Help settle this debate!

[The Prince]

Hi all,

here's a situation a player I know got himself into and I completely disagree with his play. Tell me what you would do. Always wanting to improve my skills I'd like to know if I'm really wrong or right.

You are 3 hours into a 500$ limit Hold'em tournament. Each player started with 500 in chips. After getting all rags you're down to your last 125. I don't know what the limits were but I'm guessing the blinds were 25-50. You're on the button and 5 players limp in front of you. You look down and see 7s2s.

What do you do?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

How many spots are paid, and how many are left in the tournament?

[The Prince]

I frankly do not know, but you are not near the money.

[sam h]

Fold. Sure the five-way action looks nice, but 72s is a monster dog here. Plus, even if you make your draw you won't have any chips left to realize its full value.

This is a situation where you should be looking to openraise, get heads up with the BB, and double through.

[BB King's]

... but - I never play 72s. No limping. No open-raising.

[Copernicus]

Its close, and I would probably make a stand here. 72s against 5 limpers and 2 blinds is about a 7.5/1 dog and you are only getting 6.5/1 if the small blind doesnt complete, 7/1 if he does, so you are definitely on the short end.

On the other hand you are a blind away from being out, with a chance to build a real stack in one hand. You have to gamble, why not do it when it has a real payoff. Go all in. Winnowing out the other draw hands is worthile. If you can get it down to 4 contenders you are only about a 4/1 dog. Even if you get more callers, youre probably done if you lose anyway, so maximize the return on this shot.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

5 limpers + the blinds, if I call I'm getting 7-1 on the call and I still have my blinds left if I fold on the flop. I think if this were even 76s I'd raise and make my stand here, but 72s, I'd probably just fold. I've got 2 orbits before I'm blinded away. Mathmatically, I'm probably wrong, but it would be a hard call to make.

[Justaloser]

I would fold. If I've gotten rags for three hours, I'm to the point where I believe that the cards are about to run me over. I'll wait for them instead of a hand that won't dominate any of the callers.

[Ignatius]

What debate? Automatic fold, if there ever was one. Why is this even a question?

[fnurt]

On the button at a full table I'd fold this because a better situation is likely to come along in the next few hands.

[gunboat]

I would want to go out with a whimper, not a futile bang.
Fold.

Of course the flop will then come 7 2 rag /forums/images/icons/blush.gif

[Copernicus]

If I knew I was going to get 6-7 big blinds on whatever hand I wind up playing in those two orbits, I agree...76s looks better than 72s (although 8 handed there is only about a 4% difference).

The key to me here is winning 7 big blinds, plus a few more based on the flop, on this one puts me back in serious contention. Winning a hand in the second orbit, even with a couple of callers, doesnt do much more than waste some time at the table.

The objective isnt to win a hand, its to get into the money, and the prize equity knowing you already have 7 callers has got to be bigger than the prize equity waiting for a better hand but an unknown number of callers.

After reading Ignatius' vehement response that its an automatic fold, I thought more about it, and think its an automatic all in.

elindauer's repsonse probably says the same things but better.

[elindauer]

What debate? Automatic fold, if there ever was one. Why is this even a question?

You dismiss the question, but offer no insight at all.

Here are some reasons to call.

1) you are short-stacked and way out of the money. You are going to need to double up several times to get to the money if you fold, and you are running out of time. In this hand, you are presented with an opportunity to take one shot and septuple up.

2) There is a decent chance that your cards are live. Additionally, your cards are suited.

3) There is some chance that your opponents are tripping all over each other, meaning that your hand is may actually be a +EV hand when played all-in. Consider this all-in analysis, in which the lowly seven-duece is the favorite to win:

As Jd 0.286
Ac Th 0.086
Js Qh 0.116
Qc Tc 0.110
Td Jh 0.073
7s 2s 0.328



And some reasons to raise:

You fear that if you hit your hand and bet, you'll only get action from the best hand or two against you. Now when you hit, instead of septupling up, you are only quadrupling up. You're nearly dead if you miss anyways, so the only thing worth considering may be how you maximize your return when you do make the hand.


I think if I played the hand, I would probably raise. There will be too much money in the pot for me to throw my hand away if I catch anything at all, and I'm nearly dead if I fold the flop after a total whiff. If I'm playing, I may as well play to maximize my return when I do win, especially since there seems to be no way I can win this pot without showing down the best hand.


So... would I play the hand? Guess I'll have to get land in this situation to find out. I wouldn't have a problem with somebody who did though.


IMHO.
-Eric

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

its an automatic all in.

It's limit, so you raise and have $25 left. Hey, in this chip situation, I'd always rather take my stand with a good drawing hand and a couple of limpers, but with 7 hands before my big blind, I'm not doing it with 72, suited or not.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

You've told us we are nowhere near the money. That means chip equity and cash equity are identical. So, what would you do in a cash game of limit holdem? I'm pretty sure all of us would fold, and that means it is the correct play here.

But wait, that's not the end of the question. It's not just whether or not this play is +EV or -EV, but also will any play likely make itself available in the next few hands that is better than this one? In other words, if you're under the gun with QJ in a full limit holdem game, the hand is normally a fold. But, if you're down to 2.5xBB, you should play the hand, because even though it is -EV, it is less -EV than taking the random big blind hand with only 2.5xBB.

But, this hand fails that test also. With the number of free hands remaining, you can probably find a +EV situation, as compared to this -EV situation.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[The Prince]

Hi,

I know it sounded like a trick question. But it was not. I was having an argument with a player with more tournament experience than I do and since he avocated playing the hand, I felt like asking just to make sure I'm not missing something.

I strongly disagree with his play. He limped, so did the blinds, and he ended up flopping the flush and winning the hand.

When you are low on chips, they have a greater value and so it's even more important to play them when the situation is right. It's much better to play against a fewer number of opponents such as 1 or 2 by for example raising first in and playing against the BB. Even with a hand like 87s, which could show a profit in the long run, I believe you should pass, as you should get a better situation in the next 2 rounds; i.e. a better risk vs reward situation.

And he said that playing this hand should make for good publicity and make his opponents pay him on his good hands later in the tournament. I thought this was totally off. It's certainly not the time to make a loose image play 3 hours in the tournament after having folded most of your hands and certainly not when you are down to your last chips. By then it's simply gambling and it's not what we are paid to do.

Thanks all for the comments,

[JohnM]

I agree with you and the rest of the field. This is an auto fold but, for the moment, grant him his agrument and he still played it wrong!
In limit tourneys, most people that limp in will call one more bet. You friend is all but committing himself to this pot with a 40% call so he should have raised. If he is going to flop a flush he won't get much action so now is the time to get the chips in, dragging everyone else along before they know that a flush is on board. If he is going to take a flyer the he should toss the tiny $75 parachute out the window and go flying.

Always enjoy your posts. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[jon_1van]

elindauer,
I think you make a couple good points. Yes, it is probably true that many of 72s' opponents are "tripping over each other". However, I can't believe that they are tripping over each other to the degree that you illustrate in your example (after all the MP's might be playing middle suited connectors because they are getting such good odds by the time the action got to them).

Basically our 72s is hoping for a two pair or a flush (3 on the board NOT 4). Not much to shoot for, espically because 72s will have a low two-pair or low flush.

I would argue that waiting for "coin flips" where you can get all of your chips in is a better strategy. After 2 successful coin flips you will have 4 times your chips (and you will get here 1 in 4 times). After a 3rd successful coin flip you will be up to 8 times your stack (1 in 8 times).

I'd bet your chance of surviving a 7 handed battle with 72s is about .05 - so it is better to go with the slightly less risky coin flips (.125 chance of survival).

This is my take, if you think I'm wrong please let me know why.

[Poker21]

you dont even think about playing those cards.

[Copernicus]

Actually 72s 7 handed has a 12.5% or so chance of winning, though this is 8 handed which drops it to 11%. (5 limpers, 2 blinds and the player).

I'm glad to see I would have flopped the flush!

I disagree with the statement that because you arent close to the money that tournament and chip equities are the same. The opposite end of being close to the money is close to being out. It seems obvious to me that if you start with 3 chips you can survive a series of slightly favorable coin flips more than 3 times as large as you can survive starting with 1 chip.

Think of it another way...the first time you are down to your last chip you are given a re-buy option. You can buy 3 chips for $2 or 7 chips for $9, and the average stack is 100 chips. Even though the price per chip is higher dont you think the extra 4 chips give you enough extra tournament equity to justify the charge? This decision is similar to the tournament situation, in that you are getting 7/1 on a 9/1 shot, versus waiting for a better opportunity (that may never come)that is only likely to get 1 or 2 callers if it does come.

I also believe that the idea that the value of each chip monotonically decreases over all values is a simplification. Instead, I think the value of each chip rises steeply from nearly zero (if there are many more players left than spots in the money, what are your chances of parlaying 1 chip into a spot in the money?)to a peak value (intuitively this is the chip value where you already have a very high probability of the last money spot, and each additional chip increases your chances of moving up in money spots more than it does your chances of making the last spot), and declines gradually from there.

[Jimbo]

"Actually 72s 7 handed has a 12.5% or so chance of winning, though this is 8 handed which drops it to 11%. (5 limpers, 2 blinds and the player)."

Actually it wins 9.2% of the time 8 handed and 10.1% of the time 7 handed. Is that enough difference to make you fold? If not you are hopeless and are seriously afflicted with any two sooted syndrome. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[elindauer]

Where are you getting these numbers? How can you post a correction for the win rates for 72s without any evidence?

I'm guessing that you are talking about 72s versus 8 random opponents. This is a naive assumption, since we have information about the hands held by the players we'll be playing against. They are good enough that they justified limping in, but not raising.

What does that mean? Well, it means that the probability of the 72s winning is probably *higher* than if it was dealt against random hands. Why? Because 72s is going to be dominated by many random hands, like 28, 29, 7J, etc etc. In fact, any random hand with a 2 or a 7 is more likely than not to dominate our old pal the 72s.

With limpers in front of us, there are far fewer hands that we have to worry about. For example, the only hands that contain a 2 that we have to think about, are probably suited ace dueces. All the 82, 92, T2 offsuit random hands that would have had us dominated have been thrown in the muck!

As for the seven, we've only got, suited 76, suited 87, and suited A7. Maybe one of the later limpers could hold an offsuit 76 or 87. Still, That's not many hands to worry about. Again, all the offsuit Q7 hands have been thrown away, and it's the potential for a dominating hand like that to stay around that really eats into your win probability.

And we have even more good news. There is a better than average chance that we are not up against an overpair, the kind of hand that really dominates us, and which our random opponents will sometimes hold. After all, if someone holds AA, why isn't he raising? This is a limit tournament after all.

In fact, the only reason 72s is hurt vs playing random hands is that, should a flush arrive, it's less likely that the 7 high flush will be good, due to the increased number of suited hands that we will face. But how much of the 72s vs. random hands win rate is due to flushes? A very small amount, and we're not even elliminating these wins, just reducing them.

I've given an example of reasonable hands that you could face where the 72s is the significant favorite to win. Admittedly, I've arranged the hands to be near-perfect for the 72, and you can arrange hands where the 72 is completely dead. The point is, the 72s is much less likely to be dominated than, say, QTs, and you don't need to be an overwhelming favorite here to justify a call.

The more I look at the math on this hand, the more I feel raising may be the correct play.


JMO.
-Eric


PS... A note on the "coin-flip" argument... this assumes that you are going to have three coin flip chances, which may not arrive before you are blinded away (only 20 hands left remeber). Besides this, it assumes that you will manage to get all your money in when you are presented with the coin-flip hand. Sure, it may not be too tough on the first one, but remember, this is a limit tournament. You can't just push your stack into the middle. What happens if you are lucky enough to double up on coin flips twice, and then discover 33 in your hand? You may not be able to get all-in preflop, and once all those overcards come raining down on the board, you're no longer a coin-flip in the hand if you continue to get action...

PPS.... It might seem that I am arguing that you should always play 72s in a multiway pot. Not so. The problem is the reverse implied odds this hand faces when the holder still has money to bet. For example, if the flop comes 29T, you may throw away the best hand when it's bet, or end up paying off someone with a better hand already made. In the cases where you are dominated, you'll lose much more than your original bet when you flop something. You miss out on all the winning chances when the flop misses everybody, but would have, say, paired your seven for the winner on the river, or you will pay dearly trying to draw to them. etc etc.

[BB King's]

When you are low on chips, they have a greater value ... Only when you are on the bubble !!! Not when you are far away from the money.

[punkass]

I like this explanation the best. You are the button on this hand, and you have hands after this to wait for. Yes, it is possible that the next hands you see are worse than 72s, but there aren't that many. I'd take the chance that my next 3 hands aren't 54, 62.

While the odd situation that you have set for us (7 limpers vs short stack) is very unusual and unlikely, I still would pass on this seemingly good opportunity to make 7x your stack. It's a false hope. Like playing the lottery.

Additional note, if this opportunity is great, then you would make this play with anything then. And that is not the case, IMO.

jwl

[elindauer]

Additional note, if this opportunity is great, then you would make this play with anything then. And that is not the case, IMO.

I agree that playing any hand is wrong here. I don't agree that playing 72s means playing any hand.

The main concern is avoiding a hand which is likely to be dominated. 72s, as ugly as it normally is to play (see my comments on reverse implied odds in this thread), passes this test when played all-in in this spot. It's unlikely that this hand is dominated.

Hands to avoid are those containing one high card with a weak kicker. These hands are almost certainly dominated. Been dealt Q6? Crushed by AQ, KQ, QJ, and QT, all hands your opponents may hold. Of particular importance is that your opponents don't normally need suited cards to be in with these hands against you. There are many more ways for the Q6 to be dominated than the 72s against normal playing opponents. In this spot, I would muck Q6 offsuit and many hands like it, but would seriously consider raising with 72s. To be perfectly honest, I'm not convinced that the hand even needs to be suited for the raise to be correct!


There have been many posts on 2+2, but allow me to be the first to say it: in this position, it is correct to raise with any two cards below eight.


Just my opinion.
-Eric

[indyace]

fold. would you and your friend like to play sometime.

[fnurt]

I don't think being dominated is such a big issue here since you're quite unlikely to win an 8-way pot with a single pair of 7s or 2s.

[The Prince]

Of course they do. The same way they all have the same value at the start of the tournament.

Near the money or not, you can still attibute a money expectation to each player left in the tournament. For example, if half the players remain and you are still far from the money, and each has the same stack size, then it is obvious that their expectation has doubled. You could easily translate that into chip values when stacks are uneven.

[Copernicus]

My percentages are not vs random hands, but vs a profile of players, though with 7 opponents there isnt a huge difference, and that is why they are probably slightly higher than what I assume was vs. random....as elindauer pointed out, the profile in this case is biased toward higher cards and drawing hands, and but not made pairs, since they are all limping, not raising.

Again, I totally disagree that you have to be on the "in the money" bubble for chips to be increasing in value. Almost out of the money is analagous to being on the bubble, when a play can put some (albeit small)tournament equity to zero or into a survivable position.

I wouldnt make this play with only 1 or two limpers, and I do raise here to try and narrow the field a little. Again the key isnt whether Im going to get a better hand in two circuits (much preferably the first, because after my next blinds no win may be enough), its whether Im going to get a better hand AND have this much money in the pot. You didnt like my rebuy example, heres another. Your homeless, thirsty and hungry. Stopped at a redlight are two cars that look familiar, you can only approach one. You know 9 black VWs, and 8 of them will give you a coupon for a cup of coffee, 1 will give you nothing. You know 9 red Mercedes, and 6 will give you a coupon for a steak dinner, and 3 will give you nothing. (Coupons because they have no cash value to enter into an odds calculation). I'm sure as hell going to the red car, even though I'm 3 times as likely to get stiffed. The <b>utility</b> of the steak dinner outweighs the coffee by far more than that

Seems we have some very strong opinions on both sides...thats why it was a debate in the first place, and thats why poker is an art and not a science. I've tried to work out the math on these "almost last gasp" situations and it is too complex to do without simulation, and I dont know of any tournament simulators.

Unless someone weighs in with a more credible position, I will rely on the poker-gods approval given when the flush was flopped!

[Schmed]

I fold and hope I catch in the next orbit. If 72s is the best hand u see in the next 10 it just isn't your day....

[Jimbo]

"The point is, the 72s is much less likely to be dominated than, say, QTs,....."

Elindaur I had planned on responding to your well reasoned post until I read the above statement. After this it is evident nothing short of Moses standing next to a burning bush looking on while God carved The Ten Rules of Holdem into a stone tablet would change your mind so go for it and good luck.

[boots]

being dominated isn't the only consideration. just because both of your cards are "live" doesn't mean this is the hand you want to play in this situation.

I agree that in all likelihood you will have 3 live 7's and 3 live deuces that will give you a pair, but even after that happens, your hand is still all but worthless - any overcard will hit one of your opponents.

Your only hope here is having EXACTLY 3 spades hit the board for your flush, or getting a miracle flop where you make trips.

[iblucky4u2]

Last night o the WSOP telecast, they were talking about all the dead money in the WSOP. People who enter with no real expectation of winning, except that they have the deck hit them up side the head. To play this type of hand is to say poker is a game of luck with virtually no skill. All those who would play 72s anywhere but an unraised BB is more than welcome to play against me in tournaments or ring games /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

The fact that your friend got lucky on this hand - you didn't mention how he finished in the tournament - is not the point. Unless he is into remote viewing then fold fold fold this hand and wait for a better hand. You are on the button and have several more hands to pick up something worth playing.

[fnurt]

The point this proves is that as people learn more about poker, they still play the same shitty cards, but their arguments in favor of doing so become much more articulate!

[microlimitaddict]

an amateur's perspective....

i'm still pretty new to poker and tourney play but feel i am knowledgeable enough to offer an opinion or three...

i am indeed listening to some of the arguments for calling and/or raising...but have to say i still don't agree.
i do believe that by some of the logic presented that you could make a justifiable case for playing it on the button whether short-stacked or not..."hey, it's not dominated...and when it wins you'll get great implied odds."

i doubt you will knock anybody out by raising alone....if you do raise, then you will need a re-raise to knock anyone out...but if someone in EP re-raises then they may have a monster.

in short, this is NOT your best opportunity. that's why you don't play it under normal circumstances...and that's why you don't play it short-stacked either...regardless of whether or not you have 5 callers to the button.

this hand should be folded...especially considering that you still have 1 or 2 orbits left.
interestingly, i would fold this even if i had one or two more bets left.
new scenario - UTG or UTG+1... $1000 left...blinds are 300/600 or 400/800 or even 600/1200. i might consider folding this hand and taking my chances on the SB or BB hoping for a J-10 or even a J-8 or something.
I have to think this performs better against a full-table, or just 1 or 2 callers...
I'll take an improved chance at a double-up or better over a slim chance for a septuple-up. Is this just a personal tight-wad preferance?? Possibly. However, if the math (otherwise known as Sklansky) proves that it's actually better to play 7-2s or anything else because of position and number of callers then I will happily adjust my play.

but for now I'll stick with the hands that feel a litle more accurate to me. if I win a 50-50 hand..then I have enough ammunition to last for 1 or 2 more orbits hopefully.,..maybe more. in these situations, I'm just trying to survive, not roll the dice on a big old septuple up (unless I have better cards to justify taking the chance).

if hands like 10-Q are so dominated here then does that mean you advocate not playing them at all on the button?? if i get 10-Q in this situation then I am happily limping-in on the button, short-stakced or not and am saisfied that I at least gave myself a shot to climb back into it. but it seems there are those who would disagree with that idea.

[JayKon]

Well, yes, the arguments are what its all about. I've loved this thread as it has iven me better insight into how others are thinking.

Besides threads like this are icing on the cake. I love it when people go exploring - never know what you'll find. Like a few years back with one of the first fold AA threads.