"A Pair of Fours" Again

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

A while back, I played a hand which featured a pair of fours. When I posted the hand on these forums, the response was simply incredible. I noticed on our Gossip forum that it was mentioned again, so I thought I would post the essay, that I wrote about it (from my book Poker Essays, Volume III.)

By the way, this is copyrighted material, so I would appreciate it that no one repost this essay anyplace else. But all comments are welcome.

Best wishes,
Mason

A Pair of Fours

Perhaps the most famous hand I was ever involved with occurred in a $15-$30 hold ’em game at The Bellagio in late May of 1999. I thought the hand was interesting and casually posted it on one of our Internet forums. By the time the smoke cleared, the hand was all over the Internet, and there were several hundred posts discussing the pros and cons of my play. Because of this I thought that it would be worth repeating here, and give some of the reasons for my strategy. Here goes:

Four players had limped in and I had

4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

one off the button. I called, the player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining players, including me, called. (Eight of us saw the flop for two bets each.)

The flop came

9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

The player in the small blind bet, two players to his left called, I called, and the player on the button called.

The turn was the 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. It was checked to me and I bet. Only the player in the blind called. The Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] came on the river. We both checked and I won the pot with my two fours. (The player in the blind had A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].)

As innocuous as this hand might first appear, it stirred up a hornet’s nest. Here are the reasons why I played as I did, plus some other comments.

First, it should be obvious to most readers that I am suppose to call before the flop with my pair of fours. I am simply getting enough multiway action to try to flop a set. (And calling the subsequent raise is of course a no brainer.)

My call on the flop is much more controversial. Generally, calling on the flop in a multiway pot with a pocket under pair is a mistake that only weak players make. But I felt that this situation was an exception since there were 19 (small) bets in the pot. It is only 22-to-1 for me to turn a set. There are 19 bets in there already, and if a four comes I could win as many as 35 bets, assuming my hand holds up. So at first this appears to be a very easy and profitable call. (However, note that if I did not hold the 4♦ my call would be wrong. This is because I don’t want to turn a set at the same time someone else makes a flush since two diamonds flopped.)

But there is a problem. The before the flop raiser is behind me and if I knew that he would raise again it would cut my immediate odds down to 12-to-1 assuming everyone calls and no one else reraises. If this happens my call will become a mistake.

Nonetheless, it was still right to call. There are three reasons for this. First, the before the flop raiser doesn’t have to raise again. Since my implied odds were overwhelming, it seemed like I had enough cushion to chance the raise. Second, if the player behind me raises again, he may just have two big cards and is trying to buy a free card. If this is the case and he succeeds, his raise has helped me as much as it has hurt me because I now get to look at fifth street for free and given that 12-to-1 is easily worth it. Third, his raise may tie on other players who may now be drawing close to dead assuming the four does come. So even though my immediate odds may drop, I may gain some extra bets which will partially counter balance this.

Well this call stirred up a firestorm. Some posters pointed out that I play terribly and am a known steamer. Others said that this was a highly fluctuating play which should be avoided or that the call could be made by an expert since he would be able to play the hand well enough to show a profit, while a typical player can’t.

Let’s answer these one at a time. First, whether I play badly or steam has nothing to do with whether the play was correct. Even terrible players or those on high tilt can accidentally make the right play, and even if the negative comments are true, there is no reason why my strategy can’t still be correct.

Second, this is actually a low fluctuating play. The vast majority of the time I will put my money into the pot (on the flop) and throw my hand away on the turn. Occasionally I will win a big pot, and on very rare occasions I will hit my four and proceed to lose a few more bets. This is not what causes big swings to your bankroll.

(Straying from the subject a little, big swings are usually caused by hands like suited connectors. This is because you frequently flop a draw and then have to put a lot of money into the pot on both the flop and the turn in pursuit of completing it. Now you either win a lot or lose a lot, though you usually win more than you lose.)

Third, an expert player and a mediocre player should play this hand exactly the same. If a four comes you will either bet or raise, and if a four doesn’t come you usually fold when someone else bets. There is very little “real” skill in your fourth street strategy.

But something totally unexpected happened on fourth street. The bottom card paired and there was no bet. When it was checked to me I realized that there was a chance I had the best hand and therefore betting was absolutely mandatory.

In fact, this is the key to my fourth street bet. If I do have the best hand, and with no bet to me there is a reasonable chance that this is the case, I must knock out every hand that might be drawing to beat me. Since anyone who stays will have at least 6 outs to my hand, I need to eliminate them.

The concept here is simple. When the pot is very large, I must do everything possible to increase my chances of winning it. For example, if one of the callers has a hand like K7 he has six outs to beat me. Since three people folded when I bet, I may have eliminated as many as 18 outs against me. (Note that if someone has better than six outs, such as a flush draw, they won’t fold.) In addition, if I get someone to fold a hand like two fives (which beats me), I have just made a hugely profitable play.

Notice that there is almost no reason to bet on the end. If my remaining opponent has a better hand than I do, he will simply pay me off and I will just lose another bet. If his hand is worse than mine, he will simply fold and I gain nothing by betting the best hand.

[Garland]

Mason,

I loved the plays. I agree with your preflop call with pocket 4's in late position. Calling the raise is, of course, a must.

The flop call with close to pot odds (19:1), but it's compensated with implied odds. I absolutely agree that because your pocket 4 contains a diamond you didn't have to worry about someone making a flush at the same time you make your set. Often times I make a loose call on the flop to see if I can catch something (maybe too much in my game).

Lastly the turn bet was brilliant. I personally wouldn't have thought that my hand was the best, but since you did have position and the button didn't raise the flop, you certainly had good reason to believe your hand was good enough to hold up and you should be knocking out draws. There's a good chance the river Q would have made someone's hand if you didn't bet.

Regarding the river, again I think it was a no-brainer. You are only going to be called (or worst case scenario, raised) by a better hand. There is no use betting for value here.

I liked your logic in this hand. I appreciate your incite as well.

Garland

[elindauer]

What a great example of the importance of position. Deal this exact same hand again but move the pocket fours to a different position and they probably lose.

[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.

[Coilean]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the river, again I think it was a no-brainer. You are only going to be called (or worst case scenario, raised) by a better hand. There is no use betting for value here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that the river's a no brainer. I think a pretty decent case can be made for value betting here because the pot is easily large enough to be called by an ace high, and the SB's preriver betting reeks of no pair (I would put him on a flush draw or JT most of the time). Basically, I would be trying to weigh the odds he had an ace high of some kind against the odds he paired the Q. It's a judgement call, but I tend to lean on the side of betting in these situations, just because they convince themselves to call so often when over 10BB are out there (and some opponents may even throw away a better hand here occassionally). 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.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that the river's a no brainer. I think a pretty decent case can be made for value betting here because the pot is easily large enough to be called by an ace high

[/ QUOTE ]

Note to newer readers: Pay attention. This kind of thinking is why Coilean is much tougher than me and most other posters here.

As he's pointed out before, a big chunk of the value of this bet is the effect it has on your opponents who think (consciously or subconsciously, depending on how good they are) "Goddammit. He just value bet me w/ a pair of fours here."

[Clarkmeister]

I agree. I also think that the concept of "worse hands can't call" sounds great in theory, but in practice it has almost no value. Worse hands can, and do, call all the time. What worse hands can call? I like to ley me opponents decide because they consistantly come up with all sorts of creative answers to the question.

I like Tommy's saying: "Its my job to give them rope, what they do with it is their business."

[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.

[astroglide]

the fact that the only remaining debate is a value bet is a testament to how far poker theory has come, at least around here. fwiw i would have played it the same.

[andyfox]

I agree. Why wouldn't an opponent with a queen bet here, especially since the board paired the 3 on the turn, so if Mason has 9-8, the queen is a winner.