7CS8 - Two-Four-Six on Third Street Question and Poll

[Rick Nebiolo]

Compared to the excellent seven card stud eight or better threads below this question may seem trivial but friends and I had a major disagreement over what is the correct play and whether it is a close decision or not.

This problem comes from a somewhat tight seven handed 20/40 stud eight or better game. A (x-x) 2c opens for $5. A weak player showing (x-x) Jc calls $5. A tight player completes to $20 with (x-x) As. I’m next with (6c-2h) 4d. Behind me are the 4c, 5d, and 7h. Do I have a clear call, a marginal call, a clear fold, a marginal fold, or a raise? Why?

For those who like polls, please vote below.

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif fold qick..too many of your babies out...no chance to win high...ez fold...not even close...gl

[AlanBostick]

I say "call, but it is a close decision" -- close between calling and raising.

You've got a weak player in the hand with a jack showing, and that's good. (This player probably has split jacks; although many weakies will play a hidden pair or a three-straight or -flush here.) An ace raises. You definitely want to play -- you've got a good low draw with straight potential in a multiway pot. The argument for raising is that you're playing a both-ways hand in a multiway pot. The argument for calling is that a bunch of low cards after you have yet to be heard from, and, with your hand that likes multiway action, you would like to see them trail in after you.

Key cards for you are treys and fives. You would ideally like to catch either one on fourth street. An ace would also be good, and a seven would be worth sticking around with, depending on how the other players caught. An eight would be marginal, but playable if the other low cards caught bad.

(For what it's worth, in a seven handed game, with four low cards out that don't pair you, you are a 27:16 dog (P=37.2%) to catch a low card on fourth street.)

I would call, but some good players would be tempted to raise.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Alan,

How would your answer change had the jack folded but everything else remained the same?

Regards,

Rick

[AlanBostick]

I still definitely call, but I don't consider reraising for an instant. It's a hand I don't mind playing heads-up against a raising ace, but I would like to encourage other players to trail in after me.

[Andy B]

I find it interesting that as I write this, there have been four responses to the poll, and there have been four different answers. I was the clear call. Several months ago, I posted a similar hand, where I had, I think, 642 (or something similar; it might have been 643), a low card completed the bet, and a King made it two bets. There were still several players with small cards left to act behind me, and the panel's consensus was that I had a call. This is a somewhat different situation, but I think you have a call.

1) It should be unlikely to be raised behind you. Not many players should be inclined to make it two bets when a tight player has raised with an Ace showing and several low cards left to act behind him. If I thought there were a strong possibility that I'd have to pay multiple bets to see fourth street, I might start to lean towards a fold, but I'd probably still play.

2) You do have a vague straight possibility. It's true that you need some very specific help, and one of your Fives is dead, but this does add some value to the hand.

3) A few of the cards you need are dead, but I don't think that there are enough of them gone for you to fold just yet.

4) You want to keep the Jack in so that you have someone to cut up if you make your hand. It's very likely that the tight player has Aces, which diminishes your scoop chance significantly. I really don't want to be playing this hand heads-up. I want to let other players in.

[aces123]

If you're not going to play this hand why are you playing the game at all?

[Rick Nebiolo]

Unlike holdem, I have a tendency to play 7CS8 a little too tight since my skills are not that developed.

I hesitated, thinking it was close between folding and calling, and then I folded. Hero was sweating me (after cashing out a rack and a half up) and she gave me a kidney shot with her nail. She later told me it was an easy call and it wasn’t close. From Alan and Andy’s answers, she wins our bet ($1).

I still wonder if it wasn’t relatively close for a struggling player with limited skills. The tight raiser either had a very strong low or aces (or perhaps kings in the hole). He wasn’t the type to press a middle high pair with several lows still to act. The weak player with the jack was the type to call for $5 then fold for the completion if he thought he was against strong hands. And if one or two of the other low boards call, my hand appears tenuous. Remember, I’ll probably be acting after the ace on fourth street with a player or two behind. That is rarely good, but I might be thinking too much from a holdem perspective. I agree that a six high low is a good low start, but the fact that the straight must come perfect-perfect makes the hand seem closer to a razz hand then a hand capable of scooping or pressing in a multi-way pot.

All in all though, I’m convinced I was wrong.

Regards,

Rick

[Easy E]

I would have thought the opposite (and from what little I've played 7/8 and what I've read in Ray Zee's book)... is the hand that strong heads-up against an Ace that raises? are you always assuming a positional raise/aggressiveness?

[Easy E]

I was a "fold, but close call" vote.
Rick's post:
"This problem comes from a somewhat tight seven handed 20/40 stud eight or better game.
A (x-x) 2c opens for $5.
A weak player showing (x-x) Jc calls $5.
A tight player completes to $20 with (x-x) As
I’m next with (6c-2h) 4d.
Behind me are the 4c, 5d, and 7h."

I might adjust my answer based on what I know about the remaining players and the 2c opener (aggressiveness and likelyhood of calling behind), along with the As' aggressiveness patterns and hands s/he would raise with here (and why), but:
- I have no 2 flush or overcards, and i'm drawing to a low straight for high (double gut) with one of my cards missing (the 5) along with pair cards that could let me escape high with a lesser hand.
- 3 cards for my low are gone (granted, less counterfeiting possible, with 2 matchers gone as well)
- another low behind me might raise (tho, from others' posts, sounds unlikely that they'd lead into the Ace) and even if 2 of them play, I won't be happy knowing more of my low cards are probably gone
- the As probably (?) knows that the Jack is a weak player and may want to isolate with a low hand (rather than assuming Aces or low pair A kicker)
- The Ace could be A A baby

It just seems to me at first blush that my prospects for scooping aren't hot, I may be facing several other low draws and it's probably going to cost me a lot, in a bad position.

Maybe my starting requirements are too tight, but it seems to be a lot of risk for little gain, most times.

Rebuttal?

[Rick Nebiolo]

Ed,

If in fact others of repute line up with you and in the end it appears it was a close decision, with most favoring calling, you and I are "closer" to being correct in our analysis than anyone who thought it was a clear call. We both realize it is at least close.

I hope we get a few more responses on this one. I consider hands that must catch perfect-perfect for straights to play more like razz hands. IOW, I want to see fourth street cheaply (to me, cheaply means for the bring in) and try to develop a strong low or an inside straight with a low. But I would call the aces for a full bet if I thought I was going to be the only low or a worse low was also in.

Regards,

Rick

[Easy E]

since I evidently don't have enought repute (does that make me ill-repute?) to count, our dinner date is OFF!!
I'm going to cry now....
When your REAL posters (sniff) give some more answers (sob!), maybe we'll have a better feel for the strength of the hand in this type of situation (WAAHHHHH!!!!)

If, as one other poster's situation stated, it was a King who raised... I'd probably play and might reraise to drive out other lows (or at least find out where my hand was)...

Sobbingly,
Jilted Less than Expert Value Opinion

[Rick Nebiolo]

Sorry E,

I didn't mean it that way ;-). Your opinion is very important and I would never suggest you do not have "repute". It just seems we are outnumbered right now, but the contest for hearts and minds is close.

Regards,

Rick

[Andy B]

I don't want to read a whole lot into a survey that's had six responses, but I do note that, while I was the fourth to respond, and the first to respond "clear call," both of the people who have responded since have also said "clear call." I hope my written response didn't influence people unduly. I'm no expert, and I can see the case for folding. I don't buy it, but I can see it.

The key to success in poker, I think, is the realization that there are no good hands, there are only good situations. For example, a 64 is an excellent hand, but it's a terrible hand to be holding when the other guy has a wheel. This is a situation that you can't really do anything about. 642 is a good starting hand. It is not a premium starting hand, but a good one. It's one that I've never thrown away on third street, and I doubt I ever shall. In this situation, there are several things which devalue this hand, most of which have been outlined elsewhere in this thread. I think that this is still a fairly good situation, but it isn't ideal.

It is highly likely that Rick is playing for half the pot. The raiser probably has Aces. He might have a three-card low, but the fact that there are several other low cards out (including Rick's hole cards) diminishes this chance, and he might not raise with his three card low because some of the low cards that he needs are dead too. He also might be more inclined to let people in. If the tight player is raising with a three-card low, it is probably better than Rick's. For one thing, he has an Ace. He probably isn't raising a three-card 7 into five other low cards.

I think that this is still a profitable hand, but it's not like Rick passed up gobs of EV. If I were sitting in a very juicy game for which I was inadequately bankrolled, I think I just might pass on that hand knowing that significantly more profitable situations were coming my way. I think that there are some tournament situations where a fold would be indicated.

[Andy B]

I don't think you really want this hand to be heads-up. I ran this one on twodimes.net , and gave the other guy (As 9c) Ah, which is about the worst pair of Aces he can have (all others give him a two card low or a Broadway card). He was still a solid favorite, .643/.357. You want other people in.

If the guy with the Jack is inclined to fold to a completion, why would he limp in when all six of his opponents are showing cards Ace through Seven? What are the odds that this hand won't be raised? Man, I love this game. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Easy E]

I thought what we shared was special, and wasn't affected by the opinions of others, but I see that I am wrong...
I'll just wander the streets, an abandoned woman of ill-repute....

[Easy E]

that we allow your brilliance to sway us..... or, in my case, because Rick jilted me!

Actually, I'd like to debate your hand valuation here:

"The key to success in poker, I think, is the realization that there are no good hands, there are only good situations. For example, a 64 is an excellent hand, but it's a terrible hand to be holding when ... 642 is a good starting hand. It is not a premium starting hand, but a good one. It's one that I've never thrown away on third street, and I doubt I ever shall. "
My understanding was that one of the keys to 7/8 was playing hands that had scooping chances AND could withstand some heat (really, that could apply heat themselves).
In THIS situation, facing the Ace's aggression, I wonder if this hand is even a good one, rather than mediocre... especially because "...It is highly likely that Rick is playing for half the pot" and is against other potential lows.

"The raiser probably has Aces. He might have a three-card low, but the fact that there are several other low cards out (including Rick's hole cards) diminishes this chance, and he might not raise with his three card low because some of the low cards that he needs are dead too"- unless he HAS the 4 and 2 for the wheel draw... and even not, the Ace can get high all by itself, while also allowing a weak low escape (though, being a tight player, your 7low comment is right on)

" He also might be more inclined to let people in." Facing a number of lows, with a weak-playing lower high card already in, wouldn't you be MORE inclined to raise with the Ace, to thin out or kill the lows? Even with, or ESPECIALLY because some of your needed low cards out there?

[Andy B]

I may just be tired, but I busted out laughing when I saw this subject line.

My understanding was that one of the keys to 7/8 was playing hands that had scooping chances AND could withstand some heat (really, that could apply heat themselves). In THIS situation, facing the Ace's aggression, I wonder if this hand is even a good one, rather than mediocre... especially because "...It is highly likely that Rick is playing for half the pot" and is against other potential lows.

The best hands are, of course, those with scoop potential. This one has less than I'd like, but it does have a little. Strong one-way hands can be good, too. Rick's hand does have the potential to develop very strongly, and while he's out of position, I think it is very likely that he will be able to see fourth street for exactly $20. It's pretty rare that anyone will re-raise a tight player who raises with an Ace in the door on third street in this game. It's true that Rick may be up against other lows, but he probably has the best low hand, and having that Jack in is a good thing.

Facing a number of lows, with a weak-playing lower high card already in, wouldn't you be MORE inclined to raise with the Ace, to thin out or kill the lows? Even with, or ESPECIALLY because some of your needed low cards out there?

I rarely know what other players are thinking. My inclination would be to limp with a three-card low, whatever it was, in his spot, but it's difficult for me to speculate what a player a couple thousand miles from me is thinking. There are some individuals that I've played hundreds of hours against, and I don't know what most of them are thinking either. My main point was that opponent probably had Aces, and as a secondary point, even if he did have a three-card low, Rick still wasn't in great shape unless other people came along for the ride. Some good things can happen on fourth street. If they don't happen, Rick can just fold and get on with the next hand. I think it's worth $20 to see what happens.

Actually, if I had something like (73)A in the other guy's spot, I might just raise so I could better define the strength of the hands behind me, especially if no one had heard from me in a while. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Michael Davis]

Easy E,

You seriously misread Rick's original post. His phrase was: If in fact others of repute line up with you...

By saying others "of repute," this implies that they are others in addition to yourself. If he had meant to imply that you had no reputation, he had many other options, such as "people of repute" or "others, with reputations, line up with you..." His statement in plain English does not imply anything derogatory towards yourself. However, after reading your pathetic reaction, I wish it had.

Next time your going to make an ass of yourself, do it for a legitimate reason. Your last two posts in this thread are grossly unnecessary, especially given that Rick was complimenting you.

Remember, people with repute will be watching.

Mike

[Rick Nebiolo]

Ed and Andy and Alan and all,

You guys are my Heroes for the excellent posts. Now I think it is close enough to declare myself a winner of the $1 bet with my friend.

I apologize for not being able to contribute more. I've been having too much fun playing lately, despite the weight I've been gaining with a steady diet of bananas.

Regards,

Rick

[Easy E]

SUCH a hostile reaction to something you weren't involved in.... are you still upset about our night on the Seine?
I ALWAYS make an ass of myself for a "legitimate" reason- mostly, for intentional entertainment purposes... which obviously don't succeed with everyone.
Unlike Rick, you don't seem to recognize a little fun when you see it....

[AlanBostick]

Against (A A) A, your (2 4) 6 is a 3:1 dog equitywise in a showdown game. Depending on the player, though, rolled-up aces may well limp to try to trap weaker high hands.

Against (A 3) A, (2 4) 6 is a 2:1 equity dog playing showdown. But note that you aren't playing showdown. Take off one card. If it's bad, you're gone; but if you catch a 3 or 5, your equity is now half the pot, and if your opponent also catches bad, you are now the showdown equity favorite, and can start pushing those aces around.

The third-street situation is far from ideal; but I think it is worth paying the price to take off a card.

Against ABC, 246 is only a 5:4 equity dog, very definitely worth playing with on third street.

The point is that if you catch bad on fourth, you're gone. No, I don't like paying a full bet to catch the 4th street card that can turn my hand into the favorite; but if I do catch it, the rewards can be substantial.

[AlanBostick]

Thanks for the kind words, Rick, but I'm not really a hero here.

I happen to believe that I'm one of the ten best stud/8 players in the San Francisco Bay Area. But the fact of the matter is, the only stud/8 that gets played is the 4-8 game at Garden City in San Jose and (on Tuesday nights) the 10-20 game at the Outpost in San Ramon. You don't have to be very good to be in the top ten. In the grand scheme of things, I'm a mediocre player. Five of those top ten can mop the floor with me. I can hold my own very well, thankyouverymuch, when I come down to L.A. and play at the Bike or Commerce, but that's because of the weakies who play. There are *lots* of regulars there who can mop the floor with me, and some of them have.

[Easy E]

No Rick, no Alan... what will i DO?

[Easy E]

DISCLAIMER- Rick, ignore all of the following, I'm not assuming any of this in regards to you.

Looking at this again, Mike, I don't think that I technically misinterpreted this statement after all (no, I'm pretty sure that Rick wasn't making a comment on my opinion's value, especially since he and I shared the opinion.... well, then again, maybe Rick DOESN'T think much of my opinion on poker!)

1) "You seriously misread Rick's original post. His phrase was: If in fact others of repute line up with you... "

I ran this by some other people- ALL of them, 100%, when asked what they thought the sender was implying by the "of repute" line, thought it had a negative connotation, as if their opinion has been devalued in the sender's mind and needed confirmation by others whom the sender trusted more implicitly (i'm paraphrasing here)
So, evidently, the phrase on its own could be questionable...

2) "By saying others "of repute," this implies that they are others in addition to yourself. If he had meant to imply that you had no reputation, he had many other options, such as "people of repute" or "others, with reputations, line up with you..." His statement in plain English does not imply anything derogatory "

By adding the qualifier "of repute", the sentence intends to qualify or filter what "others" should be considered. Again, I'm sure Rick meant it as "no idiots"... but in my opinion, and evidently others that I know, the specific addition OF the qualifier can cause the receipient to infer differently than you did.

In order to be most correct, Rick could have said "others of similar repute" (which still allows me to question the level at which Rick holds my opinion- could be high, low or pondscum.. no comment on which would be CORRECT!! /forums/images/icons/wink.gif ) or "others of similarly good repute" (removing almost all room for misinterpretation, intentional or otherwise).... or left it at "others" without the qualifier, which would only have allowed me to bust his chops about WHY he would need ANY opinion other than my own, obviously superior one.....

Anyway, this little exercise in semantics aside, hopefully you see my true intent now.. all in fun

[Michael Davis]

Easy E,

Okay, I apologize. My bad. I messed up. And I can think of no "legitimate reason" for my anger, so it may be sociopathic.

I disagree about the semantics, but not the ambiguity of the statement. But I take full responsibility for the night on the Seine and would never hold that against you.

Mike

[Rick Nebiolo]

Easy E,

You can root for my "Hero" as she gets all the stud eight or better yellow chips in Los Angeles. Me, I just break even so far.

Regards,

Rick

[Easy E]

"so it may be sociopathic." ?? Little TOO harsh, dont'cha think?

[Dick in Phoenix]

Put this hand in the "clear call" category. This hand, in Z's book, is the fourth best kind of starting hand (3 to a small straight). My approach to this hand, at the decision point on 3rd street, is that I will plan on paying one bet on 4th street as well, even if I completely brick on 4th, as long as it looks like my hoped-for straight-6 would still win both high and low.

Z, and Andy Nelson too, talk a lot about 7S8 being an "implied odds" game, and that's what you have with this holding ... 8 times out of 10 you are going to dump this on 5th street, but those times when you have either a made low straight (obviously best), or a made low with inside straight draw for high, or a 2-way draw for both best high and low, you are going to make far more money than you paid.

Note that becaue you will dump this most of the time on 5th, this hand is particularly unfairly treated by a "hot and cold" simulation.

This hand's scoop potential is much better than many of the posters give it credit for. Just so I'm not comparing different low draws, I will use 357 instead of Rick's 246 for the following statement: "357 is a clear call, not even close, but 257 would be a clear fold because of the lack of high potential."

And one more parting shot - I would rather that the raiser have AA than that he have 3 to a wheel, e.g. A25. I pretty much need to make the straight to win high, so AA is no worse for me than A-high; but if he has A25 he is leading me for low, and that would not be good.

Sorry I kind of came in late here ... hope somebody reads this.

I was getting ready to pull down Ray's book for some reading when I saw your post. Since i respect your knowledge (unlike Rick's, since he dumped me /forums/images/icons/wink.gif), I jumped right on it.

I'm now quoting HLSPfAP, from the section you referred to- "Starting Hands" on pp 13-14- with some added **emphasis** (of course, all of the chopping up will lose some of the context):
<font color="blue"> " Categories No 4 and No 5: **Three small cards to a straight** and two small cards with an Ace." "...In a heads-up situation, despite what many people think, both hands are inferior to a high hand- unless it is obvious what the high hand is." </font color>

**(NOTE- Mr Zee does not specifically talk about Aces here, or elsewhere that I can find currently.... so I'm not sure whether he thinks that "knowing" that you're facing Aces is really advantage enough to keep playing. He DOES mention elsewhere in the book that, once an Ace raises, you should be "extremely cautious about playing" and later says that you often should throw away three low cards on 4th)**

<font color="blue"> "They do best in multiway pots **when the cards needed to fill the open ends are very live and when these hands are not up against many low hands** ... If some of your low cards are dead, then you should play these hands cautiously and be prepared to fold on fourth street if you catch bad and it appears that some of your opponents will improve...But these hands bust out a fair amount of time, and not getting away from them quickly is one of the major mistakes... So, in general, **you want to have the smallest low hand** to draw to..." </font color> (etc.)

So, let's look at the situation again. Here's the original post by Rick, reformatted to make it a little cleaner:

<font color="red"> Somewhat tight seven handed 20/40 stud8
- 2c opens for $5.
- Weak player with Jc calls $5.
- A tight player completes to $20 with As.
- You are next with (6c 2h) 4d.
- Left to act are the 4c, 5d, and 7h.</font color>

You're facing a raise from a tight player (implying 2 aces or 3 potential low cards are gone). One immediate perfect catch card (5) and two pairing cards (2,4... which is good and bad), as well as three low cards you could use (5,A, 7- tho the 7 might be a questionable "catch") are on the board.

You have a rainbow hand and there are potentially 3 (maybe 4, with the Ace) better low hands against you, all 3 of which haven't acted yet (i don't count the 2's bring-in as "action", since it's now live), so you don't know if they're calling, raising or dropping- in a somewhat tight game, I'd guess the order is F, R, then C when each acts, with probably higher than expected fold percentage.

You are probably second to act on 4th, given the Ace, therefore giving you bad position... and if you act LATER on 4th, that is probably not GOOD news either.

Though the weak Jack is in there, I'd assume that s/he has either Jacks or high straight draw (unless they are REALLY weak), with the possibility of another Ace missing that the Jack could hold (Rick- would they call with an Ace behind them if they DIDN'T have an Ace?)

So, your pairing possibilites (and I probably need to beat Aces and/or Jacks for high) are down, you're missing a 5 to catch on 4th for high. Threes are all live, maybe.

You're facing (worse case scenario) 4-5 other low hands (all but the Jack)... and given the Ace raise, stronger hands than yours behind you could just call (somewhat tight game), disguising the fact that you're behind.

Every low card who stays, after the Ace raises, presumably have 3 low cards for each caller. Currently 25 of the remaining 44 cards are low cards, but again that number presumably shrinks by almost 10% with each low caller.

Given all of that, are you still saying it's a clear call? All of the above made me lean more towards folding. In a tournament , almost regardless of the stage I'm at (except already in the money, maybe), i'm looking for the next hand to play. (Too paranoid?)

Now, if I was acting BEFORE the Ace with 624, I'd probably raise to see where the Ace is (the tight player). If I was one of the LAST to act, I could see what I'm facing as competition for low, as well as how many people are along for the ride.
But, it seems that in THIS situation, I face too many unknowns (most of which do not work to my advantage) to make this hand a CLEAR call.... plus, I'm already not seeing it cheaply because of the Ace... which is why i lean towards folding.

Dick, am i playing too tightly? Normally, 6-low with straight possibilities is a very strong starting hand... but in THIS situation, it seemed to lose a lot of its strength.

I look forward to my schooling... <font color="red"> </font color>

[Easy E]

[Dick in Phoenix]

Actually, we are mostly in agreement. My comments on yours:

I was getting ready to pull down Ray's book for some reading when I saw your post. Since i respect your knowledge (unlike Rick's, since he dumped me ), I jumped right on it.

I'm now quoting HLSPfAP, from the section you referred to- "Starting Hands" on pp 13-14- with some added **emphasis** (of course, all of the chopping up will lose some of the context):
" Categories No 4 and No 5: **Three small cards to a straight** and two small cards with an Ace." "...In a heads-up situation, despite what many people think, both hands are inferior to a high hand- unless it is obvious what the high hand is."

<font color="red"> BTW, it was never clear to me if Ray means only a non-gap 3-straight as a 4th/5th best start, or any straight like our 246 here. </font color>

**(NOTE- Mr Zee does not specifically talk about Aces here, or elsewhere that I can find currently.... so I'm not sure whether he thinks that "knowing" that you're facing Aces is really advantage enough to keep playing. He DOES mention elsewhere in the book that, once an Ace raises, you should be "extremely cautious about playing" and later says that you often should throw away three low cards on 4th)**

<font color="red"> Ray's "inferior" comment applied only to heads-up. I agree with Ray and you: I would not like this heads-up against AAx. </font color>

"They do best in multiway pots **when the cards needed to fill the open ends are very live and when these hands are not up against many low hands** ... If some of your low cards are dead, then you should play these hands cautiously and be prepared to fold on fourth street if you catch bad and it appears that some of your opponents will improve...But these hands bust out a fair amount of time, and not getting away from them quickly is one of the major mistakes... So, in general, **you want to have the smallest low hand** to draw to..." (etc.)

<font color="red"> I think I said the same thing. You will dump this 80-90% of the time by 5th street. And 7 out of 8 of your perfect catch cards are available. And you are drawing to a 64 low - how good do you insist your low draw be ?? </font color>

So, let's look at the situation again. Here's the original post by Rick, reformatted to make it a little cleaner:

Somewhat tight seven handed 20/40 stud8
- 2c opens for $5.
- Weak player with Jc calls $5.
- A tight player completes to $20 with As.
- You are next with (6c 2h) 4d.
- Left to act are the 4c, 5d, and 7h.

You're facing a raise from a tight player (implying 2 aces or 3 potential low cards are gone). One immediate perfect catch card (5) and two pairing cards (2,4... which is good and bad), as well as three low cards you could use (5,A, 7- tho the 7 might be a questionable "catch") are on the board.

You have a rainbow hand and there are potentially 3 (maybe 4, with the Ace) <font color="blue"> better low hands against you</font color> <font color="red"> Whoa! You are drawing to a 64 here, with three A's, four 3's, and three 5's available to make your 6 low. There is no way that 3 hands out against you have better low draws. </font color> , all 3 of which haven't acted yet (i don't count the 2's bring-in as "action", since it's now live), so you don't know if they're calling, raising or dropping- in a somewhat tight game, I'd guess the order is F, R, then C when each acts, with probably higher than expected fold percentage.

You are probably second to act on 4th, given the Ace, therefore giving you bad position... and if you act LATER on 4th, that is probably not GOOD news either.

Though the weak Jack is in there, I'd assume that s/he has either Jacks or high straight draw (unless they are REALLY weak), with the possibility of another Ace missing that the Jack could hold (Rick- would they call with an Ace behind them if they DIDN'T have an Ace?)

So, your pairing possibilites (and I probably need to beat Aces and/or Jacks for high) are down, you're missing a 5 to catch on 4th for high. Threes are all live, maybe.

You're facing (worse case scenario) 4-5 other low hands (all but the Jack)... and given the Ace raise, stronger hands than yours behind you could just call (somewhat tight game), disguising the fact that you're behind.

Every low card who stays, after the Ace raises, presumably have 3 low cards for each caller. Currently 25 of the remaining 44 cards are low cards, but again that number presumably shrinks by almost 10% with each low caller. <font color="red"> But it's not reasonable to be THIS pessimistic about the 3 hands behind you. They may each have two paints underneath - you just don't know. (You CAN postulate an A underneath for the A hand, according to Rick's read on the opponent. That is all. </font color>

Given all of that, are you still saying it's a clear call? All of the above made me lean more towards folding. In a tournament , almost regardless of the stage I'm at (except already in the money, maybe), i'm looking for the next hand to play. (Too paranoid?) <font color="red"> Yeah, I think too paranoid. For one SB (you don't really expect the hands behind you to reraise the Ace), you get to see if you can catch one of 7 perfect cards - pretty good.

Tournament: I liken this hand to playing a small pocket pair in a hold'em tournament - most of the time you will have to dump it soon, but every once in a while (10% of the time, maybe) you will hit the jackpot. So it depends on your stack, how many opponents are in, how well you will get paid off by your current opponents, etc.</font color>

Now, if I was acting BEFORE the Ace with 624, I'd probably raise to see where the Ace is (the tight player). If I was one of the LAST to act, I could see what I'm facing as competition for low, as well as how many people are along for the ride. <font color="red"> I would raise with this hand only late with many people in, and no other low-hand raise. You don't want to knock people out with this hand. </font color>
But, it seems that in THIS situation, I face too many unknowns (most of which do not work to my advantage) to make this hand a CLEAR call.... plus, I'm already not seeing it cheaply because of the Ace... which is why i lean towards folding.

Dick, am i playing too tightly? Normally, 6-low with straight possibilities is a very strong starting hand... but in THIS situation, it seemed to lose a lot of its strength.

<font color="red"> Comments basically done. All of your concerns are valid, except for your speculation that you might be against 3 better low draws - I don't know where you got that idea. Your concerns basically lead to the thing that I said - that you will usually dump this on 4th or 5th street. </font color>

I look forward to my schooling...

[Am Alert]

If the ace was to your left and the J a guarantee to call, I'd raise.