This site uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. By continuing to browse the website, you accept such cookies. For more details and to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy. Close

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

    • metza
      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