credit for nut full house v. credit for quads

[pete fabrizio]

two situations:

1) you have QJ9T and the board reads QJJ73. you bet the pot and get raised.

2) you have QQ9T and the board reads QJJ73. you bet the pot and get raised.

am I wrong to think that people are more willing to give credit for the nut full in 1) than they are for quads in 2)? what are the differences between these? i can think of a few things, but i'd be curious about people's thoughts first.

[Aisthesis]

It's actually the exact same situation, it seems to me--except I guess you have 1 out vs. quads in 2. Anyhow, there are exactly as many QQ hands (namely 1 QQ) in the first case as there are JJ hands in the second.

What are you really driving at here?

Given a background betting sequence leading up to these rivers, as well as a read on villain and stack-depths, I'm capable of folding, calling or raising in both situations.

I guess one big difference (I do think it's the same situation with regard to how many hands beat you) is how many losing hands there are that might be capable of raising you. In situation 1, I think you'd need an idiot or a maniac to be raising less than a split pot in most situations (there, I'd still like to know what has happened up to the rvier). In hand 2, I don't think a raise from QJ is out of the question, and QJ is going to have a really tough time laying down, too, if you 3bet.

Can you give some pre-river action as background?

Like, if the flop is already QJJ. I think that already says a lot. For example, if I were playing villain, I'd almost always slowplay JJ but almost never slowplay QQ or QJ.

[Ribbo]

The difference is what hand does your opponent give you credit for?
If you 3 bet preflop then it's safe to say opponent likely puts you on AA therefore felting QJ on a QJJ board is fine.
If you have limped preflop with 7 other people, then QJ is most definitely not a felter on a QJJ board. Anyone who bets the pot here looks strong, so to get raised, opponent must give some credit as to the range of hands you are betting here.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
am I wrong to think that people are more willing to give credit for the nut full in 1) than they are for quads in 2)?

[/ QUOTE ]Pete - I have no idea what people are willing to give more credit.

When you hold QJT9, fewer full houses are possible for your opponents than when you hold QQT9. Very crudely (but the first approximation) there are 6 two card combos available for an opponent to make both J7 and J3 when you hold QQT9, but only 3 two-card combos available for both J7 and J3 when you hold QJT9.

And that is the significant difference.

When the board is paired, from the perspective of someone standing on the rail who cannot see your hand, there are always six possible different full houses and one quads.

For example, when the board is JJQ73, the pertinent two card combos (from the perspective of someone who can only see the board) are<ul type="square">JJXY (makes quads)
QQXY, (makes overboat)
QJXY, (makes boat)
J7XY, (makes boat)
J3XY, (makes boat)
77XY, (makes underboat)and
33XY. (makes underboat)[/list]
When you hold QQT9, the QQXY over boat is impossible. When you hold QJT9, quad jacks is impossible.

When you hold QQT9, there are roughly twice as many ways an opponent can have J7XY as when you hold QJT9. Same for J3T9.

For a flop of JJQ73, you're obviously less likely to encounter quad jacks when you hold QJT9 as when you hold QQT9. But you're also equally more likely to encounter QQXY (higher full house). This is more or less a wash, depending on how your opponents think about these matters (and I have no clue what your opponents are thinking). In other words, if someone is going to raise with any full house, that's different from someone raising with only overboats or quads.

I suspect you get more raises from uninformed (or stupid) opponents when you hold QQT9 than when you hold QJT9. That's because more full houses are possible. (We're talking about a board of JJQ73).

Does it matter? In one case when you bet, you can be beaten by quad jacks. In the other case, you can be beaten by a higher full house. Either is equally likely (in each case).

Buzz

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
When you hold QJT9, fewer full houses are possible for your opponents than when you hold QQT9.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the three main differences I was thinking of. It's worth noting though that there are the same number of QJxx combinations.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
It's worth noting though that there are the same number of QJxx combinations.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. That's a wash.

I don't like my articulation on my last post. Maybe I can make it clearer. (I'll try).

There are 4904 ways an opponent could make jacks full of sevens (or jacks full of treys) when Hero holds QQT9 and the flop is JJQ73.

There are 2452 ways an opponent could make jacks full of sevens (or jacks full of treys) when Hero holds QJT9 and the flop is JJQ73.

In either case Hero has a better hand (queens full or jacks in one case and jacks full of queens in the other) than jacks full or sevens or jacks full of treys.

If Villain will raise with jacks full of sevens (or jacks full of treys), then Hero beats Villain more often with QQT9 than with QJT9. (Hero beats Villain twice as often with QQT9 as with QJT9 when Villain has J7XY or J3XY, because Villain is twice as likely to have one of these inferior full houses when Hero has QQT9.)

That is a primary difference.

Hope that makes it clearer.

In addition, as Ribbo says, [ QUOTE ]
The difference is what hand does your opponent give you credit for?

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't really have a choice, you're going to bet either of these hands (QQT9 or QJT9). But if you also might bet 33T9, 77T9, or J3T9, then Villain, if holding J7T9, probably has a good raise. (Because from Villain's perspective you're more likely to have 33T9, 77T9, or J3T9 than JJT9, QQT9, or QJT9).

Buzz

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
That is a primary difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was with you up until here. Depending on the type of opponent you're playing, I think the other differences can be more important.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is a primary difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was with you up until here. Depending on the type of opponent you're playing, I think the other differences can be more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could have sworn I said that about 5 posts ago, not that anyone replied at the time. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is a primary difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was with you up until here. Depending on the type of opponent you're playing, I think the other differences can be more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could have sworn I said that about 5 posts ago, not that anyone replied at the time. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The other main differences I see are: 1) with QJ we only chop against QJxx -- the most likely hand for opponent to have other than the hand that beats us, and 2) there should usually be more QQxx combinations in our opponents range of playable hands than JJxx combinations.

One other very small difference is that when we hold the QQ, there are more combinations to the stone-cold nuts out there (all JJxx hands) than when we hold QJ (only QQJx hands). So conceivably if you were playing against someone who would only raise with the absolute lock hand or occasionally on a bluff, then holding the QJ would be slightly better.

[Aisthesis]

Interesting points.

On the last part: QJ is better because the lock is less frequent (only QQJ). I'm not sure exactly what this means in practical terms (?)--that this player is more likely to be bluffing? or just that you're going to get raised less frequently so that you don't have to worry about it as much?