You go broke here...

every single time right?


Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (9 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

SB ($53)
BB ($37.20)
Hero ($25.35)
UTG+1 ($28.75)
MP1 ($20.34)
MP2 ($29.50)
MP3 ($13.66)
CO ($8.50)
Button ($31.77)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 2:diamond:, 2:club:. SB posts a blind of $0.10.
Hero calls $0.25, 3 folds, MP3 raises to $1, 1 fold, Button calls $1, SB (poster) calls $0.90, 1 fold, Hero calls $0.75.

Flop: ($4.25) 7:spade:, 2:heart:, 6:diamond: (4 players)
SB bets $2.5, Hero calls $2.50, MP3 folds, Button folds.

Turn: ($9.25) 6:club: (2 players)
SB bets $5, Hero calls $5.

River: ($19.25) 8:heart: (2 players)
SB bets all-in, Hero calls.

Final Pot: $19.25

Results in white below:
SB has 8c 8s (full house, eights full of sixes).
Hero has 2d 2c (full house, twos full of sixes).
Outcome: SB wins $19.25.

I think you slowplayed the turn too much;this is actually the best spot to get your money in now.Better to win a small pot then to lose a big one.

yep, every time. theres a very slight chance he may fold if you push the turn, but probably not likely.

as strong as he was betting it?

don't think so.

This has been the most frustrating session for me. I have had set under set twice, flush under flush three times, nut straight under flush once (no excuse for that, really) and as a kicker, I have flopped two quads and a straight flush, and didn't get paid at all on any of them.

Fuck.

This was all in the space of about a 500 hand session. Thankfully I am still up three bucks.

Three bucks, for two hours work.

Nice.

When he hits his 2 outer on the river.. yeah. :P

Ummm, i wouldn't limp ducks UTG... they just suck so badly... :D. You probably will get raised anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Ummm, i wouldn't limp ducks UTG...

---

Raise ;)

you raise small pairs utg Fnord?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

you raise small pairs utg Fnord?

---

:whistle:

Against a thinking opponent I fold the river often.

the ducks really suffer from MYHAL (Make Your Hand And Lose) syndrome. I never tried raising 'em UTG though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Against a thinking opponent I fold the river often

---

I apparently lack discipline, I won't deny that. But there is absolutely no way I would ever lay this down, even if I saw this exact hand twenty times over again with the same betting patterns.

Because the other 19/20 times villain has an overpair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeFou

the ducks really suffer from MYHAL (Make Your Hand And Lose) syndrome. I never tried raising 'em UTG though.

---

I was under the impression that the reverse implied odds of 22-55 with deep money weren't so well known.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Against a thinking opponent I fold the river often

---

I apparently lack discipline, I won't deny that. But there is absolutely no way I would ever lay this down, even if I saw this exact hand twenty times over again with the same betting patterns.

Because the other 19/20 times villain has an overpair.

---

This is a classic common scenerio. Make a full house on a coordinated board and push all in. The villain thought you may have a straight. I'm sure you've done it yourself. In fact, if I were you acting first in this hand, I would push and lose my stack thinking villain had a bad hand to call with. When pushed into however, it becomes highly apparent the villain is doing one and the same to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeFou

the ducks really suffer from MYHAL (Make Your Hand And Lose) syndrome. I never tried raising 'em UTG though.

---

I was under the impression that the reverse implied odds of 22-55 with deep money weren't so well known.

---

Well stated. Gotta love reverse implied, especially when you don't have them.

the reverse implied odds of small pairs are more than overcome by their implied odds right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

the reverse implied odds of small pairs are more than overcome by their implied odds right?

---

absolutely. Unlike AQ.

Reverse implied odds:
1) If you are best, you are unlikely to get paid much
2) If you are worst, you are unlikly to catch up.

I'm sure you know this. Just thought it was worth putting in for readers who don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

the reverse implied odds of small pairs are more than overcome by their implied odds right?

---

It depends on how far your opponents are willing to take hands that can't beat bottom set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

the reverse implied odds of small pairs are more than overcome by their implied odds right?

---

It depends on how far your opponents are willing to take hands that can't beat bottom set.

---

I have heard people make comments about lower PPs. I have not heard people shoot them down like this until now. I assume there is more to the story and I'm interested.

Wouldn't these same opponents be less willing to pay higher sets like JJ orr TT knowing those are more likely holdings in a raised pot?

I don't see how 66 is any better than 22 if you play them for a set. I see how counterfeiting comes in when you dont' set, but somebody holding AK on a A62 board isn't going to be less likely to pay off 22 than 66. Can you give examples of how 66 differs from 22? Set over set is one, but that adds a tiny edge to 66. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r8ed

Wouldn't these same opponents be less willing to pay higher sets like JJ orr TT knowing those are more likely holdings in a raised pot?

---

It's safe to assume that short of a really freak river board, any set will play for stacks at least 150bb deep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r8ed

I don't see how 66 is any better than 22 if you play them for a set. I see how counterfeiting comes in when you dont' set, but somebody holding AK on a A62 board isn't going to be less likely to pay off 22 than 66. Can you give examples of how 66 differs from 22? Set over set is one, but that adds a tiny edge to 66. Thanks.

---

How much money is a skilled player with AK going to pay off 66 from an opponent who hasn't shown much action? If it's a raised pot, how often are you really going to run into KK/QQ who's probably going to say "I was just kidding, take it down, stupid Ace magnets, stupid fish play any stupid Ace, grrrrrr"...

Set over set is certainly infrequent, but it's expensive. If both players play their hands well, we're talking stacks up to somewhere around the 200bb point. That doesn't have to happen very often to effect the earn for any hand that isn't AA/KK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeFou

the ducks really suffer from MYHAL (Make Your Hand And Lose) syndrome. I never tried raising 'em UTG though.

---

I was under the impression that the reverse implied odds of 22-55 with deep money weren't so well known.

---

Please nobody apply this advice to the hand posted. What he's saying is absolutely correct, but at 100bb deep at NL25 in a raised pot, baby pairs have huge implied odds.

For the original hand.. villain isn't betting this hand hard, whoever said that he was. A bit more then half pot on flop and turn. I think I raise the flop even with 2 to act behind me. There's a lot of cards you don't want to see on the turn that could kill your action or beat you. Fail that, I like raising the turn, but that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r8ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

the reverse implied odds of small pairs are more than overcome by their implied odds right?

---

It depends on how far your opponents are willing to take hands that can't beat bottom set.

---

I have heard people make comments about lower PPs. I have not heard people shoot them down like this until now. I assume there is more to the story and I'm interested.

Wouldn't these same opponents be less willing to pay higher sets like JJ orr TT knowing those are more likely holdings in a raised pot?

I don't see how 66 is any better than 22 if you play them for a set. I see how counterfeiting comes in when you dont' set, but somebody holding AK on a A62 board isn't going to be less likely to pay off 22 than 66. Can you give examples of how 66 differs from 22? Set over set is one, but that adds a tiny edge to 66. Thanks.

---

Sets can get counterfeited too. At least enough to effectively turn it into a pair. A while ago, I flop a set in a raised pot OOP with 33, board 36k 2 tone. I lead into pfr'er in multiway pot, he raises (at the time, I'm thinking AK is far and away his most likely hand), I push, yadayadayada, turn 6, river 6. his 6's full of K's beats my 6's full of 3's.

Much more importantly, set over set, while infrequent, generally results in a MASSIVE pot in relation to the blinds, and that in itself makes a hand like 66 better then 22, although I find the level of playability to be very similar much of the time. You give the example of holding 66 or 22 vs AK on an A62 board, you are right, virtually no difference. Now say you are holding 22 or 66 on that A62 board, villain has the other, you have 100bb stacks, we are talking a 200+bb advantage for the person who has the higher set.

Also very important, the post-flop playability of any given pair increases with each denomination. Take ducks for example, there's really no flop that doesn't contain a two that makes you at all confident in putting money in. 345 maybe? Whereas, a hand like 99, whom often people play strictly for set value, can very often have the best hand post-flop without hitting a set and be confident in putting money into the pot as such, the favorite. I'm sure I don't need to go on any further.

ya seeing as how you paid him off on the river anyways might as well raise on the turn and get your money in when you got the hand. unless he is double barrel bluffing i highly doubt he's gonna lay it down on 25NL table.

Thanks Lukie. Those were the points I expected. I wasn't sure if there was anything else I was overlooking. I think with a proper bankroll you shouldn't fold bottom set unless you have an extremely accurate read on a player. Possibly fold if stacks are multiple of the max buyin with a read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r8ed

Thanks Lukie. Those were the points I expected. I wasn't sure if there was anything else I was overlooking. I think with a proper bankroll you shouldn't fold bottom set unless you have an extremely accurate read on a player. Possibly fold if stacks are multiple of the max buyin with a read.

---

agreed. too many hands that you beat that 25NL players would push with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r8ed

I think with a proper bankroll you shouldn't fold bottom set unless you have an extremely accurate read on a player.

---

Goddamn, I suck at this game...

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ic.php?t=28654

its a helluva lot easier to lay down bottom set in the face of a straight than against a higher set.