200 from 200 then 200 at 200

[Texas Pete]

"Trashish" hand or "above average"? Make up your mind first before you comment.

I would limp in here and play for the flush. It's getting close, but I think with the blinds at 50 and the SB and BB stacks what they are, this makes sense. This suited hand on the button is still a stack-busting hand. I would fold if raised and I don't think that would change the situation at the table much. Neither would capturing T75 from a steal. So, I wouldn't steal with this hand.

The other plays I talked about were prefaced with "if he wants...". Also, stealing and making a decision on the flop like you suggested is clearly bad, because K8-KQ may flat call that steal raise. If you would like to explain why that is a good move, go ahead. But so far I haven't learned anything from you except that you like to build straw men and knock them down. If you like I can just incorporate some of those insults into my sig and that would save you some time.

[Elektrik]

Pete,

Despite the very insulting tone of his post, citanul was right. K7 is trash, whether it is suited or not. Yes, it is above average trash, but it is trash none the less. However, you can raise here with what is most likely the best hand with the hopes to take down the blinds.

"only raise if you don't mind a reraise" is relavent here - he doesn't mind a reraise, because he has an easy fold.

Limping here is by far your worst option of the three. The blinds could have any hand, and you'll have absolutely no idea where you stand on the flop. Thinking the "flush possibility" is worth it is wrong - why don't you limp with 72s? Because it doesn't come up enough to make it relevant.

So how on earth is this a stack busting hand? Obbiously, if the flop comes Kxx and you go to the river with an opp you're probably beat, so you're hoping for two pair, trips, or a flush - so why aren't we limping any two suited cards here? By that logic, they're ALL stack busting hand.

I know citanul's tone was harsh, but I suggest you grow some thicker skin, especially on these boards; even those who insult you are usually still giving you something. Look at what he was trying to say. And as much as I hate to admit it, he is right, with logic like that it will be very tough to maintain a positive ROI in the 200's.

[Texas Pete]

If Kxs hits his hand there is only a small chance it's second best. That's why it's a stack busting hand. I see that it is negative T$ EV to limp. I wouldn't do it in a ring game. But if played correctly it is positive real $ EV. I think this goes for any suited connector here (but not any two suited cards) too. BB called because of the same principle. He's probably going to lose the hand, but he has some stack-busting potential there. Supposing it works 1 out of 100 times, it's worth it.

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]


Limping here is by far your worst option of the three. The blinds could have any hand, and you'll have absolutely no idea where you stand on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want them to play. Hopefully they flop something decent and bet the pot. That's why I said I'm playing for the flush. I'm folding a pair of kings.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
If Kxs hits his hand there is only a small chance it's second best. That's why it's a stack busting hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
If T7o flops 986 rainbow, it's the absolute nuts! That makes it a "stack busting hand" too. (Note also that you can't "stack bust" the blind, because he has more chips than you).

Do you have any idea how bad the odds are of making a flush? And most of them come via draws. If the flop comes with two clubs and BB bets the pot, whats your plan?

[ QUOTE ]
I see that it is negative T$ EV to limp. I wouldn't do it in a ring game. But if played correctly it is positive real $ EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aside from some very specific situations on the bubble, calling is not ever -CEV and +$EV, which is why 90% of the long-time posters on this forum advocate a tight style in the early rounds. The reason is that gaining chips does not help you as much as losing them hurts you. (Folding, on the other hand, is -CEV/+$EV heaps of the time).

[ QUOTE ]
Supposing it works 1 out of 100 times, it's worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Limping for 1/16th of your stack is worth doubling up 1 in 100 times?

If you honestly think that limping in a suited king on the button is a good idea because you get to lay the flush smackdown on the blinds, there's nothing left for me to say except "Welcome to the 200's, what's your nick?".

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]

Limping for 1/16th of your stack is worth doubling up 1 in 100 times?


[/ QUOTE ]

I this case, yes... what's the difference if the guy has 815 or 765 at this point in time? He's still going to be in the same situation, looking for a place to push once the blinds move up.

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]

Aside from some very specific situations on the bubble, calling is not ever -CEV and +$EV

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't know that. Why? What about raising?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Limping for 1/16th of your stack is worth doubling up 1 in 100 times?


[/ QUOTE ]

I this case, yes... what's the difference if the guy has 815 or 765 at this point in time? He's still going to be in the same situation, looking for a place to push once the blinds move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I don't understand Pete is that you're completely unwilling to accept anything that anyone tells you, no matter how nicely or in how much detail they take the time to do it. I'll make this pretty clear for you.

No one agrees with you. Until you can provide, oh, any evidence for your case as to why limping 1/16 of your stack to double up 1 in 100 times is a reasonable play, perhaps you should consider information that others are trying to give you. That being, that no, it is not worth limping 1/16 of your stack in this situation.

I don't understand your style of discussion, where the process is:

1 - Statement A
2 - Statement A is false
1 - No it's not
2 - Yes it is, here's why
1 - You're clearly not thinking about it *my* way
2 - That's because your way is wrong
1 - Is not.

Your other post in response to Chris' post is actually worthwhile and you may learn something from it. In fact, this subthread here about how to play K7s on the button etc should hopefully teach you something. Namely, I'm hoping for your sake that by the end of the discussion, having been given many reasons, you will understand that limping is the worst of all plays you could decide on.

Now, the question about this statement:

"Aside from some very specific situations on the bubble, calling is not ever -CEV and +$EV"

is an interesting one, that even people that know that limping on the button with K7s is wrong will probably learn something from discussing.

Pete, I think that you need to sit down and think about the goals in a SNG, and think about the gap concept some, and think about SPECIFICALLY why you would never, ever, ever, limp with K7s in that position.

I really hope that your next post includes a statement from you explaining why limping there would be wrong.

citanul

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]

Thm. 1.: Aside from some very specific situations on the bubble, calling is not ever -CEV and +$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thm. 2: If it doesn't hurt you or help your opponents when you lose, it is +$EV to spend ~5% of your initial stack at some point on a lottery ticket.

Def. of lottery ticket: a -CEV play with large implied odds.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Thm. 1.: Aside from some very specific situations on the bubble, calling is not ever -CEV and +$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thm. 2: If it doesn't hurt you or help your opponents when you lose, it is +$EV to spend ~5% of your initial stack at some point on a lottery ticket.

Def. of lottery ticket: a -CEV play with large implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now apparently you're going to need some help figuring out the difference between ~5% and ~15%? I'm not going to say that I necessarilly agree with what your "Thm. 2" is or anything, but you're getting closer to a reasonable assertion.

Perhaps you'd like to just make Thm. 3: "when in late position, with a few limpers, you can limp small pairs for up to ~5% of your stack."

K7s is *not* a lottery ticket hand. 33 *is* a lottery ticket hand. One hand hits MUCH more often than the other. Hell, T9s a lottery ticket hand. You just MUST NOT get over zealous with what hands/situations you think are these "lottery ticket" hands.

Also, exactly how is it, at basically any time, that you think that losing a hand will neither hurt you nor help your opponent that wins the hand?

Pete, now answer two questions:

1) Tell me why you shouldn't limp K7s on the button in the situation in the original hand

2) Tell me what specific situations on the bubble Chris is talking about

citanul