Another "do you gamble" spot

[citanul]

Both shorties are desperate and both know that they are desperate. They aren’t the brightest in the world, but they are gamboolers. The latter shorty is most likely aware enough to understand that the other guy can have lots of hands. There is no reason to expect that open raiser is doing anything wacky with his non-push raise.

Seat 3: Seat 3 ( $2735 )
Seat 4: Seat 4( $630 )
Seat 6: Hero ( $1310 )
Seat 1: Seat 1 ( $560 )
Seat 8: Seat 8 ( $3985 )
Seat 9: Seat 9 ( $780 )

Blinds(75/150)

** Dealing down cards **

Dealt to Hero [ 7h 7d ]

Seat 8 folds.
Seat 9 folds.
Seat 1 raises [300].
Seat 3 folds.
Seat 4 is all-In [555]
Hero …?

citanul

[gumpzilla]

Since you're reasonably short yourself, I probably call. The original bettor will probably call as well, but I think you'll pretty frequently be up against underpairs and A4 type hands, at least often enough to make up for the times where they collectively have 12 outs to beat you.

[45suited]

I fold here. Unless seat 1 is very tricky, he has an overpair. SB could have just an over or two, but it looks like you're going to be playing this hand for set value only. There will be 1340 in the pot after seat 1 calls, you would be putting in 480 more. Not a good enough price IMO.

[Irieguy]

Wow, this is an autofold for me. Especially with seat 8 protecting my SB from seat 3 in the hands to come, and with the biggest stack to my left.

I can't imagine somebody making a compelling argument otherwise.

Irieguy

[45suited]

Gump, doesn't the mini-raise from seat one concern you?

[junkmail3]

I think you'll be up against at least 3 overcards in this situation often enough to make it not worth the push.

You could be up against a lower pair and one or two overs, but I don't like getting all in with a medium pair and two opponents.

(If you were chip leader, this would be an easy call - but that is completly unrealted)

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Gump, doesn't the mini-raise from seat one concern you?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the original post:

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason to expect that open raiser is doing anything wacky with his non-push raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we take this at face value, which is reasonable since citanul said they aren't all that sharp, this can frequently be a pretty junky hand. It's even conceivable that this guy can fold, though I admit that it's unlikely. Since I don't find myself in this situation very often, it's quite possible that my intuitions about what kind of equity we have are way off. I'll mess around with PokerStove for a little bit now and see what I think.

[rydazzle]

I fold too, 77s are too vulnerable 3-way...I guess that's why the "do you gamble" post, eh...this is a "do you donate" to me...

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]

Since you're reasonably short yourself, I probably call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fold for the exact same reason.

[gumpzilla]

What do people think are realistic ranges for the two bettors? The fact that they are desperate, and that citanul says the minraise from the first one doesn't really mean anything special, suggests to me that we can be up against a pretty broad range here. I think any ace, any broadway and any pair is a pretty reasonable start for both of them. What do other people think? Against the range any ace, any broadway and any pair for both of them, Monte Carlo estimates from PokerStove after running for a while suggests that 77 has ~38.5% equity in the pot, which is enough to make it a chip EV call. I think that the relative shortness of your stack with this many people remaining suggests that it's probably worth taking a marginal chip EV gamble. Irie raises some good points about game structural concerns, but I think this is reasonably close.