PLAYING $1 AND $2 NO LIMIT CASH GAMES
WINNING WITH SMALL CARDS by Sam O’Connor

Good play or bad?

A good reader asks:

My friend, Eddie, and I are in a $1 - $2 game. Eddie, raises four times the big blind with 7-2 OS and flops two pair, then rivers a boat. Was this smart? This is an ongoing argument I see at tables. "Why would anyone raise with seven/deuce"?

The reader has proposed the old question of whether winning with 7-2 in the pocket is good play or bad play. After all, Eddie did win with the hand and then gleefully stacked a lot of chips.

The answer to whether it was good or bad play is: It could be EITHER, depending on Eddie’s intent.

And so we have another “it depends” kind of answer. Don’t you love those?

Fortunately, “it depends” is a phrase that frequently answers no limit hold'em questions. We call it “fortunate” because it suggests varying battle plans and that’s what makes the game interesting.

Let’s begin the answer to whether it was a good or bad play by defining some terms:

1) Tactical play is how we maneuver in the moment. It is play to win the present hand.
2) Strategic play is how we maneuver in the broader picture. It is play to win a future hand.

We’ll examine both possibilities for Eddie’s seven/deuce.

First, the tactical play of the hand.

Certainly, it’s not a good play if all Eddie’s intending to do is win the present hand with the worst starting cards in the deck. So, naturally, if Eddie’s intent is to win a single deal with card value, he should almost never start with 7-2. In other words, calling or raising with 7–2 just to win the hand for value is out of the question. Tactically, he might be in a position to bluff, either before or after the flop, and bluffing arguably could be a good play. But, if Eddie plays this 7-2 hand for tactical reasons and he wins with value, he has played badly and just got plain lucky.

Now, the strategic play of the hand.

Let’s say Eddie has set a table image of being some kind of power player who plays premium hands but bluffs now and then. It’s an image many of us have when we’ve been at the table awhile and have gotten a few good cards. When Eddie has that image, he has the opportunity to set a trap with small cards. So, since he has been raising pre-flop like a Trojan, Eddie continues to raise with his 7–2. He does this from a middle to late position with the idea that if the flop isn’t favorable to him, he can still make a tactical continuation bet and take the pot when the opponents are easy. If that works, the pre-flop raise isn’t wasted and Eddie’s image is still intact. And, with opponents who make a habit of calling obvious continuation bets, Eddie has the option of checking the hand and eventually mucking it without much waste or loss of image.

When Eddie tries it once or twice again and he is at last lucky with a co-operative flop, Eddie then makes the continuation bet and gets called because, with his apparent high card play and bluffing image, players may not believe any of the garbage on the board helped him. The trap is set. Additionally, Eddie might, depending on the players and the turn card, get a call on the turn, building a very nice pot.

In the reader’s story, Eddie makes a full house on the river. Whether his opponent bets because of the river open pair or not, Eddie moves all in. If moving all-in is inappropriate because of large stacks, he can make an oversized bet that appears once again to be a bluff and perhaps get a call quicker than an apparent value bet or an under bet. In any case, if the opponents have any kind of hand at all and view Eddie as a sometimes bluffer, he could easily be called.

The long term pay off.

The situation immediately above is an example of a pay-off in strategic play. All the previous small cards and small bets that had to be thrown away, after several uncooperative flops, have become well worth the cost and trouble. The strategic player may lose a few scuffles but, when he connects, he usually wins the day.

It’s good to remember that, after Eddie has shown the winning small card hand and taken the big pot, he may be richer but he suddenly has a new and different image as a bigger risk taker. He will have to shift gears in order to play effectively with his new image and a more involved game will now be afoot.

How much did Eddie know?

Surely Eddie knew seven/deuce is the worst starting hand because the cards are the smallest cards that don’t connect. Seven/deuce suited wouldn’t be much help because the flush, if made, will be a no limit baby flush and hard to play for big bucks against a possible full grown flush. So it’s often better to use the above strategic play with small or middle cards that offer the possibility of making a small straight, something the opponent who plays big cards likely does not have. Nevertheless, whichever small cards are chosen, the strategist might have to try several times before getting a co-operative flop.

The nature of the opponents and rhythm of the game are more the deciding features of the small card raise than are the type of small pocket cards. And Eddie shouldn’t attempt it too many times in a row. If he tries it a few times and it doesn’t work, he should back off before his raises become ordinary and everybody figures out what he’s doing. Among thinking players, Eddie would soon be just another player entering pots willy-nilly and he wouldn’t have the strong player and bluffer image needed for the big pay-off river play.

So, back to the reader’s story. When Eddie raised with seven/deuce, he was either tactically gambling or he hit the pay-off at the end of a sound strategic plan.

Oh, come now. Which do you think it was?

Sam O’Connor is the author of the new book "How to Dominate $1 and $2 No Limit Hold ‘Em".
You can contact him at HowToDominate@aol.com