Help settle this debate!

[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 [img]/forums/images/icons/blush.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[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.