\"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Hi Everyone:

A while back, I played a hand which featured a pair of fours. When I posted the hand on these forums, the response was simply incredible. I noticed on our Gossip forum that it was mentioned again, so I thought I would post the essay, that I wrote about it (from my book Poker Essays, Volume III.)

By the way, this is copyrighted material, so I would appreciate it that no one repost this essay anyplace else. But all comments are welcome.

Best wishes,
Mason

A Pair of Fours

Perhaps the most famous hand I was ever involved with occurred in a $15-$30 hold ’em game at The Bellagio in late May of 1999. I thought the hand was interesting and casually posted it on one of our Internet forums. By the time the smoke cleared, the hand was all over the Internet, and there were several hundred posts discussing the pros and cons of my play. Because of this I thought that it would be worth repeating here, and give some of the reasons for my strategy. Here goes:

Four players had limped in and I had

4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

one off the button. I called, the player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining players, including me, called. (Eight of us saw the flop for two bets each.)

The flop came

9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

The player in the small blind bet, two players to his left called, I called, and the player on the button called.

The turn was the 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. It was checked to me and I bet. Only the player in the blind called. The Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] came on the river. We both checked and I won the pot with my two fours. (The player in the blind had A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].)

As innocuous as this hand might first appear, it stirred up a hornet’s nest. Here are the reasons why I played as I did, plus some other comments.

First, it should be obvious to most readers that I am suppose to call before the flop with my pair of fours. I am simply getting enough multiway action to try to flop a set. (And calling the subsequent raise is of course a no brainer.)

My call on the flop is much more controversial. Generally, calling on the flop in a multiway pot with a pocket under pair is a mistake that only weak players make. But I felt that this situation was an exception since there were 19 (small) bets in the pot. It is only 22-to-1 for me to turn a set. There are 19 bets in there already, and if a four comes I could win as many as 35 bets, assuming my hand holds up. So at first this appears to be a very easy and profitable call. (However, note that if I did not hold the 4♦ my call would be wrong. This is because I don’t want to turn a set at the same time someone else makes a flush since two diamonds flopped.)

But there is a problem. The before the flop raiser is behind me and if I knew that he would raise again it would cut my immediate odds down to 12-to-1 assuming everyone calls and no one else reraises. If this happens my call will become a mistake.

Nonetheless, it was still right to call. There are three reasons for this. First, the before the flop raiser doesn’t have to raise again. Since my implied odds were overwhelming, it seemed like I had enough cushion to chance the raise. Second, if the player behind me raises again, he may just have two big cards and is trying to buy a free card. If this is the case and he succeeds, his raise has helped me as much as it has hurt me because I now get to look at fifth street for free and given that 12-to-1 is easily worth it. Third, his raise may tie on other players who may now be drawing close to dead assuming the four does come. So even though my immediate odds may drop, I may gain some extra bets which will partially counter balance this.

Well this call stirred up a firestorm. Some posters pointed out that I play terribly and am a known steamer. Others said that this was a highly fluctuating play which should be avoided or that the call could be made by an expert since he would be able to play the hand well enough to show a profit, while a typical player can’t.

Let’s answer these one at a time. First, whether I play badly or steam has nothing to do with whether the play was correct. Even terrible players or those on high tilt can accidentally make the right play, and even if the negative comments are true, there is no reason why my strategy can’t still be correct.

Second, this is actually a low fluctuating play. The vast majority of the time I will put my money into the pot (on the flop) and throw my hand away on the turn. Occasionally I will win a big pot, and on very rare occasions I will hit my four and proceed to lose a few more bets. This is not what causes big swings to your bankroll.

(Straying from the subject a little, big swings are usually caused by hands like suited connectors. This is because you frequently flop a draw and then have to put a lot of money into the pot on both the flop and the turn in pursuit of completing it. Now you either win a lot or lose a lot, though you usually win more than you lose.)

Third, an expert player and a mediocre player should play this hand exactly the same. If a four comes you will either bet or raise, and if a four doesn’t come you usually fold when someone else bets. There is very little “real” skill in your fourth street strategy.

But something totally unexpected happened on fourth street. The bottom card paired and there was no bet. When it was checked to me I realized that there was a chance I had the best hand and therefore betting was absolutely mandatory.

In fact, this is the key to my fourth street bet. If I do have the best hand, and with no bet to me there is a reasonable chance that this is the case, I must knock out every hand that might be drawing to beat me. Since anyone who stays will have at least 6 outs to my hand, I need to eliminate them.

The concept here is simple. When the pot is very large, I must do everything possible to increase my chances of winning it. For example, if one of the callers has a hand like K7 he has six outs to beat me. Since three people folded when I bet, I may have eliminated as many as 18 outs against me. (Note that if someone has better than six outs, such as a flush draw, they won’t fold.) In addition, if I get someone to fold a hand like two fives (which beats me), I have just made a hugely profitable play.

Notice that there is almost no reason to bet on the end. If my remaining opponent has a better hand than I do, he will simply pay me off and I will just lose another bet. If his hand is worse than mine, he will simply fold and I gain nothing by betting the best hand.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Mason,

I loved the plays. I agree with your preflop call with pocket 4's in late position. Calling the raise is, of course, a must.

The flop call with close to pot odds (19:1), but it's compensated with implied odds. I absolutely agree that because your pocket 4 contains a diamond you didn't have to worry about someone making a flush at the same time you make your set. Often times I make a loose call on the flop to see if I can catch something (maybe too much in my game).

Lastly the turn bet was brilliant. I personally wouldn't have thought that my hand was the best, but since you did have position and the button didn't raise the flop, you certainly had good reason to believe your hand was good enough to hold up and you should be knocking out draws. There's a good chance the river Q would have made someone's hand if you didn't bet.

Regarding the river, again I think it was a no-brainer. You are only going to be called (or worst case scenario, raised) by a better hand. There is no use betting for value here.

I liked your logic in this hand. I appreciate your incite as well.

Garland

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

What a great example of the importance of position. Deal this exact same hand again but move the pocket fours to a different position and they probably lose.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

It really must have been famous - I don't know if you saw, but this hand even made it into Gary Carson's poker book, and he feels you played the hand very well.

I think the only troubling area is the flop call. Obviously if the button raises behind you, your odds are crushed and the call becomes incorrect. You use a lot of what-ifs to counterbalance this possibility, but conveniently exclude other what-ifs like:

1. Someone has already flopped a set.
2. Someone will make a flush or straight and outdraw you even if you spike a 4.
3. It will get raised from the button, and reraised from the small blind, rendering your small bet completely wasted.
4. You'll get tied into trying to win the pot outright, and end up losing.

Additionally, you say the button might raise, and buy both of you free cards, but what if other players don't cooperate on the turn?

Those are my thoughts. All other aspects of the hand seem solid to me, but if an expert told me the flop call was incorrect, I would be hard pressed to argue against him because you don't close the action (and in particular the preflop raiser is yet to act), and the listed issues double as extra reasons to err on the side of caution and fold.

IMO, the flop call is marginally wrong, but wrong none the less.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the river, again I think it was a no-brainer. You are only going to be called (or worst case scenario, raised) by a better hand. There is no use betting for value here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that the river's a no brainer. I think a pretty decent case can be made for value betting here because the pot is easily large enough to be called by an ace high, and the SB's preriver betting reeks of no pair (I would put him on a flush draw or JT most of the time). Basically, I would be trying to weigh the odds he had an ace high of some kind against the odds he paired the Q. It's a judgement call, but I tend to lean on the side of betting in these situations, just because they convince themselves to call so often when over 10BB are out there (and some opponents may even throw away a better hand here occassionally). Every now and then I need to remind myself that I am supposed to lose 40-45% of the time they call my bet in this situation (last to act after your lone opponent has checked the river), otherwise I am leaving some money on the table.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that the river's a no brainer. I think a pretty decent case can be made for value betting here because the pot is easily large enough to be called by an ace high

[/ QUOTE ]

Note to newer readers: Pay attention. This kind of thinking is why Coilean is much tougher than me and most other posters here.

As he's pointed out before, a big chunk of the value of this bet is the effect it has on your opponents who think (consciously or subconsciously, depending on how good they are) "Goddammit. He just value bet me w/ a pair of fours here."

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

I agree. I also think that the concept of "worse hands can't call" sounds great in theory, but in practice it has almost no value. Worse hands can, and do, call all the time. What worse hands can call? I like to ley me opponents decide because they consistantly come up with all sorts of creative answers to the question.

I like Tommy's saying: "Its my job to give them rope, what they do with it is their business."

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

I think the call pre flop is certainly correct and the implied odds (holding the 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]) makes sense to see the turn especially if you got the sense the button would only call the blind's bet after the flop and would not raise which indeed turned out to be the case.

It seems the real question that people have come up with is whether to "value bet" after the river (I think it is mutually agreed upon that the turn bet was certainly a solid move). I think you give your opponent the chance to out play you if you bet as he can throw the check raise at you and then you have a problem. While you always want to bet the best hand, it is also important to avoid tricky decisions and I believe Mason made the right play and scooped the pot...after all, he really could only beat a busted draw or high cards.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

the fact that the only remaining debate is a value bet is a testament to how far poker theory has come, at least around here. fwiw i would have played it the same.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

I agree. Why wouldn't an opponent with a queen bet here, especially since the board paired the 3 on the turn, so if Mason has 9-8, the queen is a winner.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

I know that since Mason didn't raise the flop, it's unlikely he has 9-8, but the point still holds.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

'(and some opponents may even throw away a better hand here occassionally). '

thats what i thought. most opponents wont check raise bluff ever really, so if you think opponent will fold 55-77 for another bet on end then i say you need to do it.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

ok im not making this up but i read masons post (read the book long time ago) and first thing i thought is maybe need to bet on the end (aginst typical play\er who wont check rasie bluff like almost no one does).

scary. i thought i would be only one to comment on river. heh.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

"I think a pretty decent case can be made for value betting here"

i just want to go on record as having said this on the gossip forum about 5 days ago. when you got coilean thinking the way you are you just know youre running good! oh yeah!

i think it's a pretty easy river bet. what if other player folds 55 or the other 44 or something? or calls w/ A high? it's just a delicious option with such a big pot out there and the ever-increasing knowledge that your 44 is good. go bet them rivers boys!

(ps: ill be in vegas january 6-8. hope to attend the wednesday poker meeting. coilean do you live out there? would love to meet up with you, dynasty, clark, the babe, whoever else!)

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

I think Coilean lives in the St. Louis area.

You still have my #, right?

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

"This kind of thinking is why Coilean is much tougher than me and most other posters here."

top 5 for sure. it goes snakehead, tommy, coilean, oz, and a fifth place tie between andy fox, dynasty, clark, ulysses, mason, and about 4-5 others.

now back to playing 1-2 online.

I rank about #537 n/m
 

no worries! im down there too! n/m
 

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

i used to watch him get eaten alive playing tightass in the 1-4-4-8 spread limit in st louis quite often [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] i used to play it too, and started playing 10/20 instead. he stayed at the other game for a while, and then bizarrely moved to omaha (i believe 5/10) exclusively.

i was always in and out of the casinos playing 20/40, more out than in, after online play started getting larger. i noticed him playing 20 after a while but by that point i was like 90% online. most times i showed up he'd be there.

one of the last times i played b&m he was there in the 20 game. i had jacks in the bb. there was an openraise in lmp, a coldcall, and he thought a very short bit and called in the sb. i thought he had AQ and 3bet with my jacks, all called.

flop was a bunch of bricks. i checked hoping the preflop raiser would bet, and that coilean would put me on a checkraising pair of kings. the guy bet, next guy folded, i began to act out my raise, and coilean hemmed and hawed a bit before folding. to his chagrin i called, planning on checkraising the turn now that everyone was out.

turn was a queen and it checked through. at this point he told me he had AQ and thought i had kings [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] river was a queen and i bet and got called.

he seriously put in some hours, god knows how long he played the 1-4-4-8 and he was always studious, sort of like a nerdier (i say this in tribute) and less pensive howard lederer.

i never logged too many hours with him in the 20 games, but i'm certain that he did well out in california or wherever it is he moved. he could become visibly upset when running bad, but i never once saw him tilt or go loose. that certainly gives him a leg up on most of us. i'm only NOW getting to the point of consistency.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Jan 6th, you say? Damn...I'll be leaving Vegas then having arrived on Jn 1st. Hope to see Clarky and the other lads again.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Oh man. Mike l in town right on the heels of skp and soon to be followed by JASucker and Ulysses.

I better run well the last two weeks of the year here, my bankroll will need it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

you know the porn/ces awards start on the weekend, right?

www.avn.com

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

I don't buy that his has any value than the one bet it picks up. I'd attribute his play to random betting, no skill involved. And if he told me he value bet it cause he knew I would call with Ace high and would call. I would tell him to talk to my World Series bracelet. Oh wait, I don't have one, but that reminds me...I need to pick one up this year for these occassions. I hear 2-7 triple draw only gets 30 entries. How hard could it be?

95% of the time this bet is made, it will be made by a player worse than me, so what do I care? Even if you felt, wow he really owned me there...so what? Is it gonna make me play worse - probably not significantly.

I don't think it's particularly a good value bet either.

Am I right? Who knows, it's sort've like the SAT, you take the test and they give you the score later. But, they don't tell you which ones you got wrong. You just get a letter in the mail or a pile of bills at the end of the year and compare them to your friends to see how you did.

Unfortunately, if you are looking for truth in poker, your pile of bills doesn't matter much either, since how good players fare monetarily is mainly dependent on decisions not made at the actual table. For some reasons, these facts have hugely soured me from the theoretical aspects of poker. I used to pine over all my decisions worry about a mistake here or there, now I just play six games online and try to get laid and I seem to be doing ok in at least one category. For more stream of consciousness check out Faulkner or Joyce, I'm not sure which one, but one of them has a famous stream of consciousness book I hear but I never read it.

to clark and skp
 

"I better run well the last two weeks of the year here, my bankroll will need it."

youll be running well as soon as i sit down in your game. that is, if youre playing 4-8 that week. or 60-120. ill let you know which when i get there. i should know for sure by then.

damn what time do you fly out skp? i cant imagine many things neater than meeting the amazing skp in person! maybe i could drive you to the airport or something?

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy that his has any value than the one bet it picks up.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's 'cause you're much better than most opponents we all face.

[ QUOTE ]
I hear 2-7 triple draw only gets 30 entries. How hard could it be?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good idea. I'm in.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you felt, wow he really owned me there...so what? Is it gonna make me play worse - probably not significantly.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's 'cause you're much better than most opponents we all face.

[ QUOTE ]
since how good players fare monetarily is mainly dependent on decisions not made at the actual table. For some reasons, these facts have hugely soured me from the theoretical aspects of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very good point. And even at the table, 15-30 minutes of semi-tilt is probably a bigger factor than every thin game theoretic value bet you might find in a given week.

[ QUOTE ]
now I just play six games online and try to get laid and I seem to be doing ok in at least one category.

[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds like a great plan.

[ QUOTE ]
For more stream of consciousness check out Faulkner or Joyce, I'm not sure which one, but one of them has a famous stream of consciousness book I hear but I never read it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you're thinking of Faulkner's The Sound and The Fury. Good stuff.

joyce
 

stream of consiousness = james joyce

"portrait of the artist as a young man" best exemplefies it, although haven't read "ulysses."


-anunkind

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Every now and then I need to remind myself that I am supposed to lose 40-45% of the time they call my bet in this situation (last to act after your lone opponent has checked the river), otherwise I am leaving some money on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Coilean:

This is a good point. If you're winning a high percentage of your value bets, it means you're not value betting enough.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Hi Clark:

You do understand that if first to act in a very big pot I should bet more hands than if last to act in the same pot. This has something to do with not wanting to give my opponent a chance to bluff after I check since I won't call with the best hand a small percentage of the time. But when it's checked to me, he has relinquished his opportunity to bluff. See the essay "Betting and Game Theory" in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. (By the way, in small pots you should bet less often when first to act than when last to act and it has been checked to you.)

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Hi Depraved:

I don't remember this hand being in the Carson book. It's been a while since I read it. However, there is another hand in the Carson book that I played which he claims was played terribly. Of course, he changed a few things about the hand to make it looked like it was played poorly. So what else is new?

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Hi Redwing:

With time the perspective on this hand has changed. When I first posted it, I did so because of the fourth street bet. However, the big argument was not over the turn, but over the flop call. Now from these posts, it seems like the flop and the turn are pretty much agreed upon, but the river check is in question.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Hi Brad:

Given the size of the pot, you only need to get check raised bluffed every now and then, assuming you fold to the raise, for that to be a big problem. So you need to be pretty sure that you will absolutely not be checked raised bluffed.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

"Now from these posts, it seems like the flop and the turn are pretty much agreed upon, but the river check is in question."

it's fascinating isnt it? we're all about the river around here. it's a tricky street, but david downplays it as simple. so why are we all constantly going on about river value bets and checkraise bluffs, not just on this hand, but all the time? any thoughts mason? (i think it has something to do with a certain changing nature/texture of hold em games in the past 5 years).

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Heh, I sure did put in some hours at that 1-4-8-8 game. It's hard to believe I put up with all those beats now that I can earn twice as much in less than half the hours, and without playing so damn tight either. But you gotta start somewhere, I guess. And don't knock the Omaha, all it takes to pretty handily beat most O8 games is good preflop hand selection and the "only draw to the nuts" postflop strategy. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

All of poker in a hand?
 

We all know holdem poker has changed much over the years.
Players have become more sophisticated as the body of knowlegde continues to grow and become refined.

This is caused by the better texts available, and of course, sites like this.

I find it fascinating that these changes are underscored by how the conversation on this one hand has evolved over time.

-Scott

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

While there are good reasons to think you are ahead there are 2 reasons why very thin value bets may not be a good idea in some games.

1. If you are known to be a very thin value bettor then you are more likely to be called if you bet a busted draw on the river by observant players.

2. If you are known to be a very thin value bettor who can also fold then you are more likely to be bluff raised by a tough player. This is something I do with fair success in Stud not so much in hold em.

These are both secondary issues but may shade your decision to not value bet 44 in this situation.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

I honestly think it comes from a generally greater overall confidence in skilled players' preflop, flop, and turn play.

In other words, many 2+2 types have gained so much confidence in their play on these streets (either justifiably or not), that the value bet on the river is now reasonably recognized as a rich source for the betterment of one's hourly win rate.

It used to be "become a consistent, winning player."

Now it's "maximize your win rate."

This is a good and healthy evolution.

Great thread.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Maybe this is purely semantics, but...

...isn't this what "value bet" means, having considered all of these factors, and making an informed, properly-considered decision as to whether or not the "value" is there? If you have already revealed yourself as a player who will bluff at the river with a busted draw, doesn't this obviously effect your "value bets?"

Obviously, all of these factors are important. I just wondered if they are considered somehow "outside" of the standard considerations as regards value betting.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

Its also in Roy Cooke's "A Play of Hands" - "Forty-Four: The RGP Discussion that Won't Die". According to Roy's recount of the massive RGP thread, Daniel Negreanu really hated the flop call. Huck Seed and John Hennigan "found criticism" in the call as well, but Roy, Abdul, Cissy, and Sklansky either liked the call or thought it was close enough to EV neutral that it didn't matter much.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

yeah about the check raise bluff but it just seems to me the chance of folding out Fives or Sixes much bigger than getting check raise bluffed but maybe in bellagio 30/60 players check raise bluff i dont know.

Re: \"A Pair of Fours\" Again
 

change positions and have single opponent acting after you on the river and i think its a clear check as many opponents will think to bluff raise and do it.

but it just seems they dont check raise do it. probably just me and my limited locale experience.