Under The Microscope 003: FTOPS Event 1, Conclusion

"He has nothing, in its most violent form."
-Groucho

Thanks to those of you who commented.

I must confess that this was a bit of a misdirection. I'm not surprised that everybody I talked to about this hand, as well as all the commenter, told me to fold there.

I mean, that's a pretty clear fold, right? A raiser, a caller, I show aggression with a re-raise (I agree, probably not enough, though I don't really like the idea of a push when I still have plenty of chips behind), the original raiser re-RE-raises All In, and with the initial re-raiser (me) left to act, the smooth caller, who started with an M of 16 and at this point only has 8% of his chips committed to the pot, once again smooth calls for 66% of his chips?

That's somebody who has a hand that can stand a lot of aggression. Not only that, but it's a hand that doesn't mind starting a dry-side pot with me post-flop, or just calling my all-in pre-flop.

The only hand that can do all that is Aces. Even Kings doesn't really want to risk an Ace on the flop and will raise to isolate.

So, unless this guy game is just underwater, I must put him on Aces here or maybe MAYBE a really gambly pair of cowboys. Somebody has QQ beat there. Almost certainly the caller. This is true in this situation that you have to fold. You must.

Except . . .

Villain 1 had Jacks. This is about what I put him on, and when he flipped them, I thought, 'you poor sap, you're dead.'

And then Villain 2 flipped pocket sevens.

Pocket sevens.

He flipped pocket sevens.

He flipped pocket sevens.

I'm going to repeat that for those of you who might be reading quickly:

He flipped pocket sevens.

And they weren't even suited.

Talk about eating a brain tumor for breakfast.

These were the cards that justified the initial smooth-call (fair play for a set-minor) and THEN justified a CALL for two-thirds of his remaining chips with the initial re-raiser left to act.

Let me tell you how often sevens are good there: Never.

Let me tell you what I think of Villain 2's game: Not much.

Board didn't improve either of them, and I would have been in the top ten in chips if I'd poooooshed with my lowly (so I had thought of them) Queens.

There isn't really enough OMG in the world.

Thbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbtth!!!!

_____________

So, here's the point of this post: I don't regret the decision to fold there. The results are immaterial. Totally immaterial. That's a fold, right there. I did the right thing. Maybe I should have pushed where I raised pre-flop.

But this is the FTOPS. It's a big tourny. Big buyin. We're three hours in. We're talking money here. We'd expect play evolved somewhere beyond the Paleolithic, wouldn't we?

The Jack-pusher, that's pretty questionable. But he may just have a bunch of gamble in him and think he's racing against overs. Calling with sevens? The guy needs a steel plate in his head. If THAT is how people play in that situation, should we just be adjusting our expectations? I'm not talking about "Why, why, why . . . I'll show those donkeys by PLAYING like one!" at all. That way lies tilt. That way lies chip hemmorage.

But there is a slide rule in my head for players that gives them credit for a certain base-line of skill and knowledge. And that's the base-line that I had to assign to dum-dum there, because I had no read on him.

The question is: Given the absolute wicker-brains that seem to be out there, everywhere, at all levels, do I need to shift that base-line down a bit? Do I need to assume a lower level of play for the average player? Are Queens going to usually be good in a multi-way pot of that kind, or (more specifically), are they going to be good often enough?

Because calling with sevens, people. Calling. Pocket sevens. FTOPS.

Maybe the lowest common denominator is lower than we think.