Simple question with simple answer.

[FletchJr.]

a set of 4's might get more action then a set of 7's against hands that are nearly drawing dead.
ex. K84 or 7AJ

I could be wrong, just taking a shot here.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
Wild Guess.
If you flop a set the four will not be as much a factor in making someone a straight as a seven would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point! Missed that one.

But then again; you'll get set over set more often with 7's [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[PassiveCaller]

The main reason however is that there value is pretty much in when they catch a set in this situation. 44 is just as good as 77 in that respect. Arguing what people are more likely to fold and not likely to fold avoids the "main reason"

[KidPokerX]

I think PassiveCaller summed it up in just one line:[ QUOTE ]
Because you are playing them with the same exact intent to flop a set? Both as a draw..

That simple?

[/ QUOTE ]

The intent is to flop a set. No, a 7 is no more less likely to hit then the 4.
KidPokerX A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[bicyclekick]

The 7 will be involved in the most straights. That's probably why.

Wouldn't you rather get paid by all those draws then have everyone fold when you hit your set?

Just thinking out loud

[Enon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Re-read my post:

[ QUOTE ]
There are many more hands that the limpers might have that involve a seven than involve a four.


[/ QUOTE ]

Make more sense now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore, you are somewhat more likely to flop a set holding the fours

You are still not more likely to flop a set with fours than with sevens. The odds of flopping a set (6:50) is the same no matter what cards your opponent holds on to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect.

The odds of flopping a set are determined by the number of unknown cards left in the deck.

As I'm sure you'd agree, if someone accidentally mucks his 42o face up before the action gets to you and you have pocket 44s, then you must revise your odds of flopping a set.

I think this is a pertinent issue that is not brought up nearly enough when calculating odds on later streets. For example, the likelyhood that your straight will be made when you hold KJ on a Q 10 x flop and the action preflop and on the flop would strongly indicate that a few of the aces are already in play. If you were only getting 4-1 on a turn call to hit your straight (hence already a marginal situation) then you were lean towards folding if you didn't believe the implied odds to be high enough to offset your decreasesd likelyhood of hitting your outs.

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Re-read my post:

[ QUOTE ]
There are many more hands that the limpers might have that involve a seven than involve a four.


[/ QUOTE ]

Make more sense now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore, you are somewhat more likely to flop a set holding the fours

You are still not more likely to flop a set with fours than with sevens. The odds of flopping a set (6:50) is the same no matter what cards your opponent holds on to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh...no. You have pocket 7's. One limper in front of you has A7s. The other has 78s. What are your odds of flopping a set?

[risen]

If you play where the players in front of you show you their cards, gimme the address.

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
If you play where the players in front of you show you their cards, gimme the address.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope this is a joke. My example was meant to illustrate a point. If the players in front of you are significantly more likely to be holding 7's than 4's, then your odds of flopping a set, on average, are greater with 4's than 7's.

[rigoletto]

Some of you guys needs to get your heads screwed on right when it comes to calculating odds. The odds of flopping a set with 4's and 7's are exactly the same: you have 2 cards there are 50 unknown cards in the deck. Wether your opponents tends to keep their fours and fold their 7's doesn't matter, basta!