A rag or 98o?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
In a situation where It's growing likely I'll face one or more calls, my M is very low (lets say 3-4 or &lt, I'm out of the money, It's folded to me, I like 98. As decribed, your often (and properly) going to get called by any decent stack with any pair, any ace, any k-t or two face and better.


[/ QUOTE ]
Against that range, 98o wins 37.3% when called.
Against that range, A7o wins 44.4% when called.
A7o is called less frequently.

I do not understand why people are going on and on about how much they like having two live cards. Why is that more important than money?

[ QUOTE ]

Without M's the question cannot be answered very accurately.


[/ QUOTE ]
This might be meaningful if you could point to some realistic M, and some resulting calling distribution, so that 98o would do better than A7o. Otherwise, it looks like you are stubbornly refusing to give up a faulty argument even after it has been shown to be wrong.

There are arguments for 98o. It does better than A7o in some multiway pots. However, for that to be relevant you have to expect to be called by multiple players a significant amount of the time, which means picking up the blinds is quite unlikely, and pushing with substandard hands is likely to be a bad idea.

By the way, there are much better strategies than pushing with any two in early position when your M is 3. It's a copout by people who don't want to be bothered by figuring out how to play well with a short stack, despite the fact that being short-stacked is a normal part of tournament poker, and that stack could easily represent more than a buy-in of equity.

[GeeBeeQED]

Phzon, I'm not stubornly attached to this idea. Perhaps you misundstand. In fact I enjoy the first part of your responce showing the percentages (I presume) against my suggested calling range. You've got me thinking and that is why I participate here.

I clearly state the the if-then situation and say "folded" to me. That's not early pos, I'm eluding to mid to late with that remark.

I was not suggesting letting oneself get to an M of 3 was part of any strategy that should be employed. How you got there has little bearing on this question that I can figure out. I was just describing a hypathetical condition where I fugure the calling range for my opponents will be very wide. Yes that is how I'd play it there with an M of 3. Put that in your notes. However, the purpose of my post was not to venture off into end game commentary. I think that widens the discussion beyond the OP. Just setting the scene.

With respect,
Dave