I was actually looking up something completely different in SS and ran across some very interesting remarks on set over set. Thought I'd just post them since we've had a few of those lately. It also has to do with the old "not going busted in an unraised pot" issue (by the way, this is p. 439 of the old edition).

Here, he's talking about a situation where you have 22 on a flop of J42 in an unraised pot. Here, he definitely says you should bet it, but he is willing to let it go to a raise under some circumstances--interestingly, I think, because I normally really wouldn't be.

Since the pot is unraised, you obviously don't fear JJ, but he really is quite concerned about 44.

These days, it's usually fairly easy among fairly good players to distinguish information raises from set raises--e.g., one might want to actually let it go to a minimum raise, but against unknowns, I'd be much less likely to let it go to a big raise, which is more characteristic of AJ.

And, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Brunson says to just let it go (quote: "you might want to go on with the hand ... and then you might not"), but he doesn't want to get busted on it in an unraised pot.

This actually does surprize me a bit--a lot more cautious than I would have expected. So, I thought I'd just share it.

One additional thought: In an unraised pot, there may not be quite enough leverage to actually get busted, but let's just play through the following:

2/5 NL with $500 stacks: You have 22 in EP on that flop with a pot of $25. You bet $25 and get raised to $100. Well, that's really normally AJ, and, if you raise, it actually is pretty much all-in (I don't see much point in raising now to $200 or $325). Or, you can flat call and bet the turn hard, hoping it's an A or J. Anyhow, I do think I'd usually be all-in here, although, in accord with Brunson, I think I am capable of folding bottom set to a credible and readable minimum raise in this situation, which to me would just scream 44.

Considering I have been set over setted 4 times in the past week or so and lost about $700 to this, I am considering trying to slow down on these hands.

I'm not sure I'd fold a set here, but I might try just calling raises instead of instigating it to an allin situation.

Interesting info Ais.

I dont care what the raise is. Im not folding 22 in that spot unless we are both are VERY deep and even then, Im not giving up easily.

I'll have to keep an eye on how some of these hands develop--including ones I'm not in, just to see how "spottable" this situation is.

I really have up to now been pretty much following the strategy you suggest, ice, and assuming that any set is just the nuts (barring straights and flushes).

To tr: What I really don't like here is just "bleeding" on 22 in that situation. In the one that Brunson cites, you've put in your limp (I'm just playing it through at the stakes I'm currently playing) for $5 and a bet of $25. You're really not in horribly deep at this point.

Against raises that look a lot like 44, I honestly think I'd rather just lay it down (at the risk of laying down the best hand) rather than bleed here. For me, anyway, the main consideration is that I have only one out (to quads) that would allow me to play the hand truly aggressively--if I can really put my opponent on 44.

I really don't think ice's suggestion here is bad of just going all the way with it every time, but I'm not sure whether one wouldn't get further with it by also taking the quality of one's set into consideration. I don't think I can ever lay down middle set to a possible overset (straights or flushes, ok), but bottom set, while an extremely good hand to lay down, does have some difficulties.

I made this post more because I thought it raised some interesting issues. I don't really know myself what I consider to be the "right answer" to playing these things. I will say that I don't particularly like getting deeply involved in pots that I can only play defensively.

Just as point of interest: It would be MOST interesting (although, I fear, a bit tedious due to filtering limitations) to get some pokertracker data on the following:

Bottom set in unraised pots where you bet your bottom set and get a minimum raise.

I'm not at all sure that you have a winning situation here.

I just finished up with an analysis I was doing on sets. I got 78 sets in about 12000 hands.

I lost 5 of these sets. 3 of the losses were set over set. 2 set over sets were in raised pots and 1 was unraised. The other 2 sets that I lost, I folded before showdown because there was a 4 flush on the board.

Even with 3 set over sets, which is more than I should get in that amount of hands, I still made alot of money in these hands. The hands where I won large pots facing heavy pressure from 2 pair and things like that much more than made up for a couple set over sets. I dont think theres any reason to slowdown with a set fearing anything except an obvious straight or flush. Slowing down out of fear will cost you money.

I doubt VERY seriouisly that Doyle would be folding in the above example...Don't forget, the original SS ( I don't have the new one yet) was written assuming HUGE stacks relative to the blinds...This is a situation that us online players rarely see...Course most casino NL games have max buy- ins now as well...

Ice, great post regarding your sets. Helps me realize that even though I have been set over setted more than I could possible imagine in a week, its a fluke.

In you analysis of sets, do you use Excel or MS Access queries? If so, would you share as I was thinking of trying to create one (I suck at that).

Tim

Hmmmm... 78 is almost exactly right in terms of number of sets.

I will say that I had my worst session to date last week when I had 3 sets in one session: First one I won the pot outright (not a huge pot).

Second one I have 77 on a board of A75 and raise an EP bettor, but get an LP caller. Turn is a 4. I check with the intention of calling, but it's checked (this pot is already big due to my raise). River is an A, and I bet $80 into a pot of $150 or so. LP raises another $100 and turns over A5 for 2 pair on the flop and the bigger boat. No real regrets from me as to betting, but that was painful.

Third one I got flushed on it and, can't remember exactly, but may have made a crying call on the river for $50 or so.

So that's 2 sets lost in one session of maybe 300 hands (not bottom set--that's another issue).

What I have observed is that a lot of players don't really understand the function of little pairs--even fairly decent ones, who I think are probably more tournament specialized (I do think in tournaments you generally don't have time to play these little pairs for sets). A lot of players will for some reason dump 22 to a raise but play QJs, whereas I'd much rather have the 22.

But let's just assume that people do know what they're doing with them (I'm getting ready to do a mathematical analysis of this):

First of all, you get a PP once every 141 hands, meaning (at least with my normal raises) a "limp" PP about 2/3 of that time, so once every 220 or so (there's obviously also no reason why your AA or JJ will hit a set any less frequently than your 22).

Now, a lot of players (probably most) will still raise TT, and a raise is in any case going to give you a lot higher probability of being up against a bigger set (without looking it up, however, I assume that Brunson DOES lose his stack with any set in a raised pot).

But let's just assume (to some extent falsely for the reasons stated) that each of the other 8 players at the table keeps all pairs with a set-it-or-forget-it plan and doesn't raise TT and below. Then you are actually up against a set pretty rarely. On any given hand, it's only once in 30 that you are facing a set in an unraised pot (without regard to tells that might key you in to this fact). Moreover, if you have a set, the probability is even less because there are only 2 set cards rather than 3. On Brunson's hypothetical board, it's actually only 1 because JJ is very unlikely with an unraised pot.

That means that only once in 90 times are you actually facing 44 on the J42 board where you have 22.

Well, that again speaks for ice's more or less "never let go (to a possible set)" policy, I think. My only real quibble here is with the "never" part of it.

A few scenarios as "food for thought":

1) You bet out pot at $25 and get a minimum raise to $50 from a tight and credible opponent who likes to minimum raise sets. You raise to $200, and your opponent moves in for $500 altogether.

2) You bet out pot at $25 and get a flat call from a tight opponent. The turn is a K. You bet $70, and your opponent moves in.

Both of these scenarios just scream overset to me, and, in scenario 1, it brings up questions for me regarding the big raise on bottom set. I mean, is your opponent seriously minimum raising on AJ? J4? Admittedly, I do see some people do that, and, if they do, then I think the big raise is clearly correct, but if they typically minimum raise sets, why not just let it go before getting in so deep?

I do think you have to know your player in order to lay this down, but I'm not happy with a "never lay down to a represented overset" policy either.

I think like in many poker situations it comes down to your opponent. If the board is coordinated like JT2 or 872, there is little way I'm laying down my set, two pair becomes a lot more plausible. If the board is K82 rainbow, which I think is the only non-gutshot board possible, you bet, get raised by a credible opponent in mid-position, re-raise and the opponent pushes what else can he have in an unraised pot except 88. Unless the guy is a complete knuckle head, of which there are a lot of online, that is about the only excuse for his bet.

The problem is that unless you are both over triple buy in for a limited buy in game, you are obligated to call. I can't see not losing a stack to that action the few times I lose one, because I double or bust the guy so many other times, knuckle head or not. The people that I would fold too are few and very far between, and right now at the $100 level at Prima, none come to mind. There are a couple of people so set in stone playing the $50 game that I think it is easy to imagine that I'm beat, but even then they might have slowplayed AA enough to warrant going broke.

Aisthesis, just take your lumps like the rest of us a set of dueces

Oh about the only action I do lay down bottom set too. No real draw, I lead, someone raises big and someone else moves in. If neither of them are super high on my monkey radar, like known to be pushing with KQ top pair, then I'm folding, but rarely do you see this kind of action in an unraised pot. I can still see arguments for calling in many cases like this but, folding bottom set might make more sense.

Trodgers,

I kept track of eveything in Excel, but since I already finished up and learned what i wanted to leared, I already deleted it.

I mainly wanted to know how much of my win rate was solely attributed to hands where I had a set and how much I made in raised vs unraised pots. Also, how many sets I lost with..

By the way, over half of my win rate was won with sets. Of course I didnt subtract out the money I lost by calling a raise with a pair just trying to hit a set. the point was to see if you go along stretch without hitting any sets, could you still win.

I had just finished up a 3400 hand streak with no sets which is why I did this. My interpretation of the results is that if you dont hit any sets, you have big problems. Not that I was surprised by the results, but it made me feel better about my 3 week long dry spell. No sets, no win (at least not anywhere near what you normally do)

Ice, that is some great information. Thanks for sharing.

I wonder how an analysis like that would look for a limit player? Similar?

I think you would have to lose more sets in limit right? And youre not going to win monster pots. Its not like you can take someones stack who cant fold AA.