Set over set
 

Don't know where is better to ask this question.
Should you think that somebody could get higher set then yourth or it's easy all in? for example you have poket 33 and board is KJ3. Should you fold sometimes this hand?

Re: Set over set
 

Of course you should, it's really important to fold 33 in this spot when facing too much aggression.

Re: Set over set
 

Never.
Fold.
Sets.
In that Spot.

Getting your money in with 333 on that flop is massively +ev.

There are times such as all the same suit or three to a straight, but even then you have outs. Personally I never fold a set on the flop except in rare rare cases.

Re: Set over set
 

Set over set is a cooler in this situation.
Villain will have all sorts of two pair hands.

Re: Set over set
 

To be theoretical: you are on the button and feel like playing with your 33.
There is raise, than a reraise, you call, rereraise, then call and you call (I hope you don't do that BTW).
The flop comes KJ3.
There is a bet, then a raise, you call, then a reraise, and one shoves. In this case, I guess you should fold.

As you see, this is a very rare case and therefore, in the very most spots (without a three - flush or a four - straight on board) I m happy to get my money in with every set...

Re: Set over set
 

You would have to have atleast 70bb's in the pot by that point Alex. I don't think you can lay it down.

Re: Set over set
 

Oh well, of course you re right Mike. That was really only a theoretical approach to when I think it's right to fold a set.
I didn't pay attention to pot sizes, sorry.
It was just meant to illustrate how rarely you should fold sets IMO, but maybe a bad example...

Re: Set over set
 

Some great bluffs could be made with infinite stacks. I think with 100bb stacks it's hard to go wrong because so many people will play 2 pair and top pair like it's a set.

Re: Set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Set over set is a cooler in this situation.
Villain will have all sorts of two pair hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
He had set.

Re: Set over set
 

It's still an easy all in. Do you fold aces cuz they get beat one time?

Re: Set over set
 

You have to try to see those things independent from their results. Of course you'll lose in set over set situations every now and then but in general and in the long term, playing for stacks in these situations is +EV.

Re: Set over set
 

our odds of hitting a set

1/7.5 our neighbors odds of hitting a set 1/7.5. So, my estimate is that set over set should occur about 1 in 56.25 times you get one? I know the math could be taken to a much higher level, but is this completely wrong from a statistics stand point? I need to ask this in the probabilities section and see what those booger eaters say.

Re: Set over set
 

Google is your friend.

http://www.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/mag86/

Re: Set over set
 

Isnt it something like

For Middle Set:
"1/17 (their odds of PP)" x "1/49 (They can hit 1 of 49 cards on the flop)" x "No. Of opponents"
Or - 1/833

For Bottom Set:
"1/17 (their odds of PP)" x "2/49 (They can hit 2 of 49 cards on the flop)" x "No. Of opponents"
Or - 1/416.5

Can anyone confirm?

Re: Set over set
 

Thinking about it the above wrong unless you assume that your opponent has seen the flop with a random hand. You need to use what % of his Preflop Range are PP.

Therefore it should be -

For Middle Set:
"No. of times they have a Higher PP/All other hands in their range" x "1/49 (They can hit 1 of 49 cards on the flop)"

For Bottom Set:
"No. of times they have a Higher PP/All other hands in their range" x "2/49 (They can hit 2 of 49 cards on the flop)"



Bottom line - not often enough to worry about unless you have an insane read.

Re: Set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Google is your friend.

http://www.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/mag86/

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link. I'll look over that tonight. From scanning it's pretty freaking rare, even more so than I stated.

Re: Set over set
 

Generally speaking you should be worried about set over set very rarely. And folding in these types of situations is going to cost you money in the long run - Over the long haul, you loose more potential money folding the best hand than you loose the rare time you're smoked.

The one time to be worried about set over set is when you have bottom set after a PFR and a set miner suddenly comes alive.

For example, you have 22 in LP. A fishy with a PFR of 2.0 who can't fold overpairs raises EP. A set miner calls. You call as well. Flop is T52 rainbow.

Fishy cbets and everybody at the table knows he has QQ+. Set miner in front of you raises. There are no real draws on that board and no 2pair hands. Set miner has TT or 55 virtually always.

If you had 55, then you would need to get it in. You're going to win this hand 50% of the time and there's enough money already in the pot to give you a nice overlay. Don't be afraid of TT when you are beating 22 here.

The only other time I ever worry about set over set is against TAG or weak tight opponents who don't generally want to play for stacks without monsters who then make it clear they DO want to play for stacks. However, these situations often include enough draws, 2pair and bluffing possibilities that even though your spidey-sense might be screaming, you can't usually get away.

One thing you need to realize about poker... If you're never getting stacked it means you're playing badly. It means you're leaving money on the table and you're too passive.

Obviously you want to win more stacks than you loose, but if you wait for only when you have the nuts to get it all in there you're going to have a miserable time at this game.

Re: Set over set
 

In general, folding sets is ridiculously -EV. There are a few very rare instances where you can get away from them, but other than that, I cream my pants when I have a set and someone wants to play for stacks.

Re: Set over set
 

Never in a raised pot. The hand you posted would always get it in if I had it. In a limped pot with bottom set on a 348 I could possibly see a fold.

Re: Set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some great bluffs could be made with infinite stacks. I think with 100bb stacks it's hard to go wrong because so many people will play 2 pair and top pair like it's a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had infinite stack, I'd obviously never fold because I have infinite money. Then again I probably wouldn't think poker had a point, either.

It does bring up an interesting/pointless question about what size stacks it would take to fold 2nd/3rd set on a given board.

Re: Set over set
 

Check out the high stakes thread. Some guy is agonizing over it up there with a 300 bb stack and some of those guys seem to seriously be considering mucking it.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD

Re: Set over set
 

Only play 33 for quad value. Why would you felt a flop like this. Its pretty stupid, you need KK to get allin here otherwise its a c/f. Looks like all of you guys in this thread need to check out this link and start applying it to your game. Its actually not -EV to fold bottom set and in reality is the only way to play it if you want to maximize your edge, but go ahead and keep lighting money on fire and felting bottom set. Also, in OP's example the odds vilian has a higher set are 100% so all we have to do is analyze how often we suck out.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1

Re: Set over set
 

Some people have really weird ideas of the probabilities of set over set.

So: Here's a theoretical situation. You have 22. Your opponent has a higher pair, and you flop a set.

How often does he:
(a) Have a higher set on the flop
(b) Have a higher set by the river if he stays in.

I'll post the answer later. Most people will know roughly, I'm sure, but the answer might surprise some.

Re: Set over set
 

overpairs have around 16-20% equity on 2xxxx boards

Re: Set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
overpairs have around 16-20% equity on 2xxxx boards

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to create suspense to shock the non-believers more [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But yeah, if he has a higher pair than you then your set is only good five times in six.

Re: Set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Only play 33 for quad value.

[/ QUOTE ]

But watch out for the overquads if the board double pairs. It's hard to get stacked in this spot, though, because your opponent will often try to outslowplay you.

Re: Set over set
 

Re: Set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
But watch out for the overquads if the board double pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Set over set is a cooler in this situation.
Villain will have all sorts of two pair hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
He had set.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha

Re: Set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.pokerhand.org/?770937

[/ QUOTE ]

oops! What did you break afterwords?

Re: Set over set
 

hah, no i def wanted to fold

Re: Set over set
 

wow.. that musta been one nit-tastic guy. Either way your voodoo is too strong for me, I still go broke.