Is folding here weak / tight?

[You're No Daisy]

This hand probably isn't that spectacular, but I'm just stating out playing 7 Card Stud High (as well as Stud/8). I just want to make sure my line of thinking is correct.

Absolute Poker Seven Card Stud HIGH $0.25/$0.50 - 2007-06-27 22:20:56 (ET)
Seat 1 - Seat 1 ($2.20 in chips)__Posts the Ante $0.05
Seat 3 - Seat 3 ($4.60 in chips)__Posts the Ante $0.05
Seat 4 - Seat 4 ($3.36 in chips)__Posts the Ante $0.05
Seat 5 - Seat 5 ($13.75 in chips)__Posts the Ante $0.05
Seat 6 - Seat 6 ($3.20 in chips)__Posts the Ante $0.05
Seat 7 - HERO ($8.90 in chips)__Posts the Ante $0.05
Seat 8 - Seat 8 ($17.01 in chips)__Posts the Ante $0.05

*** 3rd STREET ***
Seat 1 - Pocket [H H 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]]__Calls
Seat 2 - Pocket [H H Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]]__Calls
Seat 3 - Pocket [H H 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]]__Bring-In $0.10__Folds
Seat 4 - Pocket [H H 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]]__Folds
Seat 6 - Pocket [H H 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]]_Calls Bring-In $0.10__Calls $0.15
HERO - Pocket [Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]]__Raises to $0.25
Seat 8 - Pocket [H H 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]]__Folds

*** 4TH STREET *** (4 small bets + Plus the Antes = $1.70)
Seat 1 - Pocket [H H 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]]__Calls
Seat 2 - Pocket [H H Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]]__Bets $0.25
Seat 6 - Pocket [H H 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]]__Calls
HERO - Pocket [Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]]__Folds

Is folding in this situation too weak/tight? If there is anything I have learned at the micro limits, it's that "a bet means what it means." Each of the villains in this hand who called my raise have a VP$IP of 66% if that helps any.

My logic for folding this hand was the only card that really helps me is the case Queen. I figured since Seat 2 donk bet 4th, he caught an Ace.

I'm assuming this is a fairly straight forward fold.

AC

[CarlosChadha]

Its too tight. Yes, it is likely that he just made Aces, but no one else caught anything super scary, so you are likely in a slim 2nd place out of 4 people, so you probably have around 25% equity in the pot. It is unlikely that there will be a raise on 4th, so your immediate odds (assuming all call) are 9-1. Lots of good things can happen on 5th: you can catch one of 6 outs to improve, you can pick up a backdoor diamond draw (worth about 1 out), you could catch another spade-allowing you to get a free card if people fear your possible flush, or the guy with the ace was semi-bluffing w/ his scared card and a str8 draw or a small pair and he'll probably check. If none of those things happens on 5th (or your cards start falling even more dead) then you can fold 5th.

Carlos

FYI-Your pot size is wrong on 4th 4SB+7ante+1BI=$1.45 or about 6 SBs

[SweetLuckyMe]

Yes, that's a fold.

[edit] Oops, just realized this was stud hi and not hi/lo. You're playing for the whole pot, so you can continue to 5th, but if they develop and you don't improve that's the time to get out.

[eastcoaster]

I'd probably let it go on 4th, too.

It's tight, but not weak/tight at those limits, IMO.

[You're No Daisy]

Hi Carlos,

Can you help me understand what's going on here? Is this a pot odds and equity thing? I just don't see any reason to go on with the hand. I raised 3rd street and got called. The when the Ace came to villain on 4th, he donk bet right into me. That screams "I have an Ace." I just don't understand why I'd waste another bet or two on the hand. I don't think the players at this level are as advanced as we think they are. As a side note, I'm a NLHE player broadening his horizons with Omaha 8/b and Stud, Stud/8.

Thanks,

AC

[CarlosChadha]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Carlos,

Can you help me understand what's going on here? Is this a pot odds and equity thing? I just don't see any reason to go on with the hand. I raised 3rd street and got called. The when the Ace came to villain on 4th, he donk bet right into me. That screams "I have an Ace." I just don't understand why I'd waste another bet or two on the hand. I don't think the players at this level are as advanced as we think they are. As a side note, I'm a NLHE player broadening his horizons with Omaha 8/b and Stud, Stud/8.

Thanks,

AC

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi AC,

I'm glad to here that you are giving different games a try. In no limit where the bets are usually around the size of the pot, it is usually correct to fold anything but a very strong draw when you realize that your opponent has you beat. But in limit stud it is often times correct the chase with the obvious worse hand because the pot is so large compared to the bet that you have to call, so you don't have to win very often to get more money out of the pot in the end than what oyu put in. So yes, it is basically a pot odd and equity decision. In stud, 4th street is very similar to the flop in limit hold'em because the pot is often very large and the bets are still small, so it makes sense to peel with some marginal holdings.

There is another more stud specific issue going on here. Unlike hold'em where everyone with a single pair improves to 2 pairs when the board pairs, in stud when you make a 2nd pair it helps only you. So in hold'em if you are sure someone else has the same pair with a hicher kicker, you only have 3 outs to hit your kicker to beat them. In stud, every card in your hand is a kicker, so you have a lot more outs with a pair that is behind another pair (even though in this case you cards were a bit dead).

Lastly, the two other players who seem to have either worse pairs or very weak draws are padding your pot odds. If you were heads up agains the probable aces (and your cards were just as dead) it would be a closer decision. You don't mind the extra players that much because you know that you will have to improve to queens up or better to win, and since no one has an OESD or 4 flush (implying they have little pairs), if they improve to a smaller two pair you beat them anyway.

Hope the clears some things up. I recommend that you go to www.twodimes.net/poker and run some equity simulations to see if your hand is really in bad shape equity wise (25% would be break-even in a four way pot).

Regards,
Carlos

[CarlosChadha]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd probably let it go on 4th, too.

It's tight, but not weak/tight at those limits, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally when writers talk about low limit stud they recommend playing very tightly, and there reasoning is usually because "at these limits, people have what they are representing." The advise is sound, but the reasoning isn't. The reason people often have what they are representing in low limit stud is because, traditionally, the lower limits have a smaller proportional ante (ie. 10/20 has a $1 ante while 100/200 has a $25 ante) that encourages tight play. In this game, the ante is quite large, which would encourage people to play loser than normal and to try to steal the pot more often.

[Andy B]

I don't think that $.25/.50 players make significant adjustments for the size of the ante.

Low-limit stud players tend to be pretty predictable primarily because they suck at poker. Those who do have a clue tend to be pretty predictable because their opponents suck at poker, and straightforward play gets the money.

[Andy B]

This is a call. Pot odds, baby.

Carlos posts good.

[CarlosChadha]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that $.25/.50 players make significant adjustments for the size of the ante.

Low-limit stud players tend to be pretty predictable primarily because they suck at poker. Those who do have a clue tend to be pretty predictable because their opponents suck at poker, and straightforward play gets the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that at this limit people are probably not adjusting for ante size and that those who have clue are predictable because that is what makes money against bad players.

I DON'T agree that most low limit players are predicable, and further more if they did tend to be "pretty predictable" it would NOT be primarily because they suck. I actually find low limit players to be very UNpredictable because they are unaware of basic strategy concepts (ie. pot odds) and thus make decisions for very personal reasons that are totally unknowable to me as a stranger. (So if you know them well, then maybe their nonstrategic moves are predictable).

Carlos