[grb137]

[ QUOTE ]
my props to knoll & benwood who concisely expressed some good points - thanks grb for the research & stern warnings as these can be big trap hands. However, I disagree that this is a clear fold. Marginal hands are marginal because they can go either way, and the play of them takes skill and patience as there is no indisputable or easy way to play them. I disagree with grb's 'clear fold' mentality because there is some value in this hand depending on the situation. Sure heads up would be better, but without threat of being raised you can play it as a crapshoot. This particular hand benefits from a connected kicker, though the odds on making a low are pretty dead.

I actually would have checked on 4th street without a read on the players hoping to get a free card(unlikely) and then at least I could fold for two bets. Though often agressive play is the answer, your bet is a semi-bluff, and bluffing works better against a smaller pool - too much liklihood that one or more players will catch a good card again.

It was lucky you weren't raised. However, I can't fault you for betting and if I had gotten a read where both a free card and a raise was unlikely, I would have bet too. Fifth street is what makes this a trap hand, as it's harder to fold 2 pair, but you must, especially now that a split pot is likely. You're fortunate that that the ace came sooner than later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think these are important concepts, and so I will continue the discussion.

I would first respond by noting that the fundamental rule of split-pot games is that you want to play hands that can scoop or are extremely strong one way. You astutely recognize that this holding in this situation is unlikely to develop into the winning low. Consequently, for it to be playable, you would want to be strong going high, which a pair of 6s clearly is not. I wouldn't play a pair of 6s multi-way in a tightly structured high only game, particularly if I could reasonably assume that the other 6s were dead. I sincerely hope you wouldn't either. That being so, I would certainly not play 6s hoping to win merely the high half of this pot.

Whatever your definition of marginal may be, I think the general principles of 3rd street hand selection apply in all cases. Factors that must be considered include ante/pot size, opponent style, implied odds, *relative* strength of cards, and dead cards. In this case, this "marginal" hands is a clear fold because: the game is tightly structured (you're not losing much by folding), you won't get paid much since you're the chances of a scoop are low, a pair of 6s isn't a strong high hand compared to a pair of 7s, pair of 8s, etc, and because your opponents are reasonably decent, you should have a high suspicion that 1 and maybe both of your remaining sixes are in your opponents hands. These factors, imho, make this hand a clear fold.

Granted, a pair of 6s with a baby kicker would be a very playable, even good hand under other circumstances, such as if no other lows were on the board, if this was a short handed game, if you had good control over your opponents, etc. However, thats just not the case here.

All of us, gamblers that we are, want to find reasons to play hands rather than find reasons to fold hands. The consistent winners develop the reverse tendencies.

good discussion