underset vs. overset

[mcdonough22]

Just lost with a set of deuces on the flop against a set of fives. That's twice in a week and I'm wondering about the odds on this: 12% on the flop for me to hit my set which leaves about 8% for him to hit his so the odds of two sets on the flop is .12x.08=0.096 meaning that when I hit a set, there's a 1% chance my opponent did too. Is this correct?

[bode]

his set is also 12% to hit on the flop. set over set is pretty common.

[pankfish]

set over set is almost as bad as flush over flush. I got out flushed twice today. WTF?

[Sheetah]

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...381&highlight=

[BankItDrew]

try flopping bigger sets next time

because set happens!

[mcdonough22]

his set is also 12% to hit on the flop. set over set is pretty common.

Is this a serious post? If I hit my set, he only has two cards to hit his set since one of them is my set! Thus, his 8% chance on what's left of the flop. If you think 1% is "pretty common", then I guess you get pocket aces "pretty commonly" or maybe a straight flush "quite a bit". Can anyone confirm the math?

try flopping bigger sets next time

Yep, that's why I go to the gym now. Thanks...

[mcdonough22]

Your link confirmed it for me, Sheetah. Thanks...

[Sheetah]

YW

Back when I wrote it, I was really pessimistic (just like you now ) and forgot to mention that at the same time these are also the odds of how often you will be on the 'good side'.

Also and this is very important concept: this time you had lower set, but next time your opponent will and both of you played it fine - in the long run you're break even in situations like this (let's forget the rake for a moment).


In other words don't think bad about yourself cause it happened to you and do not assume you pawn just because you had bigger one this time - hands like this are not a reason why someone is long term winner ... or loser.

[Pelion]

his set is also 12% to hit on the flop.

you boob.... infact you are all boobs.

You cant work it out this way at all unless you are against a single opponent who always starts off with a pocket pair. Actually you are against a number of opponents, each of whom has a variable range of hands of which only some fraction (half?) are pocket pairs, so its really going to be much more complicated. As a very rough guess 1% seems reasonable but its probably a few times that in reality.

[mcdonough22]

this time you had lower set, but next time your opponent will and both of you played it fine

Well, if you wanna get technical, everytime I play a set of deuces and this situation happens, I'll always be on the ass end, but I hear want you're saying...

don't think bad about yourself cause it happened to you

I hope I don't give off that vibe. In a tourney situation, I'm still playing a set of deuces fast, knowing this will happen to them one time in a hundred.

you boob.... infact you are all boobs.

Ahh, to be a boob. I was just trying to get the overset math correct. If I were wondering how often a set of deuces were going to win the hand, I would certainly have to take other variables into account. But I'm not doing that here.

...each of whom has a variable range of hands of which only some fraction (half?) are pocket pairs...

Half? OK, now who's the boob? :P

[spoonitnow]

With 100bb stacks in NLHE, your set under sets and set over sets will (and should) run damn near break even in the long run.