"A Pair of Fours" Again

[Mason Malmuth]

[ 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

[Rushmore]

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.

[ACPlayer]

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.

[elindauer]

I find all this talk about a value bet here crazy. I notice that conveniently no one answers the question of what they plan to do if they get check-raised. Call or fold?

If you are going to bet this hand... where does it end? 33, 22, AK... they're all essentially the same hand in this context. Are you betting AK for valure here? Are you laying it down when you get check-raised? Is there any hand which is too strong to bluff with but too weak to value bet? Name it.

Now, if your assumption is that your opponents suck and they call with everything and never bluff raise, then fine. You can make assumptions about your opponents which will make any bet correct. But to bet this as your default play against tough opposition? That can't be right. I think.

My 2 cents.

[Depraved]

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.

[Mason Malmuth]

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

[anatta]

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.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi anatta:

David had further conversations with both Huck and John Hennigan, and once they understood the exact circumstances of the hand they both agreed that the call was probably correct.

As for Negraneau, I'm not sure if he ever did come around. But I suspect that even he would agree with the call now.

Best wishes,
Mason

[redwings03]

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.

[Mason Malmuth]

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