Simple question with simple answer.

[David Sklansky]

This has been a disturbing thread. I almost put in on the small stakes forum to start because my point was so simple. Namely that with a set of fours there is likely to be one more overcard out there that pairs someone and gives you action. A fact that ought to counterbalance for the slight chance of winning unimproved with sevens or the possibility of set over set.

I wanted to see how many of you would realize that this was the biggest reason to upgrade fours vs. sevens rather than much less important straight or bunching concerns that I figured a few of you might mention. But I asked for the MAIN reason to upgrade fours and it is disconcerting that most people missed it.

As far as whether situations are ever so favorable to fours that they actually are preferable to sevens because of the increased action a set will entice, I believe there are. But it was off the subject. Which was why sevens are not as much better than fours as they appear. Whether and when fours ever actually surpassed them was inconsequential to what I was driving at.

[Turning Stone Pro]

that most of the so-called experts on this site really arent that sharp -- and are a little too big for their britches.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
A fact that ought to counterbalance for the slight chance of winning unimproved with sevens or the possibility of set over set.


[/ QUOTE ]

Everyones pokertracker still says you are wrong. So you must either be setting undervalue to the times 77 wins unimprove and the money saved set over set or over valuing the increased action from the overcard. Or even undervaluing the action you get from the overcard pair.

[DrSavage]

I think your point is ridiculous and unapplicable to any real games out there. I'll back up Gamblor here: every PT database i looked at has 77 making more money than 44 in similar conditions.

[David Sklansky]

I must be having trouble with my English. My original point is absolutely unrelated to whether or when two fours could actually be preferable to two sevens. It was only related to the fact that THREE fours often is in typical games.

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
I must be having trouble with my English. My original point is absolutely unrelated to whether or when two fours could actually be preferable to two sevens. It was only related to the fact that THREE fours often is in typical games.

[/ QUOTE ]

When i said "under similar conditions" I meant facing several limpers. Your original post said that 44 in that position would be "at least as good" as 77. That translates into 44 making the same or more money than 77 . I'm still not sure what is your point. Let's say you are in cutoff and have 4 limpers. Which hand do you expect to have higher EV: 44 or 77?

[astroglide]

bottom set is more likely to get beaten by another set (flopped, turned, or rivered). not terribly likely, but understood. what is of much more concern of me with bottom set is getting run down by two pair which converts into a full house, and i believe it happens often enough to warrant actual consideration. if somebody has 2 pair ranked over your set, it's as often as a gutshot hits, to provide perspective. furthermore, a set of sevens is more likely to get action from gutshots because of the general tendency of players to play higher-ranked cards.

my position: 77 > 44 and 777 > 444, quite clearly.

[jdl22]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Do you regard losing one of your two outs as a "ridiculous probability falsity"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

The problem is that you don't lose outs. Others have clarified this as well.

[James282]

But you can't just disregard the extra EV you get from the times you win unimproved. i.e. - It wouldn't be worthwhile to dicuss how 34o is preferable to K7s because of the money you win from a straight and nothing else.

[B-Man]

I was dealt 44 in the sunday $200+15 NLHE tourney on Party this week.

During level 1, with blinds of 10-15 and most players (including me) close to their starting stack of 1,000, I was dealt 44. A player in EP raised to 45, next player called, I called from the cutoff, and the BB called.

Flop: 9-4-3 rainbow (bingo!)

BB checked, initial raiser bet 90, player 2 called, I smooth-called, BB folded.

turn: 7.

Player 1 checked, Player 2 went all-in for about 900, I called, Player 1 folded.

Player 2 turned over 77.

River: 3

This unequivocally proves 77 is better than 44. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]