Help settle this debate!

[Jimbo]

"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)."

Actually it wins 9.2% of the time 8 handed and 10.1% of the time 7 handed. Is that enough difference to make you fold? If not you are hopeless and are seriously afflicted with any two sooted syndrome. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[elindauer]

Where are you getting these numbers? How can you post a correction for the win rates for 72s without any evidence?

I'm guessing that you are talking about 72s versus 8 random opponents. This is a naive assumption, since we have information about the hands held by the players we'll be playing against. They are good enough that they justified limping in, but not raising.

What does that mean? Well, it means that the probability of the 72s winning is probably *higher* than if it was dealt against random hands. Why? Because 72s is going to be dominated by many random hands, like 28, 29, 7J, etc etc. In fact, any random hand with a 2 or a 7 is more likely than not to dominate our old pal the 72s.

With limpers in front of us, there are far fewer hands that we have to worry about. For example, the only hands that contain a 2 that we have to think about, are probably suited ace dueces. All the 82, 92, T2 offsuit random hands that would have had us dominated have been thrown in the muck!

As for the seven, we've only got, suited 76, suited 87, and suited A7. Maybe one of the later limpers could hold an offsuit 76 or 87. Still, That's not many hands to worry about. Again, all the offsuit Q7 hands have been thrown away, and it's the potential for a dominating hand like that to stay around that really eats into your win probability.

And we have even more good news. There is a better than average chance that we are not up against an overpair, the kind of hand that really dominates us, and which our random opponents will sometimes hold. After all, if someone holds AA, why isn't he raising? This is a limit tournament after all.

In fact, the only reason 72s is hurt vs playing random hands is that, should a flush arrive, it's less likely that the 7 high flush will be good, due to the increased number of suited hands that we will face. But how much of the 72s vs. random hands win rate is due to flushes? A very small amount, and we're not even elliminating these wins, just reducing them.

I've given an example of reasonable hands that you could face where the 72s is the significant favorite to win. Admittedly, I've arranged the hands to be near-perfect for the 72, and you can arrange hands where the 72 is completely dead. The point is, the 72s is much less likely to be dominated than, say, QTs, and you don't need to be an overwhelming favorite here to justify a call.

The more I look at the math on this hand, the more I feel raising may be the correct play.


JMO.
-Eric


PS... A note on the "coin-flip" argument... this assumes that you are going to have three coin flip chances, which may not arrive before you are blinded away (only 20 hands left remeber). Besides this, it assumes that you will manage to get all your money in when you are presented with the coin-flip hand. Sure, it may not be too tough on the first one, but remember, this is a limit tournament. You can't just push your stack into the middle. What happens if you are lucky enough to double up on coin flips twice, and then discover 33 in your hand? You may not be able to get all-in preflop, and once all those overcards come raining down on the board, you're no longer a coin-flip in the hand if you continue to get action...

PPS.... It might seem that I am arguing that you should always play 72s in a multiway pot. Not so. The problem is the reverse implied odds this hand faces when the holder still has money to bet. For example, if the flop comes 29T, you may throw away the best hand when it's bet, or end up paying off someone with a better hand already made. In the cases where you are dominated, you'll lose much more than your original bet when you flop something. You miss out on all the winning chances when the flop misses everybody, but would have, say, paired your seven for the winner on the river, or you will pay dearly trying to draw to them. etc etc.

[BB King's]

When you are low on chips, they have a greater value ... Only when you are on the bubble !!! Not when you are far away from the money.

[punkass]

I like this explanation the best. You are the button on this hand, and you have hands after this to wait for. Yes, it is possible that the next hands you see are worse than 72s, but there aren't that many. I'd take the chance that my next 3 hands aren't 54, 62.

While the odd situation that you have set for us (7 limpers vs short stack) is very unusual and unlikely, I still would pass on this seemingly good opportunity to make 7x your stack. It's a false hope. Like playing the lottery.

Additional note, if this opportunity is great, then you would make this play with anything then. And that is not the case, IMO.

jwl

[elindauer]

Additional note, if this opportunity is great, then you would make this play with anything then. And that is not the case, IMO.

I agree that playing any hand is wrong here. I don't agree that playing 72s means playing any hand.

The main concern is avoiding a hand which is likely to be dominated. 72s, as ugly as it normally is to play (see my comments on reverse implied odds in this thread), passes this test when played all-in in this spot. It's unlikely that this hand is dominated.

Hands to avoid are those containing one high card with a weak kicker. These hands are almost certainly dominated. Been dealt Q6? Crushed by AQ, KQ, QJ, and QT, all hands your opponents may hold. Of particular importance is that your opponents don't normally need suited cards to be in with these hands against you. There are many more ways for the Q6 to be dominated than the 72s against normal playing opponents. In this spot, I would muck Q6 offsuit and many hands like it, but would seriously consider raising with 72s. To be perfectly honest, I'm not convinced that the hand even needs to be suited for the raise to be correct!


There have been many posts on 2+2, but allow me to be the first to say it: in this position, it is correct to raise with any two cards below eight.


Just my opinion.
-Eric

[indyace]

fold. would you and your friend like to play sometime.

[fnurt]

I don't think being dominated is such a big issue here since you're quite unlikely to win an 8-way pot with a single pair of 7s or 2s.

[The Prince]

Of course they do. The same way they all have the same value at the start of the tournament.

Near the money or not, you can still attibute a money expectation to each player left in the tournament. For example, if half the players remain and you are still far from the money, and each has the same stack size, then it is obvious that their expectation has doubled. You could easily translate that into chip values when stacks are uneven.

[Copernicus]

My percentages are not vs random hands, but vs a profile of players, though with 7 opponents there isnt a huge difference, and that is why they are probably slightly higher than what I assume was vs. random....as elindauer pointed out, the profile in this case is biased toward higher cards and drawing hands, and but not made pairs, since they are all limping, not raising.

Again, I totally disagree that you have to be on the "in the money" bubble for chips to be increasing in value. Almost out of the money is analagous to being on the bubble, when a play can put some (albeit small)tournament equity to zero or into a survivable position.

I wouldnt make this play with only 1 or two limpers, and I do raise here to try and narrow the field a little. Again the key isnt whether Im going to get a better hand in two circuits (much preferably the first, because after my next blinds no win may be enough), its whether Im going to get a better hand AND have this much money in the pot. You didnt like my rebuy example, heres another. Your homeless, thirsty and hungry. Stopped at a redlight are two cars that look familiar, you can only approach one. You know 9 black VWs, and 8 of them will give you a coupon for a cup of coffee, 1 will give you nothing. You know 9 red Mercedes, and 6 will give you a coupon for a steak dinner, and 3 will give you nothing. (Coupons because they have no cash value to enter into an odds calculation). I'm sure as hell going to the red car, even though I'm 3 times as likely to get stiffed. The <b>utility</b> of the steak dinner outweighs the coffee by far more than that

Seems we have some very strong opinions on both sides...thats why it was a debate in the first place, and thats why poker is an art and not a science. I've tried to work out the math on these "almost last gasp" situations and it is too complex to do without simulation, and I dont know of any tournament simulators.

Unless someone weighs in with a more credible position, I will rely on the poker-gods approval given when the flush was flopped!

[Schmed]

I fold and hope I catch in the next orbit. If 72s is the best hand u see in the next 10 it just isn't your day....