Fourth Street ->> Bigger Is Always Better


If you had been playing two pair in stud poker, you would want always to go into the hand with the belief that you had held the best poker hand.

If you had seen any pair on the board that was higher than your two pair, you should have folded unless you could get a free card.

You very well may have had that person beat if he had had only one pair that had been higher than yours, but with three cards yet to come, any smaller pair that the other poker player had gotten would have given him a better two pair than you if you didn’t fill up. If it was the maximum bet or one bet to you all of the cards were live, a call sometimes could be justified to see fifth street (if you had to gamble), but calling will usually just cost you more money in the long run.

If you had considered sticking around when playing stud poker, and there had been a lot of action by the time the betting had gotten to you, a fold would have been a no-brainer.

You should never have played into a bigger two pair if you didn’t have to! In stud poker, if a bigger pair had bet and another bigger pair had bet and another bigger pair was yet to act, even calling the minimum would have been a bad move, since a raise was highly likely from the big pair to your left.

In sum, if you’d been staying in at all when there had been a bigger pair on the ??? every one of your cards to improve had been live. More often than not, though, you should have folded and been done with it.


Playing two pair is clearly difficult, in stud poker, but as you could see you almost always have to choose between two extremes: playing this hand hard or not playing it at all.

You should have raised to make drawing hands pay, or folded if other hands had appeared stronger than yours. That said, there have also been a few poker instances when you should have merely called.

One is if it was two bets to you (eight dollars in a $2/4 poker game) and your two pair had been big and live.

Normally, you certainly would not have wanted merely to call with a big, live two pair, but a re-raise from a poker player to your right to that high an amount on the fourth street would have indicated that he had a very strong hand, probably trips.

That being the case, when you would have a good two pair and all live cards, you should have called to see the fifth street, but you shouldn’t have raised.

Peter would note that a poker situation such as this was pretty rare in low-limit stud poker. Usually, it would either have been the minimum or maximum bet to you, but no more than the maximum unless it had been a very aggressive table.

If it was either the minimum or maximum bet to you, you should have raised to let people know you had something.

In a perfect world, you would have won the pot then and there. In low-limit stud poker, with so many calling stations, several poker players yet to act would also have dropped out.

That’s exactly what you would have wanted them to do so they didn’t get lucky down the line, caught a needed card, and had cost you money.

Calling would also have been justified when you had felt that a raise had no chance to knock out any other poker player. Look at an example. poker glossary.

You were in late position, when playing stud poker, a pair of queens had bet the minimum, but only one person had called.

A raise to four dollars would not have been likely to knock out the queens or the other caller. So you should have simply called.

Going with your instincts would have been okay, too, if you hadn’t felt raising was appropriate. Let’s say a poker player with a pair of deuces had brought it in for the full amount or had raised it to four dollars – that poker player had probably been trying to protect a two pair or trips, so it would have been fine merely to call if you had known him to be