When the value of your set comes into question

[Gregatron]

Aaron is actually right. He is saying that the position that one should never cold calling 44 preflop is wrong.

[milesdyson]

the preflop debate in this thread is unneccesary and extremely nittish. the first guy who suggested folding preflop used some misleading terms. whatever. his advice as it pertains to this thread is great, and this is a very bad preflop call.

imo, this is a very easy river raise w/o a read.

[Aaron W.]

My thoughts elaborated a little bit:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, don't cold call with 44.

[/ QUOTE ]

False.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coldcalling with 44 can be correct if the situation is right. Saying "don't coldcall with 44" is simply wrong. In the context of this hand, it was the correct advice. You should "never" coldcall 44 in this position (let's not talk about floating here).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need implied odds to make playing these hands preflop worthwhile,

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why you play hands like 44 even though you only flop a set 1 in 9 times or so. You need implied odds. But implied odds come from lots of players or just having a very aggressive player.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and you don't get them when you pay two bets before seeing a flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

False.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't get them when you put two bets in preflop AND you're the only one putting in two bets preflop. If you've got 3 people voluntarily in the pot ahead of you, coldcalling will usually get you to a 8-9 SB pot paying 2 SB. So then you lose 2 SB 8 times and only need to get another 8 SB in the pot postflop when you *do* flop a set (well, pad it a little for when you get beat and call it 10 SB = 5 BB). This is a reasonable outcome when there are 5-6 people seeing the flop, especially if you have good relative position. People will see more turns when the pot is big on the flop, and that just gives you more money.

[egocidal]

All,

I know. It was a bad PF call. In fact, in my OP I kind of hinted that it was crappy. Not really the issue here. I guess that there is no issue amongst any of you with going to the felt raising here on the river?

[milesdyson]

allow myself to quote myself,

[ QUOTE ]
imo, this is a very easy river raise w/o a read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[egocidal]

[ QUOTE ]
allow myself to quote myself,

[ QUOTE ]
imo, this is a very easy river raise w/o a read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ohhhhh, see I assumed that when I asked that question, it didn't simply mean "What does Dyson think?" Because even though I know that is all that matters, I kinda wanted other's opinions. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

villain looks to have 88, 22 or Q8 if his play makes any sense. Could be 8sXs or QQ.

"My reads on all these players are zilch, except for the fact that I assume they are the typical donks"


If there is ever a time to err towards aggression might as well be when you flop a set. There are more hands that you beat that he will cap w/ than that beat you.

[OnePatheticLoser]

Grunch:

I think the turn 3-bet is correct but i would be a little worried after the villain capped. But i think you played this hand perfectly with the call on the river. My guess is that if you are beat he held pocket eights.

[Frank Zappy]

*G*

Let's review: you called the raise with 44 in the hopes of flopping a set, then you flopped a set on an uncoordinated board. Is this "Be careful what you wish for"?

Since QQ is an unlikely holding, in our worst case, the Turn cap could mean he slowplayed a set of 8's. Either way, you must bet as the Q in no way helped any reasonable hand; ideally he's got Q8s.

None of this is really important or relevant; you have a tremendously strong hand and if you lose to a set over a set, just move on.

If you don't push a set on a board like this, when will you?

[Buckmulligan]

i raise this river.