Re: 25NL set of 7s
[ QUOTE ]
A super passive player goes all-in for 20$ in a 10$ pot ? I donīt think so. This looks like "Excellent, villain likes his hand so i can finally shove" to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
This would be true with some kind of read on villain as being passive. But OP states, "As always, no stats on villain." So, without any read whatsoever, I think you should call the all-in with a set of sevens here because while a random opponent may have a straight, or a set of tens here, he will also show up with 2-pair, a lower set, TPTK, an overpair, or some kind of semi-bluff or bluff often enough to justify a call. I would agree, however, that if hero had at least some kind of read that this villain wouldn't overbet like this without the nuts (or close to it), then a fold would probably be in order. But I would NEVER show what I'm folding, or tell anybody about it even if I thought it was right because it is so rarely right that most people won't agree that it was a good idea no matter how much I try to explain my "read."
Also, if you ever fold a set live, never show it or tell anyone. I recently saw a guy open fold bottom set at 5/5 NL in a pot of several hundred dollars in response to an opponent's reraise on the turn when there was $1500 left behind in both players' stacks. The winner, who the guy with the set was "convinced" had a "higher set" happily turned over top 2-pair. After that the entire table pegged the guy with the set as weak-tight, and took advantage of that knowledge later in the game and in later sessions, as well. Personally, I thought his fold was reasonable given what I know about the other guy in the hand at that time. But based on that hand in which he showed his "big laydown," and based on subsequent actions that I've seen him take in large pots, I now know that he really is weak tight when the pot gets large and the stacks are deep. Now me and everybody else he played with that night know it and can take advantage of it.
|