Bottom set, lead out, or check ?

This was a hand that provoked some discussion at the table when it occured. Im just wondering how you would play it.

Deep stacked freezout. Starting stacks 10K, blinds are 50/100. 2 nd hand in, no reads, button raised the blinds on the first hand, and won before the flop.

5 limpers, im in the SB with 2♥ 2♣
BB checks.

We go to a flop 7 handed.

Flop

2♦ 7♣ 9♥

Pot size is 700, im out of position for the hand, with an ideal flop for bottom set.

Lead the betting, or check to see what the rest of the limpers do, hoping to spike in a big raise.

Pls give your reasoning for your decision.

I would check here. There is no threat on the board except for a straight draw. Let see where the other players stand. If they all check, clearly they hav nothing or have an outside or gutshot straight draw. Make a pot sized bet after the turn.

I think you have to lead here.

- Checking and risking giving a free card to six random hands is too risky, even on a relatively 'safe' board like this.

- By check-raising into six players you are identifying your hand as very, very strong, which will obviously limit the action you get.

- Chances are that one or two of the six players will have something they like (be it two pair or a gutshot, whatever), so you're unlikely to lose everyone by leading.

I would probably lead out. With so many players in the pot I don't want to give a free card. I do not like to give free cards. Now if there was only a couple people in the pot I would consider a check but not here.

I had more to say but it all sounded pretty much like DM's post so forget it.

I lead out for 200~250. You're likely to get at least 1 or 2 calls or a raise among the possible holdings of two pair, top pair, JT, 86, T8.

lead out with a bet. someone may have hit a pair or two pair and if you lead out you'll find out where you stand as those who didn't hit will fold and you wont give them a chance to hit thier straight.

Lead out
a) Because you have a strong hand now, but it may not be after another card or two comes off
b) Because people don't expect you to bet with a set - good surprise value. Your hand is completely hidden.

If you don't bet, they can't call.

Great post. I like to lead out with a pot builder size bet, like 300. You'll thin the herd out a bit, but with the stack sizes someone with over cards might be inclined to call. Early on, before I have reads on people I tend to lead out with good hands, later on when you see who is aggressive / how the table is playing, thats the time to adjust and fine tune.

I wouldn't be opposed to a check / call and then bet the turn harder, but I don't like giving free cards at any time. Specially in this case with no reads and 6 people in the pot. It's better to win a small pot than get outdrawn and lose a big pot.

In a nutshell. Plus not betting allows limpers to catch something.
Better a little than nothing if they catch.

I would lead out with a bet about 1/3 - 1/2 the size of the pot - in this case probably about $250 - $300. You can NOT check this since there are 6 other limpers that may improve. Obviously no one has a strong hand, otherwise there would have been some PF action. This board may have hit some other hands other than yours, so take their money while they think they are ahead.

Ok i can understand the concept of leading out. But what does betting out ~250 achieve. Your giving immediate odds of ~4/1 to the first player to act, and the odds improve with each caller, so folding a draw is incorrect for them. Betting more in essence from EP is indicating big strength, and unless someone raises we are still in no better shape on the turn.

If the hands are out there, why wouldnt they bet them themselves ? Why assume this will be checked around ?

If there is top pair, 2 pair type hands out there why do think there will be no action. If we see action between the 6 limpers we become more informed to possible holdings, and can call/raise accordinly with new information that has been presented to us.

I'd make it a decent sized bet of about 3/4 the pot. You're probably going to win so you want the pot to be big.

yeah i like leading for sure, and have the size around 2/3 or so of the pot.
It's hard to put someone on a set when they lead out, but with a check-raise (with a huge multiway pot like this) it's pretty obvious you have a monster hand. People won't pay you off unless they feel like chasing.

I lead, and play accordingly to my opponents next actions.

There is nothing wrong about giving them odds to chase, but you don't want to give someone a free card while chasing. If they are going to chase a straight against you, make them pay to see the next card. You are not trying to buy the hand, you are building the pot.
You said you have no reads. I originally said that since everyone limped that there isn't any strong hands, but without any reads, I guess they could limp with anything. This is not a strong board, it's quite possible the flop completely missed everyone.
You are checking with trips, so they could easily check with A-9, T-8, J-T. If they happen to be holding 7-7 or 9-9, they may wait to see a A or K come on the turn and hope someone hits top pair and then start raising. Again, you are likely ahead, so get your money in while you are ahead. Build the pot and hope the chasers don't hit their hand.

You check-raise, and as I said you're identifying your hand as very strong and will likely not get action unless (a) someone else has a big hand too, or (b) someone else is a complete idiot.

Let's say you check-call, what's your plan for the turn considering you're out of position? Leading the flop also allows us to lead the turn without a 'suspicious' looking donkbet. Or do we check the turn again, and run a much greater risk of giving a free card (considering the action is most likely 2-3 handed at this point and there are more draws that can be completed on the river)

Your hand is so strong, you should be willing to throw chips in with little information. You almost certainly have the best hand now, and even if you don't are you more likely to realise you don't if you lead, someone in MP raises you and someone in LP comes over the top of you both than if you'd checked and just a bet and a raise had gone in afterwards?

You have almost certainly the best hand, therefore you are betting for value. By leading, you are also gaining information for later in the hand, and seizing the initiative in the hand, swelling the pot in many cases and thus gaining more potential value on later streets. If you check and it's checked around to someone in late position who leads for half the pot, what information have you gained, exactly? Is LP stealing (bad players will try this even into 6 people) or does he have top set? You will still ultimately think that your hand is best, which is exactly the situation you were in straight after the flop. Do you then check-call and invite others in and essentially create the same situation as you would have by leading (except for that fact that you don't have the initiative and thus a turn lead will look suspicious), or do you check-raise and risk shutting people with marginal hands which they may have called one bet with out?

There is also still a sizeable risk of it being checked around (you don't really gain much information in this case, either ). Many players will be afraid to bet with something like TP good kicker in a 7-way pot (I'm not going to speculate as to whether this is 'correct' play or not, but suffice to say it happens) simply because there is so much that could be out there that beats or is completely crushing them. Poor players will call bets all day long with such hands, though.

Folding a big draw is incorrect for them. However, folding weak draws like 8-7 or A2 isn't.

Let me put it differently: No one who actually has correct odds to call will fold, for any odds you so choose to lay. No one will fold a better hand. So the mistake you want to encourage is not "folding when you have outs to draw" but "calling when you don't." That mistake is best compounded by betting a not-too-large amount. Someone with top pair, good kicker, can still give you action.

That said, I'm not too concerned with giving away a free card, since the board is so dry. Sure, you could be up against 8-6, but it's not like it's more likely than not. Still, in a game where five people limp preflop you're not likely to

a) Get a bunch of action by just checking, or
b) Suddenly make people fold dumb hands by making a bet.

I agree with this. You might just go all in and hope someone with a straight draw or A9, K9 calls you.

Hits the spot, IMO

In this situation probably bet. But in my opinion there are times when a check raise is best. However with this board the implied odds aren't that great. The best someone could have would be a pair of nines ( assuming they dont have an over pair). Might as well bet at it and take it now. It's possible that somemone could be holding 8 10 and would have flopped an open ended straight draw, checking could possibly be disastrous.

However if someone had made a raise preflop and you see a face card hit the board, say a queen, and you are in first position with a set, I check-raise hoping someone had Ace Queen. (hopefully not pocket queens )

Hi.

We have a set on a board that's about as dry as they come, with a small pot. Our objective should not be to push people out, it should be to build a pot. Raising to drive anyone out is madness. Sure, in the odd case that someone is on a straight draw, you may end up losing a lot of money, but even if this hand is 7-handed, the number of cards that you're afraid of is minimal. Not to mention that you have redraws to beat anyone who actually does hit a straight on the turn.

Checking is not bad because it gives a free card (there aren't really that many cards we're afraid of), it's bad because it fails to increase the size of the pot!

In a big pot, protecting your hand is good. In a small pot, we can't give up the massive profit that comes from bad players doing what bad players do (call, call, call) because we're paranoid about a draw. Don't knock them out. Bet, and watch them call. You know they want to.

The advantage of betting :

1) People cant call unless you bet
2) To gain information
3) To drive people out of the pot
4) To gain value

Disavantages:
1) We've lost any trap value
2) We may drive out our customers.


Advantages to checking
1) To gain information
2) To attempt to trap
3) To give a free card (which will mainly make the 2nd best hand btw)
4) To mix up your play

Disadvantages to checking
1) Its checked around
2) The free card beats us

Great discussion by the way folks. I got berated and called a donk, at the table for checking this hand out of position. I just flopped what is a monster hand out of position, and without wanting to overthink my play while sitting at the table, i quickly checked. The majority of the time (actually every time) prior to this I would have bet out immediatly for around 500-700 chips in an attempt to gain some value from the hand and drive out some of the chasers.

If the board had contained an Ace or King, i would also have bet out here. I was just after reading a chapter on HoH that recommended checking a big hand in EP ~20% of the time to mix up your play, and this was to the forefront of my mind.

Anyway, the hand gets checked around, no one bets, which was a disaster for me. The good news was that the turn card was a card that was bound to help someone else at the tabe.

K♠ Leaving no possible flushes, and missing all the possible straight draws. Its very unlikely that someone was playing KK given the preflop action so the only hands that are currently beating me are the 2 oversets.

So did you lead out on the turn or check again?

Let me get this str8 someone is sitting there with 36 off possibly and your gonna give them a free card? common thin the crowd lead out

This decision is automatic, that K is a card that i wanted to see, we can be almost sure that this card has helped someone make the second best hand. I let out with a pot sized bet of 700.

That is the important piece of information that tells you that you should lead out.

I don't think checking here is allthat bad of a move really; generally with that many people in SOMEONE will bet, and even if not, there's a fair chance that the turn card is a non straight or flush filler that doesn't pose much danger to you.

I personally favor leading out, since it's less dangerous and better conceals your hand, but I'm really surprised the voting is so lopsided. I have a feeling some of the people who said lead out would, if in the position themselves, very likely check, even if it is a bit dangerous.

Im also very susprised at the vote, maybe i should have made it a private poll, maybe that would have changed things. I think the correct "safe" play is to simply bet your hand, but checking is not an "incorrect" play as such either.

Thinning the crowd is not a reason to bet here. In fact, it's quite possibly a reason to check. There is no free card in the deck that is going to make 6-3 be able to pay the price I'd set on this turn if I checked the flop.

Here's the kicker though: If I check this flop, and everyone else does, and then I check the turn because I want to trap someone, and again everyone checks, and then this guy hits is runner-runner inside straight on the river, he's not winning a big pot, and we're not losing a big one. For 6 other players to check down, no one must have anything, and if no one has anything, we could as well be holding 3-3 as 2-2 in this spot.

Leading out is right, but "thinning the crowd" is NOT one of the reasons why.

And TB: There are no - or at least very very few - people who actually play as well as they post. I strongly advocate leading out here, but I can't say that I necessarily would in a live tournament situation.

i lead out with a bet of 1/2 to 3/4 the pot. I dont want anyone to get a free card, particularly anyone with T8, etc. you have to bet for information on this hand, to see where you are. yes, you have a killer hand at the moment, but it can be beat by someone drawing.

Agree with most posts here, on both sides of the argument! With 7 seeing the flop and a ragged board, i think i'd take a gamble here and check, hoping someone bets (6 chances someone will). If they did i'd call, not re-raise (hopefully with 3 or 4 people in the hand still), then lead the betting off hard next round - hopefully this would have disguised your hand a bit, and give you a bit more action on later streets. I think people will be more inclined to call a bet from late, than in 1st position (with 6 players still to act). If there were less people in the hand (3 or 4) i'd probably be more inclined to lead off with a bet as there is more of a chance that the hand will be checked all the way round (as Dorkus said).

If I bet 300, and I get called in two places, where am I and what information have I gotten that I can use to make better decisions later in the hand?

Like Rob, I do find myself agreeing with both sides of this arguement to some extent. However, I without a doubt would lead out with a half pot sized bet. I understand the flop is harmless but that's exactly why I lead out with a half pot bet. The players with the overcards will probably call and you thin out the rags. If the turn presents a big card, you lead out again with the half pot sized bet hoping someone who hit TP thinks you're making a semibluff at the pot. What happened to the getting OP to put chips in the middle when you hit a big hand?? I don't think a check raise gets that done as effectively as putting in a value bet does.

Im a greedy poker player. I certainly dont want to win a pot of 2K here. I WANT SOMEONE TO STACK OFF !!!!!!! And i have the ideal hand to do it with. If i lose, or run into an overset then thats just poker.