Hachem's patience

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a correct play even if you knew that your hand is dominated.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you KNEW your hand was dominated, it's *certainly* a correct play. Not knowing it, your implied odds suck (unless, of course, you flop a straight at the same time that your opponent decides his top pair and bottom draw is good) and HoH2 is wrong here.

Mind you, with those stacks I think you're absolutely correct to call with, say, 64o or 53o.

[Zinzan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dennenmann's play was too obvious even to an amateur like me: first preflop raise with ace-x from the button. When Hachem called with one of the worst starting hands (73o, and indeed dominated as it turned out later, but in heads-up domination is not that bad)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm...

-Z

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you wondering about my last comment? I got that from Harrington (Harrington on Hold'em Vol.II, p.372) Of course, domination in heads-up can go bad when you flop a top pair with a weaker kicker (e.g. Q4 vs. QT when the flop is Q-7-2, but not Q4 vs. K4 on the same flop), which could be costly, but it happens less frequently (there are only two queens left in the deck before the flop). In most cases, pot odds support playing even a dominated hand (ignoring position) because you are only about 2.5-to-1 underdog, whereas limping in from SB (or calling from BB the minimum raise of SB) offers about 3-to-1 pot odds. It's a correct play even if you knew that your hand is dominated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for pointing me to HOH, Vol. II. Seriously, I just read HOH2 last month, and forgot about this section. Great book.

I still don't agree, however, that "heads up domination is not that bad." I think being dominated is particularly bad in heads up situations, as you're not close to getting pot odds to draw to a perfect hit.

Am I missing something? Would you rather play AT vs A6 or AT vs A4 and JT?

-Z

[fnurt]

I realize I'm not taking a very controversial position by not wanting to be dominated, but I think the talk of pot odds misses the point. The problem with having a dominated hand is the reverse implied odds; you look to bleed off a bunch of chips when you make your hand and it's no good. Sure, that doesn't rate to happen all that often because there's only 2 of that rank left in the deck, but when it does hit it's relatively expensive compared to the remaining cases.

Be that as it may, the fact that you shouldn't worry too much about a RISK of being dominated is valuable. For example, some people would rather fold a hand like K5 in favor of playing "2 live cards" with considerably less high-card value. In those situations, I think Harrington has a point that you won't be dominated all that often, and even when you are it's not the end of the world.

[Zinzan]

[ QUOTE ]
Be that as it may, the fact that you shouldn't worry too much about a RISK of being dominated is valuable. For example, some people would rather fold a hand like K5 in favor of playing "2 live cards" with considerably less high-card value. In those situations, I think Harrington has a point that you won't be dominated all that often, and even when you are it's not the end of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, maybe I'm starting to see the light.

Imagine you're short-stacked, or if blind levels pretty much put everyone in all-in-or-fold mode*:
* With 3 or 4 players to act behind you, you'd rather play 98s than A3, as a caller will often have a better Ace; but
* Heads-up on the button, you'd rather push A3 than 98. Any Ace is huge, and domination is less of a risk.

Is that the point?

-Z

*This scenario is not mandatory; it's just to make things simple.