* * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * *

[Chillee]

[ QUOTE ]
Yesterday -$633 at $0.50/$1 over 1100 hands, get annoyed and then go + $1100 at $2/$4 over 100 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

move up

[pete fabrizio]

i got stacked 3 hands in a row on one table yesterday. pretty sure that's a first for me.

[ZeTurd]

Silly question: In general terms, how would you quantify the difference between hitting a set with two hole cards (77xx and 7xx on the flop) as opposed to hitting trips with only one card on your hand (7xxx and 77x on the flop)?

[Poker monkey]

If you have two 7s in your hand, the probability of hitting a set is (2/48 * 46/47 * 45/46) * 3 = 11.97%

If you have one 7 in your hand, probability of hitting trip 7s is (3/48 * 2/47 * 45/46) * 3 = 0.78%

[ZeTurd]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have two 7s in your hand, the probability of hitting a set is (2/48 * 46/47 * 45/46) * 3 = 11.97%

If you have one 7 in your hand, probability of hitting trip 7s is (3/48 * 2/47 * 45/46) * 3 = 0.78%

[/ QUOTE ]
Not talking about the probability of hitting trips with either type of hand, but how you'd rank the two different situations once you actually hit the trips on the flop.

It's a silly question because obviously there's a big difference between hitting trip A's on an A72 rainbow flop, compared to hitting trip T's on an AKT single suited flop with raise and reraise preflop.

The reason I ask the question is because I got into a discussion with a friend of mine who claims that it's generally better to hit trips with only one of your hole cards, as opposed to hitting a set with two of your hole cards.

Yes, I know it's kind of pointless. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Poker monkey]

I'd say your friend is certainly either wrong or trying to wind you up. A set is so much better, and the reasons seem obvious. What's your friend's argument?

[CrushinFelt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
good thing the short stackers are so [censored] bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

qft. it seems that the old cadre of annoying but good short-stacking bots have been replaced by a whole army of short-stacking morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, but it does strain on the games a bit.

I actually laughed because I seriously can't think of one short-stacker where I'm like "god damn it he's at my table." Maybe it's because I'm better at dealing with them or maybe it's that they are [censored] terrible. It's more likely the latter because there's only so much you can do.

[ZeTurd]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say your friend is certainly either wrong or trying to wind you up. A set is so much better, and the reasons seem obvious. What's your friend's argument?

[/ QUOTE ]
He really doesn't have a cogent argument as such. He just believes it to be true. Now, I obviously disagree, but I found myself having a hard time providing any evidence for my position. Except "I'm sure my PTO stats will back it up" and "Uh, I think it's less likely for a set to be facing a higher set on a 7xx flop than it is to face another 7/boat on a 77x flop."

There's obviously more to it, but I'm too tired/lazy to do any real math on it..

[I dunno]

I'm so [censored] sick of these cooler underfills tonight. [censored]

[iggymcfly]

The point is that when you have trips, way more hands beat you since it's so much easier for your opponent to also have trips or to have a full house. You could maybe argue that trips top kicker is better than bottom set, but that's about it.