"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.

[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."

[mike l.]

"This kind of thinking is why Coilean is much tougher than me and most other posters here."

top 5 for sure. it goes snakehead, tommy, coilean, oz, and a fifth place tie between andy fox, dynasty, clark, ulysses, mason, and about 4-5 others.

now back to playing 1-2 online.

[mikelow]

[astroglide]

i used to watch him get eaten alive playing tightass in the 1-4-4-8 spread limit in st louis quite often [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] i used to play it too, and started playing 10/20 instead. he stayed at the other game for a while, and then bizarrely moved to omaha (i believe 5/10) exclusively.

i was always in and out of the casinos playing 20/40, more out than in, after online play started getting larger. i noticed him playing 20 after a while but by that point i was like 90% online. most times i showed up he'd be there.

one of the last times i played b&m he was there in the 20 game. i had jacks in the bb. there was an openraise in lmp, a coldcall, and he thought a very short bit and called in the sb. i thought he had AQ and 3bet with my jacks, all called.

flop was a bunch of bricks. i checked hoping the preflop raiser would bet, and that coilean would put me on a checkraising pair of kings. the guy bet, next guy folded, i began to act out my raise, and coilean hemmed and hawed a bit before folding. to his chagrin i called, planning on checkraising the turn now that everyone was out.

turn was a queen and it checked through. at this point he told me he had AQ and thought i had kings [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] river was a queen and i bet and got called.

he seriously put in some hours, god knows how long he played the 1-4-4-8 and he was always studious, sort of like a nerdier (i say this in tribute) and less pensive howard lederer.

i never logged too many hours with him in the 20 games, but i'm certain that he did well out in california or wherever it is he moved. he could become visibly upset when running bad, but i never once saw him tilt or go loose. that certainly gives him a leg up on most of us. i'm only NOW getting to the point of consistency.

[J_V]

I don't buy that his has any value than the one bet it picks up. I'd attribute his play to random betting, no skill involved. And if he told me he value bet it cause he knew I would call with Ace high and would call. I would tell him to talk to my World Series bracelet. Oh wait, I don't have one, but that reminds me...I need to pick one up this year for these occassions. I hear 2-7 triple draw only gets 30 entries. How hard could it be?

95% of the time this bet is made, it will be made by a player worse than me, so what do I care? Even if you felt, wow he really owned me there...so what? Is it gonna make me play worse - probably not significantly.

I don't think it's particularly a good value bet either.

Am I right? Who knows, it's sort've like the SAT, you take the test and they give you the score later. But, they don't tell you which ones you got wrong. You just get a letter in the mail or a pile of bills at the end of the year and compare them to your friends to see how you did.

Unfortunately, if you are looking for truth in poker, your pile of bills doesn't matter much either, since how good players fare monetarily is mainly dependent on decisions not made at the actual table. For some reasons, these facts have hugely soured me from the theoretical aspects of poker. I used to pine over all my decisions worry about a mistake here or there, now I just play six games online and try to get laid and I seem to be doing ok in at least one category. For more stream of consciousness check out Faulkner or Joyce, I'm not sure which one, but one of them has a famous stream of consciousness book I hear but I never read it.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy that his has any value than the one bet it picks up.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's 'cause you're much better than most opponents we all face.

[ QUOTE ]
I hear 2-7 triple draw only gets 30 entries. How hard could it be?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good idea. I'm in.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you felt, wow he really owned me there...so what? Is it gonna make me play worse - probably not significantly.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's 'cause you're much better than most opponents we all face.

[ QUOTE ]
since how good players fare monetarily is mainly dependent on decisions not made at the actual table. For some reasons, these facts have hugely soured me from the theoretical aspects of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very good point. And even at the table, 15-30 minutes of semi-tilt is probably a bigger factor than every thin game theoretic value bet you might find in a given week.

[ QUOTE ]
now I just play six games online and try to get laid and I seem to be doing ok in at least one category.

[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds like a great plan.

[ QUOTE ]
For more stream of consciousness check out Faulkner or Joyce, I'm not sure which one, but one of them has a famous stream of consciousness book I hear but I never read it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you're thinking of Faulkner's The Sound and The Fury. Good stuff.