Bad Cards Preferable?

[KenProspero]

I was in a situation last night in a SNG. Because of an early bad beat, I found myself down to my last chip very early.

Next hand, with the button, I'd dealt something like 5-3o. 4 or 5 have limped in. I'm thinking to myself, to I throw my last chip in now, or wait for better cards (I have 7 more hands before I'm forced to bet).

Ultimately, I decided that because of my pot odds, I was actually better with small cards than a 'good' hand.

Rationale -- Although I was a big underdog, if I did actually hit a hand I was very likely to win the pot, since the cards that helped me would not likely help many others. Given that I can't reasonably expect a 'big big' hand with only 7 chances, this seemed my best shot.

Question -- Does this make any sense at all from a theoritical point of view? What other situations is it better to have (and play) bad cards?

[ QUOTE ]
Although I was a big underdog, if I did actually hit a hand I was very likely to win the pot, since the cards that helped me would not likely help many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, you are less likely to have your outs covered. However, against 5 opponents, this hand won't win very often. I'd wait.

[AaronBrown]

Your logic is good, and not limited to short-stack situations. For example, I feel that one-gap pocket cards are more valuable than connectors against good players. The reduced odds of getting the straight are more than offset by the greater amount of money you make when you get it. If the board contains Q 9 8, everyone suspects a straight. But if it's Q 10 8, most people will dismiss the possiblity.

But I wouldn't say bad cards are good, I would say cards that play well against the hands most people play are good. A 2 is a terrible hand, not because it doesn't win a lot if everyone plays to showdown, but because it's so often second-best against the hands people really play. 8 6 can do a lot of good things that others will not share or suspect.

However, you have to balance this against the virtues of strength. If no one improves, 8 6 loses to A 2. You only improve about half the time, and a quarter of the time both hands will improve. So you like strength against one other player, good playing possibilities against many.

While 53o doesn't have a whole lot in the way of prospects in any direction, you can profitably jam something like JTs in multiway pots.

What happened in the hand?

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
What happened in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I'm not sure this is relevant to a poker theory discussion, and I wasn't going to bring it up, but since you ask ..... I hit a 5 on the flop, and a 3 on the river, and quintipled-up (sextupled up?) whatever.

Went on a tear winning several hands, to get to a position where I was slightly behind the leader in chips (and at that point thought I was going to have a real chip and a chair story).

Drifted a bit, lost some chips so was in push-or-fold land again, pushed with QQ, was up against AJ and an A hit the turn. Finished third. Can't even complain about the beat considering the luck it took to get back into contention after I was down to a single chip.

However, it may have been the most fun I've had in a while.

[wildzer0]

If you're down to 1 bb or less and you have a few hands before the bb takes you out I tend to try to wait until the BB hits me or throw it in with AX any two cards over 10, any pp or any suited connectors and hope to get lucky. I doubt it really matters though.

[AaronBrown]

53o isn't hopeless. I know this is an extreme example, but 53o against AKo, AQo, AJo and KQo is not only the favorite, it has about 1 chance in 3 of winning. High cards are good, but if everyone else has them, you have a better chance of winning with low cards. If a 5 or 3 shows up, you can win, if not, or if high cards show up as well, the other players have to split the wins.

In that position, I certainly want to go in with bigger cards. Especially on short stack, you're going to get called by anyone with Kx (if they're high in chips) just for the shot to put you out.

So I'd prefer to get my chips in with at least the A high.

This isn't always possible. And in two recent situations that come to mind, I was all but forced all in on big blind - both times I had 63o. First time, I flopped a straight. Second time, I flopped trip 3s.

But my overall feeling is, this ISN'T the hand I want to throw all my chips in with. This is a hand I may feel "gambly" with - and if I hit, then I can win some big money, but if not, I can still get away from easily.

[EMcWilliams]

I personally thin an overlooked concept in tourney play that I have not hard much about is the idea of a "necessary pot." IF you are crippled by a beat or just are a short stack for various reasons, I think there comes a point that there are certain pots that you need to be in, despite your cards. Obviously the goal in any tourney is to win, and if you are a short stack that is obviously going to be difficult. This is where my idea comes into play. Not only is winning a and important, but getting chips is too. I know im having trouble expressing this, but I think an example will help:

Hero takes a beat, is in the CO with 2500 chips remaining with 500/1000 blinds. Other average stacks total from 7000-12000, max at 22,000. There is an UTG raise (placing hero all in), and 4 calls to the CO. I think that for the Hero to have any real chance in the tourney, this pot is necessary. He needs to call with any two here. Sure, he is most likely a dog here, but he has a chance to make smoe serious chips here and get back in contention. This is a case where getting paid is more important than the holding of the hero.