Protect or Fold? Live game at AC

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I don't see what's marginal about top pair on a virtually drawless board at a table of muppets.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's marginal is that we have something like a 309% chance of the turn or river being an overcard, and loose-passive people aren't going anywhere. We're not folding out overcards here.

[@bsolute_luck]

actually it is BECAUSE it is a loose/passive table that you should fold. with stronger hands you raise because slowplaying is pointless when loose/passive call you. drawing hands you can play because you are doubtful to be bluffed or isolated.

the marginality of this hand is EASY to see as this isn't TP of an Ace or even TPGK like A-K/8. any A-9 will be trouble. not to mention an wheel draw allowing any Ace to continue to call and not know their kicker. and your position in the hand blows for this type of table and this is IF you're hand is best right now especially with 5 more people behind you: you're weaker TP isn't likely to stand.

i actually think this is mentioned in SSH that though your hand might be best right now, it isn't worth the extra investment given the size of the field and # of cards you have to dodge to make this call profitable.

call and hit a twopair.

If I plan to protect my hand i agree that i want the bettor on my right, of course. So point 1 was more intended to show why i don't really like calling here.

Maybe my first post was a bit confused. Sorry about that, but English is not my native language, so sometimes i'm having trouble to express exactly what i mean. Don't know enough words [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

I think it is reasonable that we are ahead and that we do have an equity here, too. But the way the table is described i don't think many opponents will fold even to a raise.
So there is a great chance that we will have to improve to win. There are much more danger cards out there than safe ones.
I think we may have enough equity to raise if we want to continue, but i'm not sure if the size of the pot is big enough to play this marginal hand.

Like Ed Miller said in one of his posts:

In small pots it is more important to play tight than aggressive, while in large pots it is more important to play aggressive than to play tight.

Is this pot large enough? I'm not really sure.

[Greg J]

The other guys have commented on the substance of the comment. I just wanted to say...

[ QUOTE ]
...a table of muppets.


[/ QUOTE ]
This made me laugh. I would like to nominate "muppet" as the new donkey!

[Paxosmotic]

It is done.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Dream $2/$4 table, loose and passive. SB is a donkey.

Here in BB with 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

4 limpers, SB completes, here checks. 6 to the flop.

flop: 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

SB bets, hero...????

So, what's the standard play here? This hand is as marginal as it gets. If I raise, most of the limpers will call me with overcards. Just call and let somebody suck out cheap? I don't like that. I used to raise in situations like that, but these days I am leaning more towards folding.
What do you guys do here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why so many people advocate a fold here, fearing the worst.

I agree that you have some moderate concerns about your kicker. But since when do donkeys only bet top pair -- and since when are donkeys particular about the hands they complete in the small blind?

People worry about getting called by overcards. If you raise there will be 9 bets in the pot with everyone behind you to call two bets. 4.5:1 quite a bit worse than the 6.7:1 needed to call with six outs. Why don't you want them to make unprofitable calls?

Someone said something about the wheel draw... Again, why is this a negative instead of a positive? Even if he has 7 outs, he's calling unprofitably.

What about implicit collusion? What if there were four different overcards you needed to dodge?

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1302848
pokenum -h 7s 8h - ac 4d - kd qd - js 6h -- 2s 4h 8c
Holdem Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing 2s 8c 4h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
7s 8h 375 45.73 445 54.27 0 0.00 0.457
Ac 4d 180 21.95 640 78.05 0 0.00 0.220
Kd Qd 165 20.12 655 79.88 0 0.00 0.201
Js 6h 100 12.20 720 87.80 0 0.00 0.122

You only have about 46% of the pot going to you... Darn. What if there were *FIVE* overcards?

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1302854
pokenum -h 7s 8h - ac 4d - kd qd - js th -- 2s 4h 8c
Holdem Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing 2s 8c 4h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
7s 8h 318 38.78 502 61.22 0 0.00 0.388
Ac 4d 196 23.90 624 76.10 0 0.00 0.239
Kd Qd 153 18.66 667 81.34 0 0.00 0.187
Js Th 153 18.66 667 81.34 0 0.00 0.187

You're still looking at 39% equity. But do you really think loose passives are ONLY limping in hands that have two broadway cards? Or ONLY two cards bigger than 8? I doubt it.

The only time you're really worried is when you are dominated. It's going to happen sometimes. Nobody said you had to spew if you get called in seventeen million spots behind you. But I think folding here, in the absence of a preflop raise and ANY INFORMATION to make you believe you're really in trouble, is bad poker.

what do you do if your not sure whether a banana is off or not?

peel and see

[TomBrooks]

Raise.

[gopnik]

If we think in terms of equity, we just cannot fold here because it's too big. And if we raise, a lot of those puppets will be making a mistake by calling. So, isn't poker all about pot equity and mistakes?
If yes, we have to raise here.