Bad Cards Preferable?

[KenProspero]

I was in a situation last night in a SNG. Because of an early bad beat, I found myself down to my last chip very early.

Next hand, with the button, I'd dealt something like 5-3o. 4 or 5 have limped in. I'm thinking to myself, to I throw my last chip in now, or wait for better cards (I have 7 more hands before I'm forced to bet).

Ultimately, I decided that because of my pot odds, I was actually better with small cards than a 'good' hand.

Rationale -- Although I was a big underdog, if I did actually hit a hand I was very likely to win the pot, since the cards that helped me would not likely help many others. Given that I can't reasonably expect a 'big big' hand with only 7 chances, this seemed my best shot.

Question -- Does this make any sense at all from a theoritical point of view? What other situations is it better to have (and play) bad cards?

[ QUOTE ]
Although I was a big underdog, if I did actually hit a hand I was very likely to win the pot, since the cards that helped me would not likely help many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, you are less likely to have your outs covered. However, against 5 opponents, this hand won't win very often. I'd wait.

[AaronBrown]

Your logic is good, and not limited to short-stack situations. For example, I feel that one-gap pocket cards are more valuable than connectors against good players. The reduced odds of getting the straight are more than offset by the greater amount of money you make when you get it. If the board contains Q 9 8, everyone suspects a straight. But if it's Q 10 8, most people will dismiss the possiblity.

But I wouldn't say bad cards are good, I would say cards that play well against the hands most people play are good. A 2 is a terrible hand, not because it doesn't win a lot if everyone plays to showdown, but because it's so often second-best against the hands people really play. 8 6 can do a lot of good things that others will not share or suspect.

However, you have to balance this against the virtues of strength. If no one improves, 8 6 loses to A 2. You only improve about half the time, and a quarter of the time both hands will improve. So you like strength against one other player, good playing possibilities against many.

While 53o doesn't have a whole lot in the way of prospects in any direction, you can profitably jam something like JTs in multiway pots.

What happened in the hand?

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
What happened in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I'm not sure this is relevant to a poker theory discussion, and I wasn't going to bring it up, but since you ask ..... I hit a 5 on the flop, and a 3 on the river, and quintipled-up (sextupled up?) whatever.

Went on a tear winning several hands, to get to a position where I was slightly behind the leader in chips (and at that point thought I was going to have a real chip and a chair story).

Drifted a bit, lost some chips so was in push-or-fold land again, pushed with QQ, was up against AJ and an A hit the turn. Finished third. Can't even complain about the beat considering the luck it took to get back into contention after I was down to a single chip.

However, it may have been the most fun I've had in a while.

[wildzer0]

If you're down to 1 bb or less and you have a few hands before the bb takes you out I tend to try to wait until the BB hits me or throw it in with AX any two cards over 10, any pp or any suited connectors and hope to get lucky. I doubt it really matters though.

[AaronBrown]

53o isn't hopeless. I know this is an extreme example, but 53o against AKo, AQo, AJo and KQo is not only the favorite, it has about 1 chance in 3 of winning. High cards are good, but if everyone else has them, you have a better chance of winning with low cards. If a 5 or 3 shows up, you can win, if not, or if high cards show up as well, the other players have to split the wins.

In that position, I certainly want to go in with bigger cards. Especially on short stack, you're going to get called by anyone with Kx (if they're high in chips) just for the shot to put you out.

So I'd prefer to get my chips in with at least the A high.

This isn't always possible. And in two recent situations that come to mind, I was all but forced all in on big blind - both times I had 63o. First time, I flopped a straight. Second time, I flopped trip 3s.

But my overall feeling is, this ISN'T the hand I want to throw all my chips in with. This is a hand I may feel "gambly" with - and if I hit, then I can win some big money, but if not, I can still get away from easily.

[EMcWilliams]

I personally thin an overlooked concept in tourney play that I have not hard much about is the idea of a "necessary pot." IF you are crippled by a beat or just are a short stack for various reasons, I think there comes a point that there are certain pots that you need to be in, despite your cards. Obviously the goal in any tourney is to win, and if you are a short stack that is obviously going to be difficult. This is where my idea comes into play. Not only is winning a and important, but getting chips is too. I know im having trouble expressing this, but I think an example will help:

Hero takes a beat, is in the CO with 2500 chips remaining with 500/1000 blinds. Other average stacks total from 7000-12000, max at 22,000. There is an UTG raise (placing hero all in), and 4 calls to the CO. I think that for the Hero to have any real chance in the tourney, this pot is necessary. He needs to call with any two here. Sure, he is most likely a dog here, but he has a chance to make smoe serious chips here and get back in contention. This is a case where getting paid is more important than the holding of the hero.

[AaronBrown]

I agree, but suggest a slight modification. There's no sharp distinction between normal and necessary pots. As your stack shrinks (or the blinds rise) you need to adjust your play.

Most Poker theory is based on long-run averages. That's fine if you're trying to maximize your lifetime Poker income. But in a tournament you may be down to 1 or 10 or 20 hands. Any time you get under 20, the short-term becomes significant.

Say, for example, you play 20% of your hands to maximize your long-term expected value. Out of 20 hands, 1% of the time you will get no playable cards, 6% of the time you will get only one hand, 15% of the time you will get only two. If you don’t hit flops, or if someone else has stronger cards, you’ll be out of the tournament without a real chance to play. At this point it can make sense to play a marginal hand, or play an unexpected hand in a large pot, or bluff.

If you don’t adjust when you can afford to fold 20 hands in a row, you’ll have to make a larger adjustment when you can only afford to fold 10. The other players will be more suspicious, so it’s less likely to work. Moreover, with some extra money, you can do something more than just going all-in at the start. That gives you some playing flexibility.

I think you made the absolute right play, and i'll tell you why. Whenever you have 1 blind or less left in chips, you will most likely bust on the next hand you play, and even if you double up that will still put you in the same position you were in. Your best hope in that situation is to get your chip in a multi-way pot.

If I was in your same situation, and 4 people limped in front of you, i'd call with any two. The fact that you had 53o is a bonus because it is highly unlikely that you were dominated (unless a limper had A3 or A5). I'd like that hand better than a dry A or K, which most likely WOULD be dominated. As long as you are not dominated, you might even have pot odds.
So, I'd definitely call there because you may not get a chance to get the money in a multi-way pot again.

I agree with hobart. What good is doubling up to two chips? If I'm on the button with a bunch of limpers I'll play 5-3 o/s any day, especially if it means I'll get six times the amount of chips I put in when I'm short stacked. If he wants any chance at winning the tourney he has to make a move at some point, and at this point he's getting odds.