Last Hand of the Night, question

[Tommy Angelo]

The game was five-handed for two hours. One guy went bust and quit. It was my big blind. I looked at the guy on my left to see if he felt like indicating one way or the other if he was going to take his blind next hand, or quit. He didn't. The small blind put two chips out as if to say to me Shut up and ante up. So I did. UTG folded and went for racks. The button folded and did the same. It was official. This was the last hand of the night. The small blind was a non-chopper. He called one chip and it was my turn. I looked. Pocket twos. I held four chips in my hand over the pot and said, "Last hand. Let's throw in $20 and run it out." He agreed by throwing four chips in. I dropped four chips into the pot and we ran it out.

Was this a good play?


Tommy

[bobgreen]

It's surely negative ev in your money ledger. You are a slight favorite to win this hand, but you've given up the opportunity to use your position to win more dollars or shut him out on the flop and win more often.

It would be positive ev in my babyshit ledger since I just got snookered by Mr. Utg and Mr. Button but by ending on a friendly note, I'd leave feeling happy.

And, I expect, Mr. Small feels just like I do.

[DrSavage]

I don't like it. Pocket deuces is not exactly a favorite over anything. It's a big dog to overpair, small dog to hands like J9s and tiny favorite over random crap. If you think you can safely assume that no raise from SB means no pair you're still about 50-50 over a random hand. So while this play is not bad all by itself, it acomplishes nothing. I think the better play is to run it out without extra 20$ or waiting to see the flop with this proposition to see if you flop a set.

[Duke]

You know you're likely a coin flip, and you're forcing 3-1 odds to get to showdown.

I like it.

~D

[andyfox]

Yes. Since he didn't raise, it's unlikely he has a pocket pair, so you're a favorite to win, provided you can get to the end of the hand and since it's, ahem, highly likely there will be some scare cards out there for your hand, this way you guarantee yourself getting to the end and not being bet out of the pot.

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
it's unlikely he has a pocket pair, so you're a favorite to win

[/ QUOTE ]
favorite over what ? Pocket deuces aren't even a favorite over Granny Mae (exactly 1-1 odds).

[mike l.]

no. this is a good play for me, or a lesser player. for you it is a bad play.

if im tommy angelo and i have a pair and position heads up going into it, it's to my advatage to have all my chips in play (and all of the limping sb's).

in other words, the decisions you will make postflop are so good that it's to your advantage to play your hand just as you normally would.

[Depraved]

I think it's probably good. 22 is obviously easier to play if you don't have to fold, and it has a small edge over most other non-pairs, so why not?

You would probably lose more money folding the best hand than you would make on the rare occasion you both make your hands, so I think this play only works towards your advantage over the long run.

[Tommy Angelo]

"You know you're likely a coin flip, and you're forcing 3-1 odds to get to showdown."

That's how I figured it. But I think the correctest answer must depend on the tendencies of the players at that moment. In the first post, I left it out, because I didn't want to color the replies, that the opponent was aggressive, very likely to bet the turn if the flop went check-check, and that I was not going to put any postflop money into the pot without a set or a straight, period. I think that last fact makes the $20 deal even better than 3-1 because the alternative -- seeing the flop -- was going to result in the opponent winning the $30 pot about five out of six times.

How bad was it for me to decide in advance, mentally, that this game was already over, that the big-blind money in the pot was never in any way connected to my bankroll, and to not put any postflop money into the pot without a monster?

I think it's way worse to knowingly take the worst of it than to knowingly pass up taking the best of it. Imagine you walk into the casino. You haven't even taken a seat yet. Better yet, you don't even plan to. You came for the free coffee. And somebody gives you a chance to play their pocket twos with your money. The pot is headsup with you last. There's two small bets in the pot that was put there by the house. After this hand, you are leaving. The flop comes, and there is no deuce or straight draw, and the lone opponent checks to you, or bets. Doesn't really matter. If you want to wager, you have to pull $15 (at a time) cash out of your pocket and put it in the middle of the table. And when the hand is over, you must get your coffee and leave.

Is it really all too terrible to decline to play?

Tommy

[mike l.]

"I think it's way worse to knowingly take the worst of it than to knowingly pass up taking the best of it. Imagine you walk into the casino. You haven't even taken a seat yet. Better yet, you don't even plan to. You came for the free coffee. And somebody gives you a chance to play their pocket twos with your money. The pot is headsup with you last. There's two small bets in the pot that was put there by the house. After this hand, you are leaving. The flop comes, and there is no deuce or straight draw, and the lone opponent checks to you, or bets. Doesn't really matter. If you want to wager, you have to pull $15 (at a time) cash out of your pocket and put it in the middle of the table. And when the hand is over, you must get your coffee and leave.

Is it really all too terrible to decline to play?"

wow that was elaborate.

so why did you put the $20 extra in again? wouldnt the bestest play have been to just go this route below and save $20:

"How bad was it for me to decide in advance, mentally, that this game was already over, that the big-blind money in the pot was never in any way connected to my bankroll, and to not put any postflop money into the pot without a monster?"