So today when I got into the 25-50 blind no limit, nine handed game at the Bellagio they told me there was a seven deuce bonus. Win the pot with 72, even without a flop and every player must give you $200. Which brings up this question.

Seven players fold to you in the small blind. You have 2000 more in your stack and must move all in or fold. With what hands should you? What should the big blind call you with? If I'm reading the chart in the Mathematics of Poker correctly, the move in hands would normally be any pair, any ace suited, K7 or better suited, Q8 or better suited, J9 or better suited, T8 or better suited, 98suited, 87 suited, A7 or better offsuit, KT or better offsuit, QT or better offsuit, or JT offsuit.

The calling hands would be fives or better, A8 or better suited, KJ or better suited, AT or better offsuit, and KQ offsuit.

Does the $1600 bonus (plus your extra $200 risk) change that to any signicant degree?

I'll take a swing at this. Add in 27 and 97s for raising all in. throw in 33-44 (not too sure about this), A7s, and 27 for calling.

Obviously you should move in with 72 now.

Your opponent should only add A9o to the calling hands. He cannot call with 72.

I assume that if your opponent only calls with 12 more combos that it should barely change the move-in hands if at all. So no, the $1600 bonus does not change that to a significant degree, other than moving in with 72 of course.

I was incorrect about calling with 72, wouldn't be getting the pot odds even with such a wide range, but yes move all-in with 72, and add A7s to call list, why add A9o but not A7s?

I ran sims on PokerStove and A9o got over the threshold as a call hand but A7s did not.

I assume you have only 200$ in your stack, not 2000$ as I still dont see why must you must move all in or fold?

Am I missing something?

It's a hypothetical situation, you have 2k, and some rule says it's folding or shoving only.

(right?)

of course you call with 72

I assume you mean that your opponent in the BB will of course call with 72off. This is ******ed.

* He doesnt get the money unless he wins!

Thats weird how A9o went over the threshold and not A7s, you would think you'd rather play a hand that dominates the only other hand that would supposedly be played. I did not use any programs etc to come to my decision (which is an error in itself) I used logic. I made a mistaken with calling with 27 without doing a quick run of pot odds, which you would not be getting enough of.

Consider showing a seven after you move in with A7, K7s, or 77, or a deuce after you move in with A2s, if that play is legal.

Turns out this is a bad idea; the extra money you win when he calls your decent hands with just about any 2 do not make up for the amount of money you lose when he calls your 72o with just about any 2.

um, so don't show any cards when you have 72

btw, 72 vs 72 wins $200 from each player, just another reason to play 72. A chopped pot is a win, but not always e.g. with a (better) made flush.

Not really Game Theory as I'm not presuming perfect play by opponent, but as noone mentioned this so far.

The abscence of prior raises implies 72 has not been dealt to other players. So the BB is slightly more likely to have 72 than usual, but on other hand there's no 'real' hands out there either it seems,so does this balance out? I've no idea

If we fold, then there's (2x4x4) 32 'fatal' combo's out of 2652 which cost us $200, beyond the $25 surrended.

Assuming we do not have a 7 or a 2 in our hand, there's actually 32/2450 'kills'. So I think folding, 'costs' $2.61 more than usual.

So if we know, against that player (remember they might call or fold more frequently than theoretically correct), our expecation neutral hands, are going to include all the ones that would 'cost' $2.61 as well as the break evens and up (taking into account rake).

Where does it say that exploitive strategy is not part of game theory? Many 2+2'ers seem upset when anyone suggests one should deploy a non-optimal strategy.

It doesn't there, but I have read elsewhere that "Game Theory" seeks winning strategies against optimal play by opponents. Obviously I do not want to upset anyone, and so discretion is the better part of valour etc. But practical effect on play, is interesting to me.

According to my approximate calcs, with 8 opponents there'll be a '72' killer hand, around 10% of time, which benefits from invisibily inflated pot (to tune of $1,600).
Rather than focus on well covered details, I was chucking an idea out, and see if anyone could make anything of it, from a different angle.

As mentioned, a Ueber-Dominating pair of 7's is not going to gain much value in practical terms, as a set is very unlikely when you most need to win, so 72o will be a superior hand, under non-Push conditions. Obviously, folding a pair 7's will be easier than 8's as you will face 72o far less often! :lol:

If your goal is to lose money, then sure, call in the BB with 72.

when you have the A,7 it decreases the chances your opponent has raised with 7,2. (because he can only have 12 combos of 7,2 rather than 16.)

ahh that makes perfect sense, thank you robk.

How much is the extra $1,600 to win on top of the $2,000, from an outdraw worth?

Say you expect to call and win 1/3 times, then it indeed would cost you $4,000 before you pick up $3,600.

Is the basket of raising hands, going to make you that much of a dog, that often though?

Plug it into a calculator. PokerStove, specifically.

So the calculator will tell me the basket of raising hands?

You know this is funny, it's meant to be a game theory thread, a question gets asked, answer is plug it into a black box ie PokerStove. I read to, that actually it shouldn't change things much, but all in all, the answer's aren't really illuminating.

So the answer to my question is actually, yes you are too big a dog, on average. The tempting proposition is going to marginally loosen up play, but may unduly influence players into mistakes.

Hopefully asking the question, cleared things up for someone though. Understanding it, is fundamental for understanding starting hand guides.

But, if a player is short-stacked....

So is there a way to make more money out of 72o, by being shallow stacked and having it as a calling hand, not just a raising hand?

You must play 77. It's going to cost you $200 if 72 wins. You must stop 72 from winning.

The original post tells you the basket of raising hands.