Simple question with simple answer.

[joker122]

"Please show me a flop where 7s make two pair but fours don't? "

Maybe not on the flop, but when all the cards are out 44 is more easily counterfitted. Example: A55QA
I'm not sure if this is what he meant though.

[1800GAMBLER]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] When i said, 'Or even undervaluing the action you get from the overcard pair. ' i meant, or even undervalue the action you get from the UNDERCARD pair.'

[mike l.]

dynasty's answer is clearly the best here. i mean, it's really the post of the month for me.

[George Rice]

I would prefer the 77 over the 44.

I realize that David isn't saying that 77 is stronger than 44, or that 777 is stronger than 444. He's pointing out that it's more likely to get an overpair with 444, than 777, and hence more action. I guess that he could have said AA instead of 77, and the reduced action you usually get when an ace flops (when you have AA) is known to all and would make this point stronger. But I would prefer AA over 44 too. Not because I get more action with 444 over AAA, which I do, but because of all the times I don't flop a set. 77 is much weaker than AA unimproved, but will win more pots unimproved than 44. But this difference is small, as much of the times you won't be around to see the river with an unimproved 77 or 44. The few extra times you win a pot (including set over set situations) should more than cover the few extra bets you win with 444 rather than 777, imho.

I guess what we can all get out of this is that if it is correct to enter the pot with 77, it is almost always correct to enter with 44 also, as the difference between the two is very small.

By the way, I don't think most middle stakes players know this, let alone the small stakes players. Perhaps the better middle stakes players are aware of this factor.

[Bataglin]

That's what I meant.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
This has been a disturbing thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it encouraging in some ways. Posters often worry about the large amount of information available through books and this website ruining the games. However, this thread is a great example that many players will misuse information in the most ridiculous of ways.

Games will remain good because too many people have common sense issues to deal with.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are understimating the action you get from bottom pair on an K,7,5 flop when holding 77 compared to the ation you get from middle pair on a K,8,4 flop when holding 44. I don't think there's much of a difference and the difference certainly isn't greater than 77's inherent superiority of 44.

This question is another example of 2+2 (you and Mason) ignoring the very valuable data which is now availble through online websites. Real life data can now be combined with computer simulations leaving no doubt any speculation that 44 may apporach 77 in value is wrong.

[lil feller]

I'm curious as to how you would define a "typical game". If that assumes that players are limping with typical limping hands (JT, QJ, T9, etc.) I fail to see how they are more likely to have overcards to 77 as they are to 44. If your assuming just random hand distrubition then of course there are more hands with overs to 44, but given the situation I'd say that regardless of what you have, your facing the same caliber of hands, and very few if any of them will have over cards to 44 but not to 77. The only advantage I can see to 44 is that again given average limping standards, a 7 may worry you opponents who have hit their hands. If they have middle sized cards, and hit them, a 7 may complete more than one straight draw, and may inhibit action. A 4 on the boards as opposed to a 7 will not create the same fear, and you opponents will be more likely to give action, as they do not fear a straight or two pair.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
But you can't just disregard the extra EV you get from the times you win unimproved.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key phrase is "if a few people are already in". This makes it very unlikely that either hand will win unimproved.

[slavic]

[ 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 ]

I know I'm late to the game tonight and I don't want to jump on the bandwagon here. It's been a long day of preparing for finals. I see what you are driving too but when we look at the first part of your original statement from the first post:

[ QUOTE ]
I would not prefer two sevens to two fours.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are bringing up the total value of the starting hand itself. As I stated I wouldn't ditch either of them and I would prefer the 7's.

I only have 60K hands recorded in the last year, I don't play near as much as many of the pro's on the board. I do not consider myself a professional or as well versed in the theory of the game as many here. In my play however I'm seeing almost a tenth of a BB difference in 77 from 44 in multiway pots. As you would expect the difference is greater in heads up and 3 way pots.

To me at least it seems that a pair of 7’s has more value and thus would be preferred.

[Dov]

Why stop at 44? Why not 22?

With 22, you will have 8 more overcards than can come to 44.