If you can't beat 'em, please don't "think" like 'em.

[Thinkards]

Hello Everyone,

While this story easily could be placed in the "Psychology" or "Poker Theory" section, it is posted here simply because it happened in a game of 7-stud.

The game is $20-$40 Stud at Foxwoods. The betting structure is $3 ante, $5 forced bet. The table is playing 7-handed.

The person to my right (who is a reasonably sound player) is the low with a 3 in the door; he brings it in for the minimum of $5.

I fold my hand, the next 4 players fold, and the last player (who is somewhat loose) tries a position-raise (to $20) with a 4 on board; the 3 calls the raise.

On fourth street, the 4 catches an offsuit 10, and the 3 pairs his door card.

The open 3's come out for $40, and Mr. 4 10 calls.

On fifth and sixth, the open 3's continue to be high on board, and continue to bet $40 on each street. Meanwhile, Mr. 4 10 has caught nothing but offsuit rags (and no open pair.... not even open connectors), and yet continues to call each bet of $40.

At the river, the open 3's bets out for $40, and Mr. no pair calls.

At showdown, Mr. open 3's said "you're lookin' at it," and Mr. No pair dragged the pot with a single pair of 4's.

Now, while it is true he won the pot, I am curious if ANYONE out there can help to shed some light on what could POSSIBLY be going through the mind of someone who has been looking at an open pair for the last 3 cards, has seen neither any checking nor any minimum bets, and who, with no cards to come, is sitting with nothing but a single pair of 4's.

If one hangs around a cardroom long enough, the belief may develop that almost anything is possible; nevertheless, it truly would be nice if someone could explain adequately the type of behavior exhibited by the individual in this story.

Thanks in advance.

[The Kount]

This is the type of play typical of what I call "kitchen table" players. They learned the game from "Uncle Harry" and refuse to think any other way. The thinking is "I have a bigger pair than this player so I have a chance to win". I can't believe this behavior on a 20-40 game. You see it all the time at 1-5 and 5-10.

[Dynasty]

You shouldn't be making such a big deal out of this. I seriously doubt I would have folded a pair of 4's before the river and probably would have called on the river as well.

In the Bellagio 15-30 game, I defended my bring in with (2,x)2 when the player on my immediate right tried to steal the antes. His final board was (x,x)J,x,Q,A(x). My pair of 2's won unimproved despite his betting the whole way. I wasn't very surprised though certainly relieved.

I've also called a river bet holding nothing but Ace-high once in the 15-30 game. I put my lone opponent on a flush draw based on how he played his hand. I also had a flush draw with the Ace hidden whereas his Ace of suit was in another player's hand. As long as he didn't luck into a pair, I was good.

I think I might know the problem you're having. You're thinking about the value of hands in a static way. You seem to be thinking "All he's got is a pair of 4's. How can he call with that?" That's always the wrong way to think.

If you've got a flush on 6th street, are you going to call a bet from a tight player who raised on 3rd street and now has a board of (x,x)J,x,J,J? Of course not. A flush is usually a good hand but not relative to the situation you are in now. A flush is no good in that situation.

But, a pair of 4's is often good against a player who loosely defends his bring-in with (x,x)3 and makes a pair of 3's on 4th street.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe this behavior on a 20-40 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll never see this "behavior" from the weak-tight players. However, you'll occassionally see it from the best players at the table.

[Mr. Peterson]

I've got to agree that it sounds much more like an expert play than a fish one. One things sure though, it was one of the two as middle of road players don't do this.

[DanZ]

this is a pretty straightforward read. The 3 calling on 3rd street is most, in many player's hands, not a pair of 3's or a wired pair (except perhaps aces or kings as a slowplay). This is simply because 3's would often reraise a stealing 4, hoping to end the action by 5th street.

When Mr. 3's catches a 3, then, it's very likely he has quads, aces up, or pair of 3's. With either quads or aces up, the 3's might have bet differently. But with only 3's they would want to win the pot.

I am not saying this play is usually correct, but there's other things to think about besides the board and the betting on 4th through 7th. 3rd street may be giving us an important clue depending on the playing styles of the combatants...

[7stud]

I defended my bring in with (2,x)2 when the player on my immediate right tried to steal the antes. His final board was (x,x)J,x,Q,A(x). My pair of 2's won unimproved despite his betting the whole way.

Well, there you have it. A new poker theory. Mr. Malmuth please be sure to include that in your next update to SCSFAP.

[Dynasty]

Your confusing theory with an example.

The theory is: Your opponents are stealing the antes with crap.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

If the 4s somehow KNEW that the other guy had 3s, he would of course call all the way, if not raise. Since there had to be at least a little doubt, calling all the way to the river was fine. On the river, the pot would be so big that he'd still have to call a possible bluff.

Once I had (AA)9 and all folded to me, the bring-in, with a deuce, was on my left. I raised him, he called. He paired his deuce and bet double. I called him all the way down and beat his deuces with my aces. He also couldn't believe it, especially because he knew I was a 5-10 player who had stepped up to the 10-20 game. Makes no difference. I figured he was putting a move on me because I raised from a steal position, and by the river, the pot was big enough where I simply had to call.

al

[crashdavis]

one question were the other two fours live, even if I belive my opp has trips 3 I would draw out to fifth or sixth, what about live 10's?