what % of the time do you slowplay sets?

[You're No Daisy]

I posted this in my blog last night. It's so funny that we've been talking about slowplaying sets and I couldn't get paid off last night...

Tonight I just couldn't get paid off on my sets. I didn't slow play any of them either. Funny thing is that I read and responded to a post on 2+2 today where the subject was, "what % of the time do you slowplay sets?" The vast majority of 2+2 members who responded said, rarely if ever slow play a set. I agreed. I didn't blow anyone out of the pot, but I would bet half the pot on a rainbow flop and 3 or 4 people decided to fold. I want to know at what point do people who play 45% or more of their hands, and go way too far with 2nd and 3rd best hands, decide that they'll fold the flop to a small bet when I have a monster. Effen Donkeys!

I thought it was kind of funny and I couldn't help but think of this post when I flopped a set against a bunch of calling stations.

AC

[AFCBeer]

Reading some of this thread I think some posters have got the wrong idea as to why one should fast play a set.

Its not about protecting from flush draws or gutshots (well it is but thats not the main reason to bet). We fast play because we have a monstor hand and we want to get some money in the pot. The best way to get money in the pot is to bet and raise!

[Shaffer]

My criteria for slow-playing is simple. I do it when I think it's profitable [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Seriously, a lot of people are saying "only on rainbow, uncoordinated flops", etc., and while that's part of the puzzle, it's only one piece.

Say you have 66 on the button and cold-call a raise that gets three limp-callers, the board comes J62 rainbow and a fishy l-pass UTG limp-caller donks out, driving everyone else out. Even though this is an ideal board for slow-playing, here I would say that you probably want to raise, because it should be fairly obvious that the limp-caller has a J and (as they are fishy l-pass) are probably more likely to pay off a raise now than on the turn, and having them commit to that call now makes them feel all the more committed to the pot on later streets. If you get cute and just call, a scare-card may come on the turn that kills your action (any overcard in this case), and you may wind up with less money in the pot even if that scare card doesn't come, because now you're only giving yourself two bites out of your opponent's stack instead of three.

If I have the same hand on the same board but 2 opponents who check to me and don't seem interested in the hand, I probably check to hope one of them improves on the turn, or is emboldened to bluff a later street. But only if I figure that my chances of their calling my bet are less than the chances of one of them improving on the turn (and by "improving" I mean improving to the point of being willing to pay me off). That involves reads, an analysis of their style, my image, etc. When in doubt, I bet.

As a general rule, though, slow-playing is a bit like using a surgical scalpel in a melee. Dealing with low-stakes players profitably (we are talking low stakes, right?) involves the blunted weapons of poker: getting the best hand and value-betting it, trusting that your opponents will call, and call too large of bets when they should be folding.

Slow-playing means you're hoping your opponents either bet when they shouldn't (far less common at most tables) or improve to a 2nd-best hand (usually meaning they spike a pair, which is of course infrequent). Taking advantage of their betting when they shouldn't is generally less profitable than taking advantage of their calling when they shouldn't.

A read changes everything, though. Up against a maniac that's betting into me, I will slow-play a set til the cows come home, even on a semi-drawy board. Nothing beats taking a stack from a donkey that tries an all-in river bluff with 9 high against your flopped set.