ...dependidng on the board you can pretty much play it any wich way you want ......first its best to be heads up ..usually are because chances are its a raised pot and if there are more than two in .....best to make a cbet to clear out draws......but usually if im heads up and put the other guy on a bigger overpair to the board ill let them shoot their own nails....ill checkcall the flopp then the turn ill give em a chance to fold with a check raise..but in lower limits you almost always get called

very random

qft

And that ignoring all the times we do flop a set, get our money in and still lose...

I make a lot of money with sets only thing is once you hit flushes and straights are better than three of a kind so you have to price them out. I sometimes will just push all-in on the flop if there are draws and I have a set to fake weakness sometimes I get calls from only one pairs and have them dominated and if they suck out on me oh well that's poker

Depending on stack sizes shoving sets against FD's can be good or a huge mistake.

FD's have the bulk of their equity on the flop and loose much of their equity on the turn. So, if you think your opponent had a FD and you shove the flop, you usually give him correct odds to call (especially if he re-raised your c-bet)

If you call planning to shove a non flush turn you get more of your money in with better equity.

Keep in mind, that even when you give him correct odds to call, you still have a positive expectation. Just because he has odds to call doesn't mean you don't make money. And its not like you can fold a set when the flush card comes, so you may as well just get it in on the flop.

I really dont agree with that.

You are allowing the hand to play out very mechanically for him. If you can either check or call the flop and the flush card comes, you now have enough money behind to play out the hand in a way that allows you to fold (you have also played it in a way that should make him think yiu have a flush... so if he wants to put his money in.. it means he isnt bluffing very often).

By getting cheaply through to the turn, assuming there is no flush card, you can dump your stack in and his call becomes very -EV

By putting stacks in on the flop you race (you are slightly ahead but not much)

Think of it like this, if you held the nut FD and the flop was c-bet by a normal c-betting range opponent, your best move is to put in a healthy re-raise, because if he shoves, you now have more equity in the pot than the cost of the call (assuming 100BB stacks) and our reraise should fold out a large number of hands (his c-bet isnt enough info to place him on specifically a set)

From Tony Angelero's principle of recipricality, if you were to trade places with your opponent and you would play his cards exactly the same way as he would against a player with your range, then you have no resiprical advantage.

From the principle that winning at poker means making fewer mistakes tan your opponent, if you and your opponent were to play out the FD in the same way (get stacks in because the maths is correct) then your opponent has not made a mistake in his play.

So playing sets with 110% agression on the flop, because you fear the FD cannot be correct because it allows your opponent to simply call the shove and not make a mistake.

Aren't we playing sets w 110% aggression on the flop because we're hoping for a fd to call? If we can get stacks in 100% of the time w a set against a bare fd, we have a positive expectation...

With 100BB stacks.. NO!!

With 200BB+ stacks Hell yeah!

A FD has about 35% equity.

SO he get 35% of the total pot back every time he calls.

35% of the pot = 70% of the effective stack so if his call is for less than 70% of his starting stack he is making the correct decision.

if we c-bet the flop and he reraises (and this is a usually a good play as the c-bet dosent usually mean only a set or better) then our shove lets him reduce his losses by calling.

With 200BB stacks, he cant get that last 70% in good because our shove has to mean the nut FD (and if he has it then he has to realise that we dont) OR a hand like a set which is liklely to win. (or if the action goes cbet raise shove, then the call would be for more than the last 70% of his stack)

Its really the 100BB that allows him to make correct calls.

Then we can use betsizing to manipulate whether or not he's correct to call. Raise pf 3.5xbb, call, pot is 8.5bb. cbet 5bb, he raises to 15bb, we re-raise to 35bb instead of shoving and hope he shoves over the top of us. At that point, the pot is a little less than 60bb's, his remaining stack is around 80 bb's, he's making an ftp mistake if he calls or shoves, and we're very happy if he shoves I think. Or am I doing this wrong?

tbh, though, when I'm playing a set as pfr, I'm virtually never going to fold if there's a 3flush turn on the board as c9 says, so I tend to play these pretty fast. And I'm really hoping Villain has a draw - otherwise the only hands that'll pay me off are bigger sets, overpairs, and two pair hands, and the hands I'm ahead of will frequently fold to an action flop.

he is making a mistake, but one of only 10bb (2 preflop raises)

whereas with 200 bb stacks, he makes a 110bb mistake by shoving

It is a mistake, but a relatively small one.

If we raise bigger he makes no mistake.

So what you are seeing is the bigger our c-bet the smaller his total mistake (with 100BB)

so if we simply do not c-bet we dont give him chance to reraise.

On the turn his equity drops to about 17% now we can either raise an amount that still allows us to fold the river if the draw comes in, or we can shove presenting him with a huge mistake by calling.

But either way we are now in the driving seat again and he wont be able to make any mathmatically correct calls or shoves

Surely this is never an option?

Thread did a big U-turn. Now I've got lots of good info to consider, and now I'll at least look at my flopped sets in a new light.

When I have the best hand I want to get as much money into the pot, but maybe that's just me...

Wouldn't I rather him put all his money in when I have a set then have him draw for free?

Guys, even if villain has a 2:1 draw, and there's $100,000,000 in the pot, and we bet $1, and villain calls $1, we still make money in the long run. Just because villain isn't making a FTP mistake doesn't mean we don't make money.

Villain's FTP mistake is raising the flop with a flush draw when he has no fold equity. When we call a flop raise with a set on a drawy board, we may get the money in bad on the turn and make a FTP mistake. But when we jam the flop with a set, we know the move we're making is +EV. So just jam and be happy that you got the $ in as a 2:1 fav.

Bottom line is this: If you have a set and you're a favorite, and you should jam the money in whenever you're given the opportunity to do so. If you're advocating playing sets passively you need to reevaluate how you play this game.

I agree with this. If they have odds to call us they definitely have odds to let us check. Us checking gives them INFINITE ODDS!!!

Both Stu and c9 make valid points.

If I put somebody on a FD I might consider not raising them on the flop. But then when their card comes on the turn I gotta consider the how many outs I have to boat up, or dump my hand. A bet for value on the turn which gives me odds to draw to a boat, and implied odds, nonetheless?

I'm curious how many made flushes get folded when the board pairs on the river. I'm guessing a small amount. Not that I believe a draw should be tolerated, or that we should draw against a full house, but when you take your implied odds . . . Hrm. I will definitely consider this for the hours to come.

Was actually searching for a thread like this, butwat u told is prety predictable mate...
Give us some new strategy to discuss...
Anyways i think i will fold 22 to 77 if theirs been a weak raise before me and if the raise was stronger, i would only continue with JJ or better and fold evrything else...

Sets are probably the biggest money maker in NL games. That said, they do not always win by the river.

The very low PPs can be great if you hit your set precidely because they are so hidden and so unlikely. But I seldom play them, and only if I can get in really cheap, preferably from late position. A 3xBB raise is too much to call, as others have pointed out. The sets show up too seldom to make this +EV. Joe Cada's success with the baby PPs has warped many players' perception of the value of these -- but then I have had my overcards crushed by 22 more times than I can count, so maybe not. I rarely play them myself, so I am surprised when finding someone else has.

A middle PP, however, has the interesting ability to, on occasion, fill in a straight as well, if the board is right. Or it can, sometimes, hold up on its own. So a 3xBB raise before is borderline OK, to me.

As to playing the hit set, I would suggest not overdoing it. But then I am a wimp.

Unfortunately seldom enough there is when at you set and at the opponent top a pair (((( and in this case on yours bet will very often follow fold.... And set, especially badly appreciable it is valid very strong hand

Can someone help me understand the difference between normal and deep stack play?

To me it seems the money won or lost is the same either way but I hear this stuff mentioned a lot.
Is there math involved or just less of your stack at risk?