Another "do you gamble" spot

[citanul]

Both shorties are desperate and both know that they are desperate. They aren’t the brightest in the world, but they are gamboolers. The latter shorty is most likely aware enough to understand that the other guy can have lots of hands. There is no reason to expect that open raiser is doing anything wacky with his non-push raise.

Seat 3: Seat 3 ( $2735 )
Seat 4: Seat 4( $630 )
Seat 6: Hero ( $1310 )
Seat 1: Seat 1 ( $560 )
Seat 8: Seat 8 ( $3985 )
Seat 9: Seat 9 ( $780 )

Blinds(75/150)

** Dealing down cards **

Dealt to Hero [ 7h 7d ]

Seat 8 folds.
Seat 9 folds.
Seat 1 raises [300].
Seat 3 folds.
Seat 4 is all-In [555]
Hero …?

citanul

[gumpzilla]

Since you're reasonably short yourself, I probably call. The original bettor will probably call as well, but I think you'll pretty frequently be up against underpairs and A4 type hands, at least often enough to make up for the times where they collectively have 12 outs to beat you.

[45suited]

I fold here. Unless seat 1 is very tricky, he has an overpair. SB could have just an over or two, but it looks like you're going to be playing this hand for set value only. There will be 1340 in the pot after seat 1 calls, you would be putting in 480 more. Not a good enough price IMO.

[Irieguy]

Wow, this is an autofold for me. Especially with seat 8 protecting my SB from seat 3 in the hands to come, and with the biggest stack to my left.

I can't imagine somebody making a compelling argument otherwise.

Irieguy

[45suited]

Gump, doesn't the mini-raise from seat one concern you?

[junkmail3]

I think you'll be up against at least 3 overcards in this situation often enough to make it not worth the push.

You could be up against a lower pair and one or two overs, but I don't like getting all in with a medium pair and two opponents.

(If you were chip leader, this would be an easy call - but that is completly unrealted)

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Gump, doesn't the mini-raise from seat one concern you?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the original post:

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason to expect that open raiser is doing anything wacky with his non-push raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we take this at face value, which is reasonable since citanul said they aren't all that sharp, this can frequently be a pretty junky hand. It's even conceivable that this guy can fold, though I admit that it's unlikely. Since I don't find myself in this situation very often, it's quite possible that my intuitions about what kind of equity we have are way off. I'll mess around with PokerStove for a little bit now and see what I think.

[rydazzle]

I fold too, 77s are too vulnerable 3-way...I guess that's why the "do you gamble" post, eh...this is a "do you donate" to me...

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]

Since you're reasonably short yourself, I probably call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fold for the exact same reason.

[gumpzilla]

What do people think are realistic ranges for the two bettors? The fact that they are desperate, and that citanul says the minraise from the first one doesn't really mean anything special, suggests to me that we can be up against a pretty broad range here. I think any ace, any broadway and any pair is a pretty reasonable start for both of them. What do other people think? Against the range any ace, any broadway and any pair for both of them, Monte Carlo estimates from PokerStove after running for a while suggests that 77 has ~38.5% equity in the pot, which is enough to make it a chip EV call. I think that the relative shortness of your stack with this many people remaining suggests that it's probably worth taking a marginal chip EV gamble. Irie raises some good points about game structural concerns, but I think this is reasonably close.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Both shorties are desperate and both know that they are desperate. They aren’t the brightest in the world, but they are gamboolers. The latter shorty is most likely aware enough to understand that the other guy can have lots of hands. There is no reason to expect that open raiser is doing anything wacky with his non-push raise.

Seat 3: Seat 3 ( $2735 )
Seat 4: Seat 4( $630 )
Seat 6: Hero ( $1310 )
Seat 1: Seat 1 ( $560 )
Seat 8: Seat 8 ( $3985 )
Seat 9: Seat 9 ( $780 )

Blinds(75/150)

** Dealing down cards **

Dealt to Hero [ 7h 7d ]

Seat 8 folds.
Seat 9 folds.
Seat 1 raises [300].
Seat 3 folds.
Seat 4 is all-In [555]
Hero …?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

This is slightly/very off topic/hijack, but i had a similar situation in an MTT ...4 left, i was 3rd stack, shorty UTG pushes his 145k (30k blinds) and UTG+1 cold calls (500k stack)....Im in SB with 190k and 88. I was ready to call before UTG+1 called then opted for fold. Obviously, moving up from 4th to 3rd in an 1800 man event is huge whereas in this SNG you might need help just to make the $.

That aside, I would fold here. If they both have Ax or two overs and an underpair then you're ahead, but say its like A6 JQ...you're a fav, but only a <40~% to win. One overpair and you're toast.

Too many hands in the ranges combine to make this a -EV call.

[schwza]

hero has put in 150 and only needs to put in another 480. from the descriptions of villains, it's not too likely either has an overpair. you're getting pretty sweet pot odds and will still have FE if call and lose.

it's pretty close, but i think 77 is a push. i'd fold 66 though.

[45suited]

As UMTerp said, the fact that I'm relatively shortstacked makes this a fold. This would be an easy call as a big stack. Those chips are very important - too important to risk on a play that will lose 2/3 of the time, IMO.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
that 77 has ~38.5% equity in the pot, which is enough to make it a hugely chip EV call

[/ QUOTE ]

and marginally +cashEV call, i think.

[gumpzilla]

I'd missed that we were in the BB, which is a stronger argument for calling as well. I'd love to hear other people's ideas of what range we should put the other two guys on.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Since you're reasonably short yourself, I probably call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fold for the exact same reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol...exactly

[danger_mouse]

I think this might be a marginal +ev push. However, usually I'm folding. Reason being, I have just enough chips to push/pick up blinds repeatedly. On the low buy-in tables I play, I can make up for a slight -ev fold. However, if I'm on the rare table that I can't take control by pushing, I'm more likely to gamble here, because I need to and I'm getting good pot odds. Likely best case scenario, though, is that you are against 3 overcards.

[durron597]

The problem here is that small medium pairs lose value multiway. I fold.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that small medium pairs lose value multiway. I fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have the same vague intuition, but i can't really put my finger on what it means. can you elaborate?

The only way I can see playing this is if seat 1 wasn't so desperate and hadn't commited his stack so much. Then I'd push trying to get him out and have it heads up. Three way you'd probably face at least 3 over cards and end up in a lackluster gamble.

Fold

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that small medium pairs lose value multiway. I fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have the same vague intuition, but i can't really put my finger on what it means. can you elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think the above is correct...I mean, it is correct, but not as stated. All hands lose value multiway...the more players in, the less value any one hand has.

I am not sure however if a hand's intrinsic value (against 1 random hand) is lower, it loses even more value multiway?

IOW, if x hand is 60% against a random 2 cards lets say it loses y value with 2 others in the pot.

Then does a hand that is 50% aginst any random 2 lose y+n value? Meaning does it even lose more? Or is it a constant?

Im sure this is easy to figure out, but I don't think small medium pairs have something special that makes them any worse in this regard.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that small medium pairs lose value multiway. I fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have the same vague intuition, but i can't really put my finger on what it means. can you elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

All hands lose value multiway.

This is a concept in poker that is frequently misunderstood, and ubiquitously misapplied.

There are several ways to rank hands: K-S, Eastbay's Pushers, S-M groups, and various mathematical models. No matter how you do it, you will be less likely to win a pot as you increase the number of opponents. The value of some hands decreases more dramatically as you add opponents than other hands.

For example: AA is the best hand whether you have one opponent or 100. AKo, on the other hand, is a top 5% holding shorthanded, but drops down significantly as you add more than 4 opponents.

What Durron is referring to is that 77 does relatively more poorly against multiple opponents than it does against few opponents. So, in a way, it "loses value" multiway. What it really does, though, is lose more value than a hand like T-Js would as you add opponents.

The way that this concept is misapplied is this: lots of players like to play TJ in a multiway pot because they think it "plays so well multiway." But if they have QQ they will consider folding to two raises in front of them.

None of these concepts matter at all in SNG poker, really. They are very important in limit hold'em ring games where pot odds and your win rate are intimately linked.

Irieguy

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

i have the same vague intuition, but i can't really put my finger on what it means. can you elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm. First I did this:

pokenum -h ac ks - qh jd - 7d 7c
Holdem Hi: 1370754 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ks Ac 517586 37.76 850153 62.02 3015 0.22 0.378
Jd Qh 414899 30.27 952840 69.51 3015 0.22 0.303
7c 7d 435254 31.75 932485 68.03 3015 0.22 0.318

But then I tried changing the hands around for kicks; same suits:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1122929
pokenum -h ac qs - kh jd - 7d 7c
Holdem Hi: 1370754 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Qs Ac 487784 35.59 879955 64.19 3015 0.22 0.357
Jd Kh 426221 31.09 941518 68.69 3015 0.22 0.312
7c 7d 453734 33.10 914005 66.68 3015 0.22 0.332

BD flush draw for the pair:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1122930
pokenum -h ac qs - kh jc - 7d 7c
Holdem Hi: 1370754 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Qs Ac 482714 35.22 885013 64.56 3027 0.22 0.353
Jc Kh 414328 30.23 953399 69.55 3027 0.22 0.303
7c 7d 470685 34.34 897042 65.44 3027 0.22 0.344

One guy is dominated:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1122932
pokenum -h ac ks - kh jc - 7d 7h
Holdem Hi: 1370754 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ks Ac 459738 33.54 898093 65.52 12923 0.94 0.340
Jc Kh 282820 20.63 1075011 78.42 12923 0.94 0.211
7d 7h 615273 44.89 751846 54.85 3635 0.27 0.450

But then you also have to think about when you are against an overpair and an underpair. I think this is a call though; gambling for big stacks is goot.

[Afterh0urs]

To me, there isn't enough information here. I need to know how tight the other players (everyone but the shortstacks) are in regards to calling allins. If they're tight, I'm calling here and taking a chance to add 1200 chips to my stack. If I lose, I lose 630 chips, 225 of which I can get back next hand when I open push, assuming the players are tight.

If the players are loose and I'm unable to get away with push stealing at will, I fold and conserve my chips until I find my spot and catch someone in their looseness.

[psyduck]

This seems to be a very easy fold. What's the problem here?

Edit: oh didn't realize that hero posted the BB. still think it's a fold though...