Fast-playing a set with FD on flop: am I losing value here? (1 Viewer)

boltonguy

Flush
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
1,748
Location
Boston, MA USA
I think that I have a leak in my game which is best illustrated by the following hand. Wanted to get feedback from the team here.

This is ACR 10NL Blitz. Hero is in SB with 44. Normally I play SB as 3! or fold but I think the likelihood of being squeezed is somewhat low so I do tend to flat the low PP to setmine especially at smaller open sizes. UTG RFI 2.2, Hero flats and BB flats. If I do get squeezed here by the BB I will probably just let this hand go especially to larger sizing. Not enough hands on other players for the HUD stats to make a difference.

1621958735082.png


Hero flops a set on a medium wet board. 45 connects well with BB range and K connects well with UTG range.
I'm expecting UTG to cbet here with high frequency and she does when checked to.

1621958823017.png


Given that the pot is multi-way and medium wet, Hero decides to X/R to 4x. Both players fold.
I'm torn here and would be interested in feedback - should I have just called to see a turn and have a shot at a larger pot?
X/R smaller to drive out BB but maybe get a call from UTG?
FWIW I put this in Snowie and Snowie just flats the cbet. I think that there are lots of bad cards on turn especially multi-way but I think I left value on the table.
I do find generally that I dont get as much value as I think I should out of sets.

1621958868669.png



1621959202036.png
 
In this situation I believe all options (flat, check raise, or donk) are acceptable and I would lean towards one play or another depending on player tendencies. Given that you don’t have many hands on either player it’s a toss up. One clue is that I find UTGs cbet sizing a bit strange being so small on a wet board (usually I think most players would use a larger polarized sizing on that board multi-way).

This would tend to make me think that UTG is not too savy and just taking a small stab at the pot so maybe a flat or smaller raise would have been better. One thing is a flat potentially keeps the bb in with more hands drawing very thin and he might call with his good draws anyhow to a check-raise. I know the potential for a scary card on the turn can influence your decision to go for the big check raise. Also you mentioned that you would probably fold to a squeeze from the BB. I would most likely call a squeeze even at a slightly larger sizing since all players are pretty deep I think you are still getting proper odds to set mine.

It would have to be an unusually large squeeze or a 4 bet from UTG to fold. All in all I don’t think your play was that bad. Just unfortunate outcome that no one had anything. I’m definitely a winning player at those limits but no supreme expert so take my advice with a grain of salt
 
I just want to say really interesting to see this. One thing I'm working on my game is check raising, I think my sizing is too large (typically I will bet pot), so definitely following this thread. On first glance I think the sizing is fine, you're giving them 6 dollars to call into a 21 dollar pot (that would become 27 dollars), so they would need around 22% equity to call, a flush draw is an auto-call and I think Kx and AA are calls as well.
 
I just want to say really interesting to see this. One thing I'm working on my game is check raising, I think my sizing is too large (typically I will bet pot), so definitely following this thread. On first glance I think the sizing is fine, you're giving them 6 dollars to call into a 21 dollar pot (that would become 27 dollars), so they would need around 22% equity to call, a flush draw is an auto-call and I think Kx and AA are calls as well.
Good point. KX and AA would call as well most likely because of the pot odds. A smaller raise will obviously keep him in with a wider range than that, and a flat might keep the BB in as well with as little as a small pair. On the contrary I think a lot of players will slow play sets multi-way quite too often, especially on a wet flop. In that case a larger raise will extract maximum value from any draws that will hang around regardless. Many times it’s better to raise early to extract immediate value from any draws on a wet board (tricky thing is you have a third player that will be facing two bets cold). If you had stats and see that this guy is Agro and likes to double/tripple barrel, I would be more inclined to slow play it going for the check raise on a later street, then you could get value from his weaker bluffing range as well. One interesting play to consider too is to flat the flop then lead with a smaller donk on the turn. I’m by no means saying that this is optimal, but since it looks fishy it sometimes makes players at these limits blow up from sheer suspicion. Some players might see this as you trying to buy a cheap river with a weaker draw and raise you with their made hands or better bluffs getting the BB caught in the middle as well. As you can see I don’t have a definite answer as well... just hoping to give you more thought on options to consider. Would be interesting to know what the GTO frequencies and optimal sizings are in such a situation. Please share any knowledge you gain in your investigation!
 
I like the idea of flatting and leading turn - that is a suggestion in another flopped set thread. Good idea for an exploitative play.

Out of curiosity I put this in the solver. Cant do multiway pots so I simplified to HU vs LJ. Solver raises all combos of 44 at freq of 64%.

1622120074973.png
 
I like the idea of flatting and leading turn - that is a suggestion in another flopped set thread. Good idea for an exploitative play.

Out of curiosity I put this in the solver. Cant do multiway pots so I simplified to HU vs LJ. Solver raises all combos of 44 at freq of 64%.

View attachment 706942
Good investigation! So solver disagrees with snowie’s flat I guess? The solver is strictly for a heads up situation though I presume?
 
Good investigation! So solver disagrees with snowie’s flat I guess? The solver is strictly for a heads up situation though I presume?
Reread your post and I see that you mentioned how you entered it into the solver so I guess that answers my question. Should have read more carefully
 
Reread your post and I see that you mentioned how you entered it into the solver so I guess that answers my question. Should have read more carefully
Good investigation! So solver disagrees with snowie’s flat I guess? The solver is strictly for a heads up situation though I presume?
Looks like you will progress quite nicely. You have a lot of eagerness and tools at your disposal I see. Keep it up! I’m more of an old school live player but did profit nicely on UB, Party, and such back in the early days of the poker boom (2001-2006) before all these tools existed. Online is a much tougher game now a days.
 
I don’t have any wisdom to share, but I have two thoughts:
1. I think this is a legitimate concern about a leak - I share that concern with my game. Multi-way, I’m still good with taking it down right there. Dunno if I’m right though.

2. There’s nothing wrong with trying to improve your game with solvers I guess, but I’m pretty sure that 90% of my villains are so far from GTO that solvers would be a waste of time for me.
 
2. There’s nothing wrong with trying to improve your game with solvers I guess, but I’m pretty sure that 90% of my villains are so far from GTO that solvers would be a waste of time for me.
The theory of exploitative play from Brokos' book is first we have to understand the equilibrium play, then we determine our opponent's deviation, and then we can build an exploitative strategy. So while I agree that none of the people we're playing against is balanced, it can be helpful to understand the how/where/when/why of GTO play as a baseline.
 
The theory of exploitative play from Brokos' book is first we have to understand the equilibrium play, then we determine our opponent's deviation, and then we can build an exploitative strategy. So while I agree that none of the people we're playing against is balanced, it can be helpful to understand the how/where/when/why of GTO play as a baseline.
Interesting, and it makes sense. I haven’t heard of this Brokos book, but I’ll take a look.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom