Venetian 5-10 Deep Set

[breitling996]

why did u raise so much on the flop, u have alot working for ya here and killed it all... with no reads this is almost always the nuts in live games.. call if u wanna gamble , fold if u dont have any more money in your pockets..

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
It's strange: you would think that adding top and bottom set to his range would be a wash. Instead, my equity against the straight is 34.8%, but if the sets are included it is 43.9%. Any ideas why that might be?

[/ QUOTE ]
try putting 86o and 63s into pokerstove and see what happens.

[Parlay Slow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if 77 is viable so is 44 and two pair and it becomes a pretty obvious call.

[/ QUOTE ]
not many ppl stick in 450bb's on the flop with 2pr. particularly not with this specific sequence of action: weak lead into a field of players, gets called in one spot, raised strong by another, yet still 3bets all-in for NEARLY 3 TIMES THE POT. this is a set or a straight 95%+ of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pokerstove just clarified a lot for me:
Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

9,900 games 0.005 secs 1,980,000 games/sec

Board: 4d 5h 7c
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 43.929% 42.78% 01.15% 4235 114.00 { 5c5s }
Hand 1: 56.071% 54.92% 01.15% 5437 114.00 { 77, 44, 86s }

Even if we restrict his range to a set or a straight, my equity is 43.9% of 9480 = $4,162

My price to see the showdown was $4,000, so unless I'm not thinking clearly, I gained $162 in equity with that call.

Again, this assumes that he would do this with bottom set, an assumption that I am comfortable with.

It's strange: you would think that adding top and bottom set to his range would be a wash. Instead, my equity against the straight is 34.8%, but if the sets are included it is 43.9%. Any ideas why that might be?

[/ QUOTE ]

edit

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assume that he would be more likely to play the very strongest hands in that range in this manner with a much higher frequency

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
villain unknown

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think you can make that assumption, its a live play, not exactly known for its nits

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to make some sort of assumption to be able to make a decision. I would assume that someone sitting with $4k in a 5/10 game would be more likely to play 77 or a straight like this then he would bottom 2.

My experience tells me that this is a reasonable assumption.

btw, how much live experience do you have?

[/ QUOTE ]
actually, you're wrong. i would not be shocked - in the slightest - to see villain flip over AA here.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
this is why it would be cool to have a deepstacked live poker forum, because the ppl who i feel lack in live poker experience seem to be the ones most advocating a call.

ofc i could be wrong in my assessments.

[/ QUOTE ]
no, aside from mikech, i have more live deep experience then the other posters here. people do [censored] stupid stuff, it's why deep is awesome, and it's why you cant ever fold here.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
It's strange: you would think that adding top and bottom set to his range would be a wash. Instead, my equity against the straight is 34.8%, but if the sets are included it is 43.9%. Any ideas why that might be?


[/ QUOTE ]

it's a 'wash' in terms of making your equity move closer to 50%. if you had 1 hand that you had 10% equity against, 100 you had 0%, and 100 you had 100%, the result would be ~50%. If you had 1 hand you had 10% against, 1 you had 0%, and 1 you had 100%, you have ~36% equity. see the difference?

[Etats360]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's strange: you would think that adding top and bottom set to his range would be a wash. Instead, my equity against the straight is 34.8%, but if the sets are included it is 43.9%. Any ideas why that might be?


[/ QUOTE ]

it's a 'wash' in terms of making your equity move closer to 50%. if you had 1 hand that you had 10% equity against, 100 you had 0%, and 100 you had 100%, the result would be ~50%. If you had 1 hand you had 10% against, 1 you had 0%, and 1 you had 100%, you have ~36% equity. see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm confused here. so Why would having sets in his range dilute your equity?

[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
why did u raise so much on the flop, u have alot working for ya here and killed it all... with no reads this is almost always the nuts in live games.. call if u wanna gamble , fold if u dont have any more money in your pockets..

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a pot-sized raise.

[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's strange: you would think that adding top and bottom set to his range would be a wash. Instead, my equity against the straight is 34.8%, but if the sets are included it is 43.9%. Any ideas why that might be?


[/ QUOTE ]

it's a 'wash' in terms of making your equity move closer to 50%. if you had 1 hand that you had 10% equity against, 100 you had 0%, and 100 you had 100%, the result would be ~50%. If you had 1 hand you had 10% against, 1 you had 0%, and 1 you had 100%, you have ~36% equity. see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. I get it. Against the two sets by themselves my equity is 50%, which raises my previous equity.

[Parlay Slow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assume that he would be more likely to play the very strongest hands in that range in this manner with a much higher frequency

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
villain unknown

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think you can make that assumption, its a live play, not exactly known for its nits

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to make some sort of assumption to be able to make a decision. I would assume that someone sitting with $4k in a 5/10 game would be more likely to play 77 or a straight like this then he would bottom 2.

My experience tells me that this is a reasonable assumption.

btw, how much live experience do you have?

[/ QUOTE ]
actually, you're wrong. i would not be shocked - in the slightest - to see villain flip over AA here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be shocked in the slightest. As in, WOW, I can't BELIEVE he had aces!