Playing Exposed Pairs on Fourth Street

I've played a lot of seven-card stud over the years in what I consider to be medium-limit games of $5-$10 to $20-$40 against intermediate players. They're not beginners, and they're better than the typical regulars who frequent the low-limit $1-$5 games. But, they tend to be fairly predictable, rarely varying their style of play. This is especially true when they pair their doorcard. Invariably, they make the double bet when they haven't made a set, and often throw in only the single bet when they have made a set.

My experience has been that there are many ways to play a paired doorcard, depending largely on the specific situation I'm in and the players I'm facing. Here are two hypothetical situations that mimic many such situations I've faced in the somewhat loose $20-$40 games I often find at Foxwoods Resort Casino in Ledyard, Connecticut.

In the first hand, my paired doorcard gives me a set.

The bring-in 3, to my left, starts the betting with $5. He is called by one player with the Q. I am next with (K 9) 9. I think about raising. One of my kings is dead and I see an ace behind me, so I decide to call. The ace raises. The bring-in folds and the queen calls. I think about folding, but decide the player with the ace may well be raising with just a scare card. I call, and three of us get another card.

I am fortunate and catch another 9, pairing my doorcard and giving me a set of nines. The other players don't appear to improve. I'm high on the board and have three options: I can check, bet $20, or bet $40. What should I do?

I've noticed that some players bet the single-bet amount in situations such as this. They reason that they don't want to scare away opponents with a double bet - seeking instead to lure them in with just a $20 wager. This is a variation of the truly horrible play that some low-limit players make when they have a premium pair on third street. They incorrectly overvalue the pair and thereby underbet it - calling when they should raise.

My experience is that while many opponents read the double bet as a sign of strength on fourth street, a single bet is, if anything, worse. They expect the double bet whether or not I've made a set. Making the single bet or checking just arouses suspicion. So, making that double bet, I've found, often gets a call.

When I make the double bet on fourth street with a set, there is the possibility that my opponent or opponents will fold, depriving me of the chance to make significantly more money from them as the hand develops. Even so, I find that much more of the time I am called by a player (or even players) who thinks I'm overplaying my hand by making the double bet just to knock them out and win the hand right there. Their mistake is doubly advantageous for me. The pot I am likely to win is made larger, to be sure, but more significantly, the large pot will often seduce my opponent into making more bad calls as the hand progresses.

If, for example, an opponent calls my double bet on fourth street with a four-flush and fails to make the flush on fifth street, he may conclude, erroneously, that it makes sense to call every bet I make until the river. Furthermore, he runs the serious risk of making his hand, gleefully raising my bet on the river, only to be reraised by me when I make a full house.

In fact, I have played many hands against middle-limit players who have called me even when I have made another pair on board (and thereby my full house). I've found that many players at this level are sophisticated enough to put me on a hand early, but then don't properly re-evaluate what I am likely to be holding as the hand develops. So, they make compounding mistakes. They concluded that by betting the full amount on four street, I didn't have a set (if I did, they conventionally reasoned, I would have slow-played my hand). So, they didn't give me credit for anything better than the two pair I had showing on sixth street.

Ironically, making the single bet or checking on fourth street often causes the better middle-limit player to slow down, suspecting a trap. The double bet on fourth street often doesn't raise these suspicions, because it is the expected play. And that's why, in the games I frequently play, it is usually the better play.

So, I almost always make the double bet in these situations. Sometimes my opponents raise, especially if they have a higher pair or even a lower pair with a kicker higher than my pair. They do it to test whether or not I really have a set, reasoning simplistically that if I have a set, I will reraise them, but if I was overbetting my pair of nines or two pair, I will only call. Typically, I will call their raise and not reraise them, reinforcing their view that I don't have a set. This provides me the chance to win an extra bet with a check-raise later in the hand.

In the second hand, my paired doorcard gives me just a pair.

I am dealt (K 6) 9. The bring-in to my left opens for $5. She is called by one player and then raised by a good, aggressive player with the A. I don't see any hearts or kings, and in spite of my very tight image at the table, I call. I reason that in this somewhat loose game, the bring-in and the caller will probably call the raise. That will give me good implied odds with my three-flush. And, the player with the ace frequently raises without a hand when he has the highest exposed card on third street.

My read of the hand is way off base. The bring-in and initial caller fold. Rather than having four-way action with my three-flush, I am heads up. Things don't look good for me.

On fourth street, I catch another 9 and my opponent does not appear to improve, catching the 3. I am high with my pair of nines.

Against a loose-passive opponent who raised on third street, or if I have more than one opponent on fourth street, I will check my pair of nines into the ace, with the expectation that I will fold to a bet. I'll generally concede the hand, because I will conclude that my efforts to convince him to fold will often fail - since he either won't respect the strength of a paired doorcard or won't have the discipline to fold. I also will conclude that since he tends to very loose-passive and another player had already called, he would have been much more likely to call than to raise on third street with an unpaired ace or even a wired pair with an ace kicker; that is, his raise meant that he really had a pair of aces.

However, in this situation, where I have a very tight image and am up against a good, tight, and aggressive player, I will often try a different play. I will check, but if my opponent bets, I will raise - a check-raise bluff. My reasoning is that a good player may bet, sensing weakness from me, but if he is check-raised, he will release his hand, suspecting a set. I don't make this move often, and I do it only if I believe my image at the table is very tight. But, it often succeeds in winning me the pot right there. I still may improve to having the best hand on the next card by making a second pair or a set. And if my check-raise doesn't succeed on fourth street, my double bet on fifth street, when my opponent doesn't appear to catch a helpful card, often convinces him to fold.

To vary my play, against a relatively tight, observant player, I may try another move - one that is admittedly hokey, but has proven to work against observant opponents. Rather than just checking and folding, or trying for a check-raise bluff, which would be my typical actions, I might try making the single bet, after a slight pause. That's right, I said the single bet, not the double bet. Although conventional thinking might dictate a bluff with the largest amount possible, I make the single bet in this situation, for a few reasons.

First of all, if my opponent hasn't improved, any bet will often win me the pot with my pair. So, I can pick up the pot while risking only half a bet. Against players who think they are sharp, the pause they detect indicates to them that I am trying to fool them into calling with a cheap bet - so they oftentimes fold. But even if they do not fold, they will rarely if ever raise me. This enables me, for a single bet, to see fifth street.

Of course, this play does not always work, especially against very good players. The better, more observant, more aggressive players will sometimes see through this play, and with any hand will raise my single bet by the double bet. If they do, I have to give up on my gambit right there. But even so, it was a gambit waged cheaply, with only a single bet.

Editor's note: Ashley Adams plays winning poker all over the world, but can be found most often in the middle-limit seven-card stud games at Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut.