When the value of your set comes into question

[kleos]

[ QUOTE ]
(1*5) - (2 * 7.5) = 5 - 15 = -10 BB profit

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, this math is wrong. it should be -2.5 BB

[raphet99]

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

[Wetdog]

I'd like to revisit the subject of playing this hand in the first place.

With our position, we are in a good spot to reraise. That's right, we can make it 3 bets to the blinds. We can now either chase out the player(s) who might want to see a flop for just one more small bet and make it heads up with a made (albeit vulnerable) hand, or find out if they really have a playable hand and, in the process better define the PFR's hand. A big pair will definitely call or raise. Big broadways will call. However, a raise definitely ties us to the flop.

Given this scenario, with this flop, I don't see what else you can do but to bet/raise. The raise should drive out the big broadways, making the remaining streets easier to play. You are only behind to 88. You can fold to any reraise before getting to the more expensive streets.

So, am I an idiot or what?

[Homer315]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to revisit the subject of playing this hand in the first place.

With our position, we are in a good spot to reraise. That's right, we can make it 3 bets to the blinds. We can now either chase out the player(s) who might want to see a flop for just one more small bet and make it heads up with a made (albeit vulnerable) hand, or find out if they really have a playable hand and, in the process better define the PFR's hand. A big pair will definitely call or raise. Big broadways will call. However, a raise definitely ties us to the flop.

Given this scenario, with this flop, I don't see what else you can do but to bet/raise. The raise should drive out the big broadways, making the remaining streets easier to play. You are only behind to 88. You can fold to any reraise before getting to the more expensive streets.

So, am I an idiot or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll just say one thing in response: if you agree that one needs great implied odds to make playing pocket fours in a raised hand +ev, why on earth would you want to 3-bet preflop?

[Wetdog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll just say one thing in response: if you agree that one needs great implied odds to make playing pocket fours in a raised hand +ev, why on earth would you want to 3-bet preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that you did need great implied odds. I am only saying that if you wanted to play and win this hand under this circumstance, this may be a way to do it.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to revisit the subject of playing this hand in the first place.

With our position, we are in a good spot to reraise. That's right, we can make it 3 bets to the blinds. We can now either chase out the player(s) who might want to see a flop for just one more small bet and make it heads up with a made (albeit vulnerable) hand, or find out if they really have a playable hand and, in the process better define the PFR's hand. A big pair will definitely call or raise. Big broadways will call. However, a raise definitely ties us to the flop.

Given this scenario, with this flop, I don't see what else you can do but to bet/raise. The raise should drive out the big broadways, making the remaining streets easier to play. You are only behind to 88. You can fold to any reraise before getting to the more expensive streets.

So, am I an idiot or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right that if you were going to play this hand, 3-betting preflop is the superior way of doing it. Doing this against weak-tight players isn't bad. But you must realize that you're throwing in 3-5 SB to win a pot that's not that much bigger. You need to come away a winner about 50% of the time for this to be profitable. Considering that villain is going to hit a pair and call you down a third of the time, and perhaps another 20% of the time he has a pocket pair bigger than yours, this play is looking less and less favorable.

[Wetdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to revisit the subject of playing this hand in the first place.

With our position, we are in a good spot to reraise. That's right, we can make it 3 bets to the blinds. We can now either chase out the player(s) who might want to see a flop for just one more small bet and make it heads up with a made (albeit vulnerable) hand, or find out if they really have a playable hand and, in the process better define the PFR's hand. A big pair will definitely call or raise. Big broadways will call. However, a raise definitely ties us to the flop.

Given this scenario, with this flop, I don't see what else you can do but to bet/raise. The raise should drive out the big broadways, making the remaining streets easier to play. You are only behind to 88. You can fold to any reraise before getting to the more expensive streets.

So, am I an idiot or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right that if you were going to play this hand, 3-betting preflop is the superior way of doing it. Doing this against weak-tight players isn't bad. But you must realize that you're throwing in 3-5 SB to win a pot that's not that much bigger. You need to come away a winner about 50% of the time for this to be profitable. Considering that villain is going to hit a pair and call you down a third of the time, and perhaps another 20% of the time he has a pocket pair bigger than yours, this play is looking less and less favorable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I only thought of this today after thinking about this since last night (I'm not a quick thinker). I'm only offering an alternative line to the call/fold. Personally, I think I'd fold since I really don't have the roll to try this out over a large enough sample size.

Anybody want to stove this vs say AK, AQ, AJ?

[ChuckyB]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, don't cold call <u>in this spot</u> with 44. You need implied odds to make playing these hands preflop worthwhile, and you don't get them when you pay two bets before seeing a flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

With 2-5 callers before me, I'd cold-call 44 in a heartbeat.

[Langerz]

You'd also probably (depending on stack size) be correct to reraise if this was no limit. Again that is a matter of implied odds. Big stacks in no-limit mean a good chance of doubling up if you hit a set (big implied odds). Another way of saying pf decisions with hands like this depend on implied odds (I know this has been beat to death here already).

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
You'd also probably (depending on stack size) be correct to reraise if this was no limit. Again that is a matter of implied odds. Big stacks in no-limit mean a good chance of doubling up if you hit a set (big implied odds). Another way of saying pf decisions with hands like this depend on implied odds (I know this has been beat to death here already).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not much a NL player, but this doesn't make sense to me. You can coldcall in NL because the implied odds are gigantic relative to the preflop investment. By re-raising preflop, you're committing a bunch of money with a hand that isn't so spectacular. And you're rarely playing in situations with stacks so deep that you can re-raise preflop and still have enough implied odds when you hit a set to double up (in a tournament, anyway).

Quick math: First raise = 3x BB. Your re-raise = 7-8x BB. To get enough implied odds, you need to make up about 8-10 times your initial preflop investment in postflop play. So you're looking for stacks that are about 60-80 BB deep for this play when chasing implied odds. By coldcalling, you only need to pick up about 30 BB, which is big, but not nearly as big as a re-raise would require.

Now if you were playing postflop poker well, you can coldcall with the intent of raising a range of flops to try to push out the raiser (given some knowledge of how he plays and so forth). But I'd just muck this hand in NL from the button after the open-raise.