[NL2-NL10] NL2 44 bottom set, set over set, too pussy?

    • metza
      metza
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2012 Posts: 2,220
      PokerStars - $0.02 NL (9 max) ZOOM - Holdem - 9 players
      Hand converted by PokerTracker 3

      Hero (BTN): $3.68
      SB: $2.00
      BB: $1.05
      UTG: $5.43
      UTG+1: $1.51
      MP: $2.00
      MP+1: $5.34
      LP: $0.92
      CO: $2.12

      SB posts SB $0.01, BB posts BB $0.02

      Pre Flop: ($0.03) Hero has 4:heart: 4:club:

      fold, fold, fold, MP+1 raises to $0.06, fold, CO calls $0.06, Hero calls $0.06, fold, fold

      Flop: ($0.21, 3 players) K:club: 9:heart: 4:diamond:
      MP+1 checks, CO bets $0.10, Hero calls $0.10, MP+1 calls $0.10

      Turn: ($0.51, 3 players) A:diamond:
      MP+1 checks, CO bets $0.24, Hero calls $0.24, MP+1 calls $0.24

      River: ($1.23, 3 players) 3:club:
      MP+1 checks, CO bets $0.60, Hero calls $0.60, fold

      CO shows 9:spade: 9:diamond: (Three of a Kind, Nines) (Pre 81%, Flop 96%, Turn 98%)
      Hero mucks 4:heart: 4:club: (Three of a Kind, Fours) (Pre 19%, Flop 4%, Turn 2%)
      CO wins $2.35

      Was this appropriate caution here? Normally I'm willing to stack off with bottom set, but he three barrelled into two other players which shows huge strength so I'm like 50% he as AK 50% he has a better set. Was this too cautious? I only acted this way out of superstition lol, 20 hands ago this exact flop came and I stacked someone with KK set vs 99 set, turned quad K's. But now I'm thinking pot control may just be +EV with bottom set even at NL2, not so much middle and top, I might lean towards caution and a medium pot size with bottom set from now on (when protecting from draws is not a priority as in the case above)
  • 1 reply