[chris]

I had a scary ride at Paradise .5/1 last night. My first hand on the BB and I get 1010. There are limpers in front of me, and I just check to see the flop. The flop is 1022. I flopped the nut full house. I immediately fire off a bet. I get raised by UTG+2. I only watched this table for a few orbits, so I had no idea whether this guy was playing 22 or he was the type to play any crap. I was on auto-pilot here, and just re-raised. I knew he wasn't going anywhere, but I wanted to build the pot. He re-raised, and I capped it. We capped it all the way to the river for a pot of over $20. Turns out he had A2o. To suck him in even worse, he caught an A on the river giving him the (second best) full house. I was worried when he kept firing back at me that he might be playing 22.

My question is, with a made full house on the flop, would you keep on firing off the raises or just checked and called after the first time you were raised for fear of quads? If you were uncertain about possible hands you opponent might play how would that effect your decision?

[norshvind]

If he is still re-raising you on the turn, and I was uncertain on his play and out of position, then I would back off and just check/call the river for sure.

[pritz]

Quads are rare enough that I don't take them into consideration in limit games when I have the nut full house. I think in the long run you'll make more by capping it against sets, flushes, smaller full houses etc, than you'll lose to quads.

[lork]

I would agree strongly with pritz- cap all the way, the chance of them having quads is very low and as you found out many players would be capping with the trips or a smaller boat.

[ballen]

At that table limit and even the ones above it, if I didn't have time to analyze the players ability, I'd just peg him as beginner and bet it.

[johnf]

unless there are trips on the board i would probably never fear quads unless it was against a big raiser preflop and the board hit tens or better. But you would have to be some kind of an expert to put someone on four 2's./ While you may run into that once or even twice the bets you lose fearing it the other 100 times the guy had trips or a lesser boat wouldnt be worth it. Of course this is presuming you have the nuts UNLESS the guy has quads.

However, if you were up against a very tight player who knew what he was doing i may be a little more hesitant about capping the bets.

I can say that if you hold pocket sevens and the board shows is 7-2-2-5-4 and the other guy goes all in, it would be a big mistake to fold because he MAY have quads.

[petronder]

cmon man you had the nut full house
quads are rare but possible... (i got beat quads > full house) last week in a nolimit tournament, but this is low limit.. if he has quads then just take the bad beat but 99% of the time you're gonna win

it was easy to see he probably had the other 2 and with the ace kicker thinking he had the best trips

[razor]

If there is a pair on the board, the odds for one of the other 9 players having quads is 1 to 110. So I think it's kinda silly to fold best possible full house, because someone may have quads. This is not different than folding A high flush, because somebody can have a straight flush. However if an ultra tight player suddenly starts raising and reraising like a maniac, you may choose to call down instead of capping with him. Another thing you should keep in mind is the value of the pair on the board does not make much difference, at low limits most players play any pocket pair.

[jorpot]

In low limit Poker, nut fullhouses are GODHANDS
I know there are some hands that you call with thinking oh man you MUST be the loser in this hand...
well when you have the fullhouse you are on the total opposite end. It's especially good cuz of people seeing all the way to the river.

[chris]

Thanks for all the support.This is great lot of ideas I've gathered from you guys.Thanks !

[ThomasR]

Yeah that was fine play. I would be wary of the "Autopilot Syndrome" where you think great hand, must bet. Sure you were in a fine position and I would have played it like that, though I would have been watching out for 2's still for sure.

I would have probably bet large early on to shake off the limpers then cooled it off a little at the turn and the river, unless very little came up in which case I would bet hard again.

Some like to keep people in the game with smaller bets to get the pot going without spending too much, though I find that the fewer people in the hand the better, even with a full house after the flop.

As someone suggested though, play the full house hard, play the flush hard (If you've got a high card) - for the occasional time you're going to see 4 of a kind or a higher flush you're going to make far more than you lose... well, so long as you don't bet your house and see 4 anyway

[louis]

Nothing wrong with watching out for the pocket 2's, but it was reasonably unlikely and you had the full house on the flop so I would have bet that hard - the only time I wouldn't bet that would be if I were called all-in.

You played well, you got money into the pot and played it cooly. Although you were a little automated on the bets, I can't blame you for playing this hand to the moon and back.

[ThomasR]

Another thing to note here was he raised from the word go, if he suddenly bet all out when the ace came then I would have been wary or a full house, Ace's and Twos.