I've only been at this table for a couple of hands. I've never played with the CO before and since i'm quad tabling i know exactly nothing about him other than that he has a full stack.

who likes my flop play? i was worried that i didn't bet enough on the flop, since i was hoping to get raised by the CO. who would have rather seen me smooth call his raise and pick up on the turn? Obviously it worked out well this time, but who thinks i got lucky to get action the way i played it?

I'm asking because i feel like i'm routinly leaving money on the table with my sets, and i'm working on fixing that.

For those of you keeping score at home, this is the first time in almost 2 weeks that i've gotten action on a set when i'm not behind to a flopped straight or flush. it's all the first full stack pot i've won in as long.

it's been an ugly 10 or so days. I'm mostly just posting this hand to make myself feel better about it.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (9 handed)

MP2 ($81.85)
MP3 ($201.65)
CO ($203.60)
Button ($206.25)
SB ($116)
BB ($125.15)
UTG ($190)
Hero ($202.75)
MP1 ($216.95)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with , .
1 fold, Hero calls $2, 2 folds, MP3 calls $2, CO raises to $8, 3 folds, Hero calls $6, MP3 calls $6.

Flop: ($27) , , (3 players)
Hero bets $16, MP3 calls $16, CO raises to $48, Hero raises to $194.75, MP3 folds, CO calls $146.75.

Turn: ($432.50) (2 players)

River: ($432.50) (2 players)

Final Pot: $432.50

Results in white below:
Hero has 6d 6h (full house, sixes full of eights).
CO has As Ah (two pair, aces and eights).
Outcome: Hero wins $432.50.

I like it!

I will say this, however: I actually like betting either something like $12 or else the full $27 into the raiser. If you can actually know that the raiser is tight/strong, then full pot is a pretty good bet (and would presumably yield the same result on this hand).

Where I like the probe bet is more against loose-ish raisers, although this board looks pretty sweet even for someone who'll raise AJ. Another advantage, even against strong raisers, is that they may even raise their AK unimproved or at least flat call. If you bet full pot into AK, then anyone in his right mind will presumably just lay it down.

On getting sets paid off, I really don't know what to say in general. In raised pots, you have a lot better perspective. Otherwise, it depends a lot on board texture--like 862 in an unraised pot. I still bet it out, but you have to get a little lucky and find someone on a draw as a general rule. Actually, the 86J board would look nice to me, but my last set was tens on a JTrag board, and I couldn't get any action at all. I guess if they just don't have anything, then there's nothing you can really do...

i have to ask, what difference is there in your mind (or in the mind of the person i'm betting into) between $12 or $16? i mean, one is $1.50 less than half pot, one is $2.50 more than half pot. In my mind it's roughly the same bet.

Am i missing something?

And yeah, i understand the idea if if they don't have anything, yet i hear ice talk all the time about how the vast majority of his money comes off of sets, and here i am, despite flopping what i would say is my fair number of sets over the last week, and this is the only time i've been paid off (not counting the times the money went in when i was behind)

~Dustin

I flopped a set of 6s yesterday, led out into another caller and the preflop raiser behind him and they boith folded.

Im starting to hate the lead with a set play. Everytime I lead, they fold.

Strangly enough, when I lead with JJ on a 863 flop, I get raised. Must be just bad luck that the raiser keeps having AK/AQ when I hit the set and he has an overpair when I lead with a smaller overpair.

I think unless the board looks pretty scary and / or there are multplie caller, Im going to just check it to him.

I think your play is fine, although I might just call his raise and check raise the turn all in.

Nice play. This ought to be a lesson on how NOT to play AA. AA calling a flop all in is not a good hand.

Well, first to Stel: I do think 1/2 pot is kind of the threshold between a weak bet provoking a raise and a bet that they're less inclined to raise--and also the possible call/raise with unimproved AK. But this may also have to do with the tables, etc. I can only appeal to Harrington as "authority" on this (which is where I got the idea) and just say that it seems to work. Against AA, however, I don't think it really matters. IF, at the table in question, there's no difference between the $16 and the $12, then it doesn't matter in general, so I guess that's the real question.

As to the general question of getting a caller with sets: It really HAS to be bad luck if you called a raise with JJ, bet it out and get raised whereas you get a fold with the set. It's the same bet!! While there are a few people at this B&M who will even think about going all the way with unimproved AK, it's rare and probably even rarer in the online games you guys are playing. If they don't have anything, even if they raised, betting into the raiser actually loses you some money IF they'll make a continuation bet.

But do you guys really think that your opponents are folding big pairs when you bet into them? That, too, is really very rare, and I think more players are inclined to OVERPLAY their overpairs than they are to let them go. I really think that in the raised pots, it just means that it's a streak of hitting unimproved AK (or AQ, etc.) when you set.

The other issue is whether betting into the raiser gives you better chances of stacking the big pairs. That's probably to some extent player-dependent, and it really may not matter much, but there are certainly a few factors in play here.

Anyhow, let's say you checkraise your set against AA (that means we're really talking here only about being out of position vs. the raiser). I think AA will at least call a healthy raise here, possibly re-raise all-in (imo a mistake, but it's one that I see all the time). So, you effectively should get the same amount as when you bet out and AA raises. The only real difference I can see is that, assuming on the "bet out-get raised" scenario that you come over the top, AA gets a free card to the turn on the check-raise, which he should call rather than re-raise (I've been seeing a LOT of 2-outers from opponents lately, so I'll have to say that I do take that seriously).

I do think that you also gain in deception value with betting out (really just guessing about the tables you guys play, but what I'm seeing around here) because more players will slowplay their sets rather than play them fast.

Another advantage I see to betting out is that you don't allow those passively playing suited connectors (or whatever) to draw out on you. And I really suspect that even at your online tables, pretty much everyone in one way or another is going to try to see at least the turn with a good draw, which should cost some money.

Well, that's enough for now. Unraised pots pose a different problem I think. But I really think that the bottom line is: If they have some kind of hand, you should at least get a caller (if you suspect initial raiser of laying down an overpair, then the issue becomes very different). If they don't, you won't.

I really think the advantage of making at least some kind of bet into the raiser outweigh the disadvantages. If you feel like it's really becoming chronic getting only folds, why not try betting the little pair UNIMPROVED into the raiser? I think that's really a better answer (if they're truly folding overpairs) than the check-raise.