Trying to Flop a Set

The set is the premier hand in deep-stack no-limit hold’em. It is the hand that everyone hopes to get when looking to double their money on one hand. It is also the opposing hand that everyone worries about when holding a solid hand like an overpair. Unlike a flush or a straight, the hand is well-concealed, greatly increasing its moneymaking potential compared to other good hands.

One reason that flopping a set is such a celebrated event is its rarity. The odds are a little over 7-1 against doing it when holding a pocket pair.

Poker players know that a set is valuable, but many of them burn up too much money going after one. In my opinion, they make two common mental errors when deciding whether or not to call a raise. First, they assume that a set will win. Second, they assume that their set will get paid off. Let’s look at each of these mistakes.

Sets win more pots than they lose. They even win more money than they lose, despite the fact that getting a set cracked usually means that your whole stack goes down the tubes. But it should be evident that you cannot assume that a set wins just about all the time when deciding how much money you can invest in trying to make one. In getting a handle on the math of trying to make sets, investing about 10 percent of your stack is around the break-even point if you are able to get all in every time you flop a set.

How often are you able to get all in when you flop a set? It is easier to do so when you have position, even though position is not a necessity for seeing the flop with a pocket pair. (If acting first, I would rather be out of position with pocket sevens than with 8-7 suited, as drawing hands are much more efficient when you have position.) It is hard to bust players for a large amount of money when they do not have anything, as may be the case in a single-raised pot. If the pot has been reraised preflop, the opponent either has a big pair or intends to play as if he has a big pair, so you are probably the favorite to bust a reraiser unless the money is extremely deep. At any rate, the bottom line is that it is a big mathematical error to think flopping a set one time out of eight means that investing one-eighth of your stack to see the flop is the break-even point. My guesstimate is that the true figure representing the break-even point is investing one-twelfth of your stack.

The poker hand that prompted me to write this column came from a friend of mine who was playing in the 2009 World Series of Poker main event. Here it is:

He said, “An early-position player raised the pot to 900, which I called from middle position with pocket jacks. The button reraised to a total of 3,000, which the raiser called. I decided to call. There was now just under 10,000 in the pot. The flop came really ragged, 7-4-2 rainbow. Everyone had about 20,000 left at this point. The early-position player checked, I checked, and the reraiser bet 5,500. The early-position player folded, and it was up to me. I took a lot of time, really thinking there was a decent chance that I had the best hand. But he had position, and if I was wrong, my Series was basically over, so I folded.”

I agree with the fold. Yes, I know that there is a lot of phony betting these days, but it sure looks like the button has a big pocket pair. He reraised a relatively small amount with an early raiser and a caller. I think someone on the button with A-K is more likely to just call, rather than put his whole tournament on the line with a reraise. On the flop, he bet a shade more than half the pot. It sure looked like this guy was looking for action with a big pocket pair.

What about the preflop call of the reraise? I don’t think that jacks have much value if you do not flop a set. That is the difference between a raise and a reraise. I may well play this hand after the flop if the pot were only single-raised, but that is not what happened. I suppose that there are a few players who are good enough to decide what to do after the flop by making a good read on mannerisms, but I am not one of them. Plus, those who contend for the world championship seldom give away info when betting (like the average player may well do). I might add that when you play poker on the Internet and encounter this type of situation, there is no way to make a good read on your opponent by a mannerism. So, I think this situation is mostly a mathematical one, of whether or not you want to invest 2,100 to try to flop a set. Let’s discuss some of these factors.

In favor of a call is that calling closes the betting, so you know the price to see the flop and the pot odds. Many bad calls are made trying to flop a set when the betting is not closed — and sometimes the would-be set-flopper pays the price but does not get to see the flop. (He will usually let you know if he would have flopped a set by failing to keep a poker face).

Will you get action if you flop a set? The button probably has a big pair and the money is not deep enough for him to back off.

What about the third player in the pot? Is he an asset or a liability? With this betting, I think there is a good chance that he has pocket queens. This makes him a liability, adding to the risk of you being on the low end of set over set. Had the pot not been reraised, I would regard his presence as an asset, increasing the chance of your getting paid off.

My guess, if I were playing the hand, is that I do not have an overlay by calling 2,100 more, so I would not put the money in. I will admit that it is a close situation, however.

Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Poker. All can be ordered from Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons: e-mail [email protected]. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get his rulebook, Robert’s Rules of Poker, for free. Bob also has a website called
www.fairlawsonpoker.org.