Laid down bottom set in raised pot, and was wrong... Still?

Only have about 40 hands with the guy. I almost never fold this but the board made me think there was nuthin else he could have but an overset. Curious to know how many people call here.....

Hand #40568167-16835 at Castroville (No Limit Hold'em)
Started at 03/Apr/07 00:03:28

slingblade88 is at seat 0 with $157.
red3s is at seat 1 with $24.60.
LittestMan is at seat 3 with $85.60.
Will Rager is at seat 4 with $166.90.
KoolRomeo is at seat 5 with $108.90.
Cash Chucker is at seat 6 with $100.10.
prinzzz is at seat 7 with $38.90.
HERO is at seat 8 with $160.55.
grumpydog44 is at seat 9 with $38.15.
The button is at seat 9.

slingblade88 posts the small blind of $.50.
red3s posts the big blind of $1.

slingblade88: -- --
red3s: -- --
LittestMan: -- --
Will Rager: -- --
KoolRomeo: -- --
Cash Chucker: -- --
prinzzz: -- --
HERO: 3d 3h
grumpydog44: -- --

Pre-flop:

LittestMan folds. Will Rager raises to $4.
KoolRomeo folds. Cash Chucker calls. prinzzz folds.
HERO calls. grumpydog44 folds. slingblade88
calls. red3s calls.

Flop (board: 7h Js 3c):

slingblade88 checks. red3s checks. Will Rager bets
$18. Cash Chucker folds. HERO raises to $36.
slingblade88 goes all-in for $153. red3s folds.
Will Rager folds. HERO folds, showing 3d 3h.
slingblade88 is returned $117 (uncalled).

slingblade88 opts to show slingblade88 has
Discuss....

Yea, I don't get a fold. Why cant he be overplaying QQ+ or AJ.

i cant fold here but idk i play 6max, dont post results.

This is surely an instacall, if he has a bigger set, shit happens, that's why you play within your bankroll because things like that can happen. Surely folding here is -EV.

folding seems bad, showing that you folded a set is even worse. that's just asking people to push you off of hands, and since you don't seem to want to make big calls without the nuts, thats bad.

Id have to agree with everyone here, that was a bad laydown. He could quite easily be playing any overpair here. The board is dry so why would a higher set play it so fast anyway? theres no real cards that come on the turn that worry 77 or JJ.
I think folding here is -EV, and showing what you folded is even worse.

Standard Call w/ pure happiness & joy... BUT what makes this laydown worse is you showed your hand? *Speechless*

Wow, I am really suprised that nobody likes a fold in this spot! I think the only time your ahead here is against a donkey. Usually I never ever lay down bottom set, if I get coolered so be it. But, with this board and the action that set it up is what made me fold.

Let me tell how I saw it..... Early position puts in a standard raise

I call in late position looking to break aces or kings, and two more people call behind me... hands that are calling there are usually pairs and SC's.

Flop comes totally dry, Jack high. Original raiser firest out pot sized just screaming AA or KK.

I mini-raise to isolate and define my hand... huge sign of strength I would think after original raiser fires pot size on flop into three people.

Guy behind me instantly pushes for another $120. Only a donk does that with AJ or QQ here and only a total donk limps with AA or KK preflop in that situation. So i dont put him on any of those.

There is no two pair or draw he could possibly do this with..... It seems to me if there is ever a time to dump bottom set, this would be it. I didnt wanna put in $120 drawing dead if he had it.

If the flop comes JT3, or suited easy call. But the board is what makes me believe Im usually beat in this spot. Does anyone agree with me at all??

By the way, this was one of the few times Ive ever folded bottom set in hundreds of thousands of hands..... I really dont hate this fold as much as everyone else seems to, and against a solid player, I think your usually behind.

Whachu think with the thought process?

PS. Ive seen plenty of people get excited with a set after some action and just instantly shove.... regardless of the board.

If that is your thought process then NLaydown... but i believe you are only trailing 77!

because small stakes players will overplay so many hands here you have to call considering your equity in this spot.

I didn't even bother reading your reasoning b/c I figured you were justifying a fold which isn't worth my time reading.

I wasnt justifying anything. I was giving my thought process throughout the hand in order for other people to help comment on it. It made sense to me at the time because there was no hand that I figured I would be beating at the time.

I guess that at these stakes, people will overplay there hand too often to fold here. I appreciate the comments. Next time I call.

He ended up having J7 soooooted. Had I known that he was capable of playing J7 I would have instacalled but I didnt have a read. I still stick to my opinion that nobody overplays AJ of QQ that badly in this spot and J7 is probly the only hand Im beating here.

Now Im off to try to jump on a table with that guy and get my money back. Peace.

you are playing scared,. If you are scared to lose $120, move down limits until this play is not scary at all, because it's probably the easiest most standard possible play I can think of on a flop. Flop set, get all money in pot. The times you are set over set are so small that you are statistically a favorite a ridiculous amount...somebody pokestove it.

It's been stoved to death. Google it.

Pot is $227. You have to call 117, so you are getting 1.94 to 1. The odds of set over set are 100 t0 1. Questions?

Originally Posted by andy609

Pot is $227. You have to call 117, so you are getting 1.94 to 1. The odds of set over set are 100 t0 1. Questions?

I see your point, but it's wrong. The odds of two set happening in one hand may be indeed 1:100, but against random tightish player who re-plays hard dry board, the odds of being oversetted are much bigger than 1%. The same applies with KK vs deep nit's 3bet AI, the odds of facing AA are not 1/20.

But it's still insta-call and it's not even close.

you need rock solid reads to fold sets in raised pots

Originally Posted by Renton

you need rock solid reads to fold sets in raised pots

...and sick stack depth?

double post

Originally Posted by Vrax

Originally Posted by Renton

you need rock solid reads to fold sets in raised pots

...and sick stack depth?

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-50072.htm

I like that fold there Renton.

IMO, too many people think calling all in with any set is always the best move regardless of any action in the hand.

Sometimes I just have a "feeling" Im beat, and Im glad I had the ballz to go with my instincts, even if I was wrong this time. Next time, I only lay down with a solid read though.

Thanx for the replies, I feel like this post has helped out my game.

Villian would have to be playing terribly for you to be good in this spot. Since you are at the table, I assume villan is terrible, so call.

Villain check-3bets all in with a pretty big overbet on almost the driest board possible against a continuation bet and a minimum raise. I can't really see JJ or even 77 pushing this hard when it looks like he may be able to get more money from one or both players.

Rainbow flop, no flushes, no straights, with betting like that, I'd suspect a scared 2 pair out there. With an over-set, a player would like to keep other players in, especially if some one else is building the pot betting into you. Now, consider how this would have played out if you were in an earlier position. With your set, a $36 bet, would you raise, or just call with players behind you? I would find it very tough to lay down a set with no threat of a straight & a flush. However, this is an excellent way to develop "instincts". Laying down a hand is usually just a "small" mistake & it takes as much courage to fold as it does to call in this situation.

Just my take on it! Good luck!

You are putting people on wayy too tight ranges, especially someone unknown like this guy. J7 and 73 were definitely possibilities, and don't assume someone is overplaying a hand. even if his range was JJ,77, and J7 only you'd still call because you are getting 2:1 (there are more combos of J7 than 77 and JJ). I think his range is more like AJ and KJ (less likely), JJ, 77, 33, J7, 73 and then a few weird crap hands/bluffs.

Originally Posted by gametight

I would have instacalled but I didnt have a read.

I think you have to assume hes an idiot until proven otherwise...

Not to a be a nit..


But to all the people saying that folding is -EV. ... folding is always 0 EV! Now, it may have been positive EV to call therefore folding costs you money in that sense but that isn't what EV is about.

Originally Posted by Threads13

Not to a be a nit..


But to all the people saying that folding is -EV. ... folding is always 0 EV! Now, it may have been positive EV to call therefore folding costs you money in that sense but that isn't what EV is about.

Folding is not 0EV when you hav equity in the pot. Everytime you folded here you lose the full pot *.80.

Folding can be a losing play.

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Originally Posted by Threads13

Not to a be a nit..


But to all the people saying that folding is -EV. ... folding is always 0 EV! Now, it may have been positive EV to call therefore folding costs you money in that sense but that isn't what EV is about.

Folding is not 0EV when you hav equity in the pot. Everytime you folded here you lose the full pot *.80.

Folding can be a losing play.

How much does folding cost you? If you fold it cost you absolutely 0, you are putting nothing more in the pot so it can't possible cost or gain anything.

Estimated value is the average value of the play. It is a weighted average, which multiplies the probability by the value of the play.

You can't compare two EV's and say that since one is smaller that it is negative.

For example, if raising has a EV of $100 in some given situation and calling has EV of $1, then clearly they both are +EV. However, you can't say that calling is -EV, it just isn't as good of a play.

Think of it this way, if folding was -EV in this spot it would be -EV in every spot with your argument. Every time you fold you are giving up equity.

Folding is not the best play in this spot, and it cost you money I am sure, but that doesn't mean it is -EV in a true sense of the term EV.

I thought it was established on ftr that it was correct to never fear oversets. (esp. HU)

Originally Posted by Threads13

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Originally Posted by Threads13

Not to a be a nit..


But to all the people saying that folding is -EV. ... folding is always 0 EV! Now, it may have been positive EV to call therefore folding costs you money in that sense but that isn't what EV is about.

Folding is not 0EV when you hav equity in the pot. Everytime you folded here you lose the full pot *.80.

Folding can be a losing play.

How much does folding cost you?

Folding cost him a ton in this pot

How is folding the best hand not -EV? Its -EV because you should have won what was initially in the pot, plus more.

Originally Posted by Threads13

Think of it this way, if folding was -EV in this spot it would be -EV in every spot with your argument. Every time you fold you are giving up equity.

Not if what you have to call is worth more than your equity in the pot.

"Equity in the pot"? Quess I'm kinda dumb. The pot is the "pot", my chips are "my chips". Once "my chips" go into the "pot", they then belong to the "pot". Equity = value, the pot has that, but I do not gain or lose any value (equity) of my chips just because I had previously put chips into the pot.

Does this mean that if you enter any chips into a pot, your "equity", more or less makes you pot committed? Man, I just look at the pot, look at my cards, & decide if I have the odds to win it.
In this situation, bottom set, I would consider my odds of winning the hand as "very good". Therefore, I'm in!

Originally Posted by dsmrolla06

How is folding the best hand not -EV? Its -EV because you should have won what was initially in the pot, plus more.

I explained it all in my post.

I am not saying that you are making a money saving play or anything of this nature.

Here is the math in a very generic sense.

EV = (Probability of winning)*(amount won) + (Probability of losing)*(amount lost)

Therefore, the EV of folding is always 0 because:

EV(folding) = 0*0 + 0*0 = 0

That is what EV is, it is a mathematical equation.

I concede that you are giving up money in a different sense, but this isn't EV. No matter what, folding doesn't cost you anything because you aren't putting any money in the pot.


Let's say that calling have an EV = +$100. Folding has an EV = $0. Therefore, folding is costing you $100 on average, but it doesn't mean that folding is -EV. The EV of folding is still 0, but you are missing out on an opportunity to make a profit.

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Originally Posted by Threads13

Think of it this way, if folding was -EV in this spot it would be -EV in every spot with your argument. Every time you fold you are giving up equity.

Not if what you have to call is worth more than your equity in the pot.

I think you are missing my point.

Originally Posted by Threads13

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Originally Posted by Threads13

Think of it this way, if folding was -EV in this spot it would be -EV in every spot with your argument. Every time you fold you are giving up equity.

Not if what you have to call is worth more than your equity in the pot.

I think you are missing my point.

I really think you're posts are screwing with players' minds who don't understand EV and equity and such. Folding here is a losing play, we really do not need to discuss it further.

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Originally Posted by Threads13

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Originally Posted by Threads13

Think of it this way, if folding was -EV in this spot it would be -EV in every spot with your argument. Every time you fold you are giving up equity.

Not if what you have to call is worth more than your equity in the pot.

I think you are missing my point.

I really think you're posts are screwing with players' minds who don't understand EV and equity and such. Folding here is a losing play, we really do not need to discuss it further.

I was simply stating facts. IMHO, if players want to get good at poker they have to have a good understand on the why. I think this is related to that thing. If you think players are getting screwed up, maybe you could help me explain it better?

That is all I have to say on the matter.

Originally Posted by Threads13

Originally Posted by dsmrolla06

How is folding the best hand not -EV? Its -EV because you should have won what was initially in the pot, plus more.

I explained it all in my post.

I am not saying that you are making a money saving play or anything of this nature.

Here is the math in a very generic sense.

EV = (Probability of winning)*(amount won) + (Probability of losing)*(amount lost)

Therefore, the EV of folding is always 0 because:

EV(folding) = 0*0 + 0*0 = 0

That is what EV is, it is a mathematical equation.

I concede that you are giving up money in a different sense, but this isn't EV. No matter what, folding doesn't cost you anything because you aren't putting any money in the pot.


Let's say that calling have an EV = +$100. Folding has an EV = $0. Therefore, folding is costing you $100 on average, but it doesn't mean that folding is -EV. The EV of folding is still 0, but you are missing out on an opportunity to make a profit.

I agree, partially.

when doing ev calculations folding is always 0EV. What you've got in the pot is a sunk cost.

You work out the equity of calling, and if it's >0 you call, and if it's <0 you fold.

HOWEVER...

Folding is -EV compared to calling. But it's just a matter of semantics. When we say folding is -EV it's IMPLIED we are saying folding is -EV in comparison to something else (raising or calling). I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "folding is -ev", implying "-ev compared to calling".

Originally Posted by salsa4ever

Originally Posted by Threads13

Originally Posted by dsmrolla06

How is folding the best hand not -EV? Its -EV because you should have won what was initially in the pot, plus more.

I explained it all in my post.

I am not saying that you are making a money saving play or anything of this nature.

Here is the math in a very generic sense.

EV = (Probability of winning)*(amount won) + (Probability of losing)*(amount lost)

Therefore, the EV of folding is always 0 because:

EV(folding) = 0*0 + 0*0 = 0

That is what EV is, it is a mathematical equation.

I concede that you are giving up money in a different sense, but this isn't EV. No matter what, folding doesn't cost you anything because you aren't putting any money in the pot.


Let's say that calling have an EV = +$100. Folding has an EV = $0. Therefore, folding is costing you $100 on average, but it doesn't mean that folding is -EV. The EV of folding is still 0, but you are missing out on an opportunity to make a profit.

HOWEVER...

Folding is -EV compared to calling. But it's just a matter of semantics. When we say folding is -EV it's IMPLIED we are saying folding is -EV in comparison to something else (raising or calling). I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "folding is -ev", implying "-ev compared to calling".

I agree with what you are saying. I was just worried that nobody was actually clear on what they were saying, and since people argued with me...............

That's fine if everyone can infer the correct meaning from "folding is -EV." It can just be a different way of saying that folding is costing you money compared to calling.

For the obvious reasons that we have seen here, if you go on saying "folding is -EV" you can end up confusing a lot of people. IMO, distilling the truth leads to a lot of people taking it too literally and making mistakes because of it. I was just wanting to set the record straight so that the facts are out there.

Finally, calling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folding.

Folding is -EV when you have bottome set on that board. Seriously, if you cant play for stacks without the absolute nuts...
This is a instacall for me evrytime, and im convinced you see an overpair much more often then a higher set. However you look at this hand, you made the wrong play.