OK, here's the train wreck against majorkong

[rharless]

Do you think ALL hands are playable in this situation? This is an honest question -- not trying to be contrary.

On pokerroom.com's EV charts, 93s ranks in the bottom 10% of all hands. All the small suited hands are at the bottom, even below the offsuit rags, presumably because this is "real player" data and average/fishy players lose money playing hands like this. Also, obviously, these are stats from a different structure, since it's not the mini-blind preflop call.

Reasons to play:
- A good player can play 93s better than a poor player
- There's 3 or 4 limpers to you and presumably the chances of the blinds raising are small.
- It's quite a discount, at the going prime rate of 1/4th BB

Reasons not to play:
- Assumably good players would play the hand better than bad players, thus allowing some mathematical leeway. But that would include plays like maximizing the pot on the flop, or laying down a top pair 9 by knowing our kicker is crapola, or being able to laydown the hand against a bigger flush (a very very difficult laydown). So are we really able to draw on our "better player" skills to avoid the same mistakes that an average fish would make with this hand?
- At least one of the other players in the pot is a good player, majorkong -- to me this is not an ideal situation, as if I tangle with him, he will make it expensive

Basically, I am wondering if this --small suited *&#@-- is a difficult situation that we should learn to play well for minor +EV, instead of avoiding the situation? Or are we overvaluing our edge against bad players as an excuse to play?

It blows my mind to play 93s. This is exactly the 2nd place situation that, as a supposedly "good player", I have been taught to avoid. I am willing to believe you, and attribute my amazement to a failure to grasp the implications of the MB .25BB preflop structure, though. I just feel I would need a really compelling reason to tangle with this hand, and .25BB price doesn't get me all that excited. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

[rharless]

87s and 93s are not comparable here in my mind. Yes, both could make the 2nd place flush and that is sadly tragic in both instances. No I would not have faulted an 87s preflop call. But with 87s preflop, you (obviously) gain EV from the times you make a straight, which could possibly be the nut straight. With either hand when you make the 2nd place flush, you take your lumps and move on, but at least 87s has some other ways to win to offset those times when its last sight is the little red caboose.

I feel like I am on an alien planet, with all these posters whom I easily respect coming in and saying "hey, 93s is fine!" Where am I? [img]/forums/images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

[bernie]

one reason the stat ranks are skewed is because some idiots are playing 93s in any position. if you only play these in blind-like situations, and are only completing 1/2 or less a bet, they are profitable if you play them right.

one reason youll be 'avoiding' the 2nd place is because you wont be playing 'any' suited as often as many do. make sense?

id study small blind play for other ideas on this and why you call here.

that said however, if you dont think youll be able to play well enough post flop with it, err on the side of folding as it could cost you a bit. but realize you are missing out on some great opportunities for chips.

but with a little study, it shouldnt take you long to grasp the reasoning on it

b

[HDPM]

I wouldn't play 93s pre-flop either, unless I was in the SB and completing a limp. What I was saying is that the problem this hand poses would be the same if he had 87s or 9-3s. The preflop issue is kind of boring and not as important as the play of the hand on later streets given how it played out. So it can tell you how to play that 65s, 97s, 87s on later streets against a dangerous player, no?

[bernie]

i agree.

not only did he check the turn, but only 'called' the bet. and with the 3 bet on the river, id be really suprised if he turned over anything less than the nut flush here.

b

[Bob T.]

Do you think ALL hands are playable in this situation? This is an honest question -- not trying to be contrary.


You are putting in 1/4 of a small bet, the same as if you were completing the small blind in a normal structure. And you have the button. I think that if you play well postflop, and who doesn't think that they do [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] , then you should be able to play just about anything you would complete the sb with, on the button, and come out ahead.

I know the pot isn't quite as big, because the other limpers only put in a 1/4 of a big bet, but what if you were playing in a california game with a live drop on the button, so you only had to put in 1/4 of a big bet to play, how low would you go then.

All that being said, when I played in this game, twice, I failed to complete my small blind, when it was going to be shorthanded, with Clarkmeister in the BB, and Majorkong as the only limper, because I didn't want to commit even another dollar out of position against those two. And lately, I have tightened up considerably, on those hands that I will complete the small blind with. With small suited cards, they have to be at least within shouting distance of a straight for me to play, so I wouldn't complete with 93 suited in the small blind. But having position, I think it is playable in this game.

Even if it is slightly -EV in this situation, I think that plays like this, make you more 'one of the boys', or in your case, 'one of the girls', so that as a whole, I think it might be good for your image to turn over something real raggy occasionally, and if I am going to play rags, what better place to play them then on the button, and suited.

[34TheTruth34]

On pokerroom.com's EV charts, 93s ranks in the bottom 10% of all hands

If JTG had played this hand on Pokerroom.com, I wonder if the result he got from it, when averaged in, would have carried it all the way to the bottom. Just a thought...

[rharless]

Even if it is slightly -EV in this situation, I think that plays like this, make you more 'one of the boys', or in your case, 'one of the girls',

First of all, it's best for me to remind the table that I am NOT one of the boys [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

That said, this is the only real convincing reason that I have read, so far, to play the hand. Long term advertising value is certainly worthwhile. I just can't believe that I am passing up a "lot" of chips in strictest sense of EV to muck this hand. I might play it for fun or to be one of the group at certain tables, which only rarely would I ever even be consciously out of my "ewww, muck!" knee jerk reaction.

I understand that it's analogous to completing the SB, but I wouldn't complete the SB with it if I had only 3 limpers.

where is pokerprince when you need him? Maybe he might agree with me. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

rh

[JTG51]

LOL, are you saying that losing 5 BBs with 93s isn't a good thing? [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[JTG51]

At a another game you never would have been involved in the hand.

I think you win the understatement of the year award. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]