My new hypothesis on playing 'junk' cards!

[elmitchbo]

in the past two days i've watched Gus H play in WSOP and Daniel N. do commentary for a celebrity tournament. of course we've all seen them play before, and Gus in particular has been discussed alot as of late. listening to Daniel do commentary was very interesting. he could obviously see all of the players cards, and anytime someone folded a hand like T7s or 75s he would say 'no! give me those cards... i'll raise with that in his position' or 'i could make a living on what she mucks'. i knew he played hands like that, but i still didn't understand the justification. later i heard Gus say 'any two cards can win... and when you're up against it.. it doesn't really matter whats in your hand.'(to paraphrase)

at this point i reference HOH's list of common hand vs. hand situations. i had some additional thoughts that led to the soon to be famous hypothesis /images/graemlins/cool.gif. if you're facing AA it makes very little difference what you have. you're best chance is another pocket pair, but it doesn't matter if it's QQ, 55, or 33. just two random cards is almost as good... you're a 4.5:1 dog with the PP, and a 5:1 with two lower cards. so basically Gus is right, if your up against it there's not much you can do, so yor hand doesn't really matter. in that underdog situation all hands are pretty equal, but they can't be equal in all situations, right? weel, they're not equal, but i think 'junk' hands might not be as bad as people think.

so here's the hypothesis... I think any 2 cards that are suited and less than a 4 card gap are as good as a medium or small PP. that's not great, but it is playable in many situations. if you think about it... both hands need alot of help on the flop, because they can't win unimproved. if they do hit the flop, then you have a pretty strong hand that is well disguised.

to expand the hypothesis... some marginal hands that are recommended as playable (KJs) aren't really much better than 'junk hands' (T7s). against a lower pair either hand is basically a coin flop. the only real difference is the increased chance that your up against a higher pair (AA vs. KJs or AA-JJ vs. T7s) or that you face two higher cards. we've aready established that if you're facing AA or KK there's not much you can do so any cards (T7s) will suffice. in the scenario of facing 2 higher cards the flop will be the key... it always is, even with AK or AQ. the drawdack of the lower cards only comes into play if the flop hits both of you or neither of you. if it hits neither that's ok, because I know I need help on the flop and I'll bail without it. it is certainly possible for the flop to hit me but hit the 2 higher cards a little bit harder. those cases will be rare, and i might still be able to sniff out the danger. when i don't i just take my lumps. you can't win every hand, even with KK. i would guess those situations would happen no more often than trips being drawn out by a str8/flush, to continue the small PP comparison.

so... if you hold/face a super premium hand you're in good shape/trouble. those hands are dealt with equal frequency to every one, but they are rare. you have junk hands (that can win) almost all of the time. playing these hands won't be +ev all of the time (that's what AA and KK are for) but they may not have the -ev that i thought intuitively. how aggresivley do you play them? traditional wisdom would say play them cheaply in a multi way pot that can provide you the best odds. i don't disagree with that. i can also see the benefit of singling out a player heads up, which will build a big pot and narrow ther range of hands you need to beat. then you can be realtively sure he has something high and premium. that should let you know right away if the flop was good enough for you to take him. after all if he has AA any two cards are as good as the next.

i think the deception that this type of play creates is worth alot. from my reasoning (which might be wrong), you have two choices. play super tight and only get involved with premium hands, or play a huge range of hands like i described above. the drawback to only showing down good hands is the hit you take in profit when everyone figures out your raise only means one thing. the benefit to the super aggro is the huge payoff wen you do get the premium hand and every one has seen you cry wolf all day. i think the added profit from those hands, combined with the times your junk actually wins, and the times you take down the pot with nothing makes up for the times you pay to see the flop and bail. this as close as i've come to understanding the thinking behind the play of guys like Gus and Daniel.

flame away!!! i did no pokerstove simulations or anything like that.... these are just the thoughts i had last night. let me know where i went off the tracks.

[Mike]

Keep making posts like this and there goes the conference! Seriously, I agree with your point as long as you are not speaking strictly to a limit game.

I play limit and I like playing junk because it is fun and I am serious enough at my job. The line between winning and losing is very very fine at limit when you play junk hands. You have to be certain what your opponents will do, and exactly how far you can push. You also have to have the correct frequency of hands for the table at that moment.

One nice pot more than makes for seven junk limps, but it doesn't make up for seven turn folds because your opponents did not do what you wanted them to do and your hand didn't hit.

With NL or PL you have the leverage of limping and dragging large enough pots to offset your many limps when your hands hit. But then these games have their own set of perils, which I am not one to disuss with any real authority.

Good post again.

[deacsoft]

The next time you feel the need to write a post this long why not just call it an essay and submit it to Mr. Malmuth for the magazine. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Dan Mezick]

Doesnt any discussion of the super-aggro style have to start with commnetary on Doyle at or around page 420 of SUPER SYSTEM? He wrote the book on this stuff, why reinvent the wheel.

[Rococo]

You are ignoring stack depth, which is a critical factor. You will get eaten alive playing junk in a cash game if either you or most of your opponents are short stacked (e.g. less than 40x BB). The failure of some opponents to account for this factor is one of the reasons why some of the strong players on this site have experimented with buying in short in the 10/20 NL games, etc.

[memphis57]

Interesting thoughts. I've seen this kind of style played, both with success and without it - it might be called the "talented LAG" style. I think against typical "action players" it can be made to work well. One type you may have trouble with is the tricky TAG, one who mixes a typical TAG style with about 10% of the style you describe and bluffs even more, and isn't afraid to bluff all the way down to the river. He'll let you commit preflop and then raise - with two or three other raise-minded players this could see you getting capped a lot and spending way too much to see the flop with your 57s. Post-flop you'll usually be behind when he hits in TAG mode, and of the times he is in he will hit a greater percent than you, but his 10% junk and 20% bluff won't let you reliably determine when that is by his betting. But he'll bail when there are straights and flushes on the board, where you stand to make the most money. Too many players like that could eat this style alive.

True, there are still ways to beat him, but even with my meagre skill level I've been pretty successful holding my own against talented LAGs with this approach.

[Voltron87]

Junk hands aren't as far behind premium hands mathematically, except for AA and KK, but there are other weaknesses. 25s isn't that far behind AK, but when you are playing 25s it is hard to know where you are, whether you are ahead. With AK it is much easier. When you have AK with an A on board, you can be fairly sure you are ahead headsup. If you have 25, and the board is qj5... you have no clue. So junk hands are also harder to play, especially against good players who will be aggressive and shut you out.

That is why they are junk and not profitable.

[k_squared]

I agree. the difference between 'good' hands and 'bad' hands is simply that with 2-5s you won't play it to the river (or even on the turn) if you don't get a decent flop... but then you are actually going to be much further behind than 1:5 because you will be losing out on a lot of your winning hands by simply not playing them.

I think the style of play can be effective in given situations. I think it is by nature less workable in full ring games than 6 max, and less workable in 6 max than NL. 6 max at least gives you the advantage of knowing that fewer hands are out which decrease the chances of their being a quality hand. Position is also important when playing junk in so far as being in position can allow you to make up bets against your opponents by forcing them to miss bets when ahead and allowing you to get in extra raises when you are ahead.

I think in NL they become much more playable simply because you know have the ability to change the pot-odds so dramatically that you can out play your opponents much more effeictively. You can raise them off their middle pairs, or draws with little to nothing. In limit that is simply not the case.

-k_squared

[mshalen]

I don't understand why so many people are trying to apply your theory to limit games. The framework of the theory is NL MTT. In that context I do partially agree with you. There have been many times I have played "junk" and crushed opponents who are only playing big hands. The implied odds that you get when you do catch 2 pair, the 68 to make a straight or a flush makes these playable and very profitable. I would suggest that you revise your post slightly and submit it to the MTT forum.

[PairTheBoard]

elmitchbo: "so here's the hypothesis... I think any 2 cards that are suited and less than a 4 card gap are as good as a medium or small PP. that's not great, but it is playable in many situations. if you think about it... both hands need alot of help on the flop, because they can't win unimproved. if they do hit the flop, then you have a pretty strong hand that is well disguised.

to expand the hypothesis... some marginal hands that are recommended as playable (KJs) aren't really much better than 'junk hands' (T7s). against a lower pair either hand is basically a coin flop."

While you may have a point that such "junk" hands are more playable than many might think, I believe your "hypothesis" as stated is flawed. You are ignoring the power of Pocket Pairs from TT to 77. KJs plays much better against such pairs than T7s. Also, TT...77 can very well win unimproved. If you are playing 95s, 96s, 85s, 86s, etc. you can easily improve and Still Lose against such unimproved pocket pairs. If you have 96s against KJs and flop J,9,2 rainbow heads up, you can leak good money before deciding you're beat. Making the idiot end of straights and flushes can devastate you.

That's not to say these cards can't be played ala Brunson, Hanson, and others. But to say they are "just as good" as superior cards is a bad hypothesis.

PairTheBoard

[memphis57]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why so many people are trying to apply your theory to limit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I thought he was talking about real poker. Yeah, it'll probably work in that kiddo game. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[2ndGoat]

<<so... if you hold/face a super premium hand you're in good shape/trouble. those hands are dealt with equal frequency to every one, but they are rare.>>

When you're playing tight you are much more likely to fold when someone has a top hand...

<<it is certainly possible for the flop to hit me but hit the 2 higher cards a little bit harder. those cases will be rare, and i might still be able to sniff out the danger. when i don't i just take my lumps.>>

There's the rub. I'm going going to be on the side of hitting "slightly harder" very rarely when I've got trash- basically I need to flop 2 pair o/b (which is about 28:1, right?), in order to help better than his top pair/overpair, which doesn't happen every time you hit the flop hard, either. Of course, a hallmark of these "smart lags" is getting away from a loser, and clearly doing so with abnormally high precision would go a long way.

Don't get me wrong, I still see the merits of this strategy. It's just that this post is written convincingly enough that one might think "smart lag" play is all roses.

Harrington mentions in his book that you'll make money the easiest when you play the style most abnormal for you- if you're playing at a different gear (between tag and lag, basically) than the table puts you on, you figure to get either loose calls or tight folds. I think that's what the "real answer" is to the equation- get good at peddling nuts, and get good at peddling trash, and pull the appropriate one out of your hat when the time comes.

That is, unless you're freakishly adept at hand reading, then go head and just play any 2.

2nd

[avalanche201]

I think you are making a mistake here. These types of plays are made by players that have a hold on the game that very few do. They are able to recognize the perfect situation to employ, and how to play even when they catch low pair. This is a style that works for no limit as you can make huge bluffs. But only in places that you can pull off huge bluffs, thus higher limits or tournament with big money on the line. These are so highley skilled that they can even get some of the best on tilt. Such as Hansen in the first poker superstars, as the other players viewed him as lucky. I wouldent recomend it if you like money, but feel free to try it out. It may seem like it makes sense in 10c rooms on the internet, when it costs you 5 bucks each time in a casino you might think differently.

[KingDan]

In a very deep stacked game, I believe certain players can play any two cards... assuming they are much better postflop and can throw away their crappy top pair on dangerous boards.

[pzhon]

KJs is much, much stronger than T7s. While it is true that they are both in horrible shape against AA, and about even against 22, KJs wins a lot more against QQ or 88 or AQ or Q2 or JT.

With deep enough stacks, low pocket pairs are very profitable for set value. If you hit a set, you have a concealed, powerful hand, and can win a lot off of big hands. If you miss, you might still be ahead, but only against a very weak hand that would not put in a lot of money anyway without a big draw, so you don't lose much if you let yourself get bluffed off a low pair.

A hand like T8s might win about the same amout as 88 against AA, but it much more rarely outflops AA. It more frequently flops a draw that makes it worth continuing, but does not allow T8 to bet or raise for value.

If you flop a draw with KJs and call a bet, you might have the best hand even when you miss your draw. That happens much less frequently with T7s. Also, a flush draw plus overcards is much stronger than a flush draw an undercards.

[rob0506]

Seems to me that this applies to any game (though it is more dangerous in limit). For instance, 22 has a slight advantage over AK heads up, but the AK will make FAR more money. The reason is that you can aggressivley bet the AK, but the 22 you have to play carefully unless you want to go home early. I think these hands are rated more on the money they make than on their chances of winning a pot. I'm a low limit newbie, so I'll certainly yield to better poker minds on this one. Am I way off base here?

[Ace_Ren]

From my understanding (a bit of a newb here too), you are indeed correct rob0506. A hand like K/Qs is rated above A/Xo in just about any rating scale, yet the A/Xo will win more than 50% of the time against K/Q. However, A/Xo is a dominated hand that will typically lose a lot while winning very little. Not going to explain that here, since it's assumed that this is already known.

The thought of playing any two suited 3-gap or 2-gap is an interesting idea because it's almost the exactly opposite of a dominated hand. Typically, you are going to fold with these on the flop for a very small loss (assuming you are not in maniac mode, which can be profitable). Yet, when you do hit, it's usually very well disguised (especially the straights or 2 pair) and can win a lot of money.

Yet there is still a problem. In some cases your straights will fall to bigger straights and in a lot of cases your flushes will fall to bigger flushes if there is a lot of bets going in. Even with bottom 2 pair, you are susceptible to the guy with top pair or an overpair hitting a better 2 pair (or trips) on the turn or river (this is still a good situation for you overall). Yet, this situation does not come up often enough to appear to be a profitable one.

The reason why guys like Gus H. and Dan N. win money is that they can read people, exactly like every other top pro. They have a pretty good idea of when their bottom pair is good and when their two pair is bad. Without that skill, playing in this fashion is a sure way to lose money over the long haul.

The advantage to the system is that you are getting into more pots and if you’re better at reading than your opponents you could win a lot of money with the odds against you. And of course, the other obvious advantage is that you become harder to read for a boost to the EV of every hand that would normally be played for a profit.

[elmitchbo]

thanks for the replies folks. some interesting thoughts.

first... i play almost exclusively in NL tournaments, so thats where i intended to apply the theory.

second... i agree that reading your opponent would be hugely beneficial. for that reason i think this strategy would be more useful in live action than online. i don't get the chance to play live very often, but i hope that's going to change soon.

i didn't really have a strict definition of how hard the flop needed to hit for the 'junk' to be playable. i guess i was thinking two pair o/b in most scenarios. i saw in one of the posts that the odds of flopping two pair o/b are 28:1. i hadn't seen that figure before, but i assume that's correct. those are thin odds, but i think even then the idea is still workable. you won't ever see 28:1 pot odds before the flop, but i don't think you need to. when the hands do hit they'll pay off well, and the times you take down a pot unchallenged will also off set some of the costs of playing. even if you just break even or come in slightly behind on thses hands i believe playing them is justified just for the deception factor. if it helps to maximize the profits of your truly strong holdings then it's +ev overall, even if those particular hands are show a negative return. if you lost a few BB's by playing 'junk' it wouldn't matter as long as it convinced one additional person to call down a big raise with an inferior holding everytime you did pick up a monster hand. right?

i saw one interesting post that said a small pocket pair against AA will flop a winner more than 'junk', even though they are equally likely to win by the river.... which means you'll have to stay in with the junk after the flop for it to work out. i think that's ok as long as you flop a pretty strong draw.

as draws go... i saw some posts that were concerned with losing to higher straights or flushes even when you did hit your hand. if you plug a straight with a 2 gapper it would be tough for someone to beat you unless they were playing equally spaced hands. i'm sure it would happen, but not often enough for it to be a huge problem. losing to another flush would be less likely. i've seen many people here advocate playing your flush, no matter how low, as though it's the only one in play. if you're laying down a flush out of fear of a higher flush, then when are you going to call down?

[2ndGoat]

<<I saw in one of the posts that the odds of flopping two pair o/b are 28:1.>>

Don't take that for gospel, it's just a vague memory my brain is carrying around. In fact i think I'll go look it up now... Ciaffone says so, in Middle Limit Holdem Poker. I thought that's where I saw it. Good enough for me.

<<when the hands do hit they'll pay off well, and the times you take down a pot unchallenged will also off set some of the costs of playing.>>

Remember there's no magic to this.. if they're going to pay off your bottom 2 with tptk, they're also going to "pay off" your garbage with tptk too. Goes back to reading people, but this is on the level beyond determining their holing, it's determining what they think you've got. However, in the worst case, if you're truly playing random suited nonsense, and betting it when it misses just the same as when it hits, they won't be able to put you on anything because they have virtually no signal input, so you won't really be able to increase their calling frequency when you hit, or reduce it when you miss.

I hypothesize if you want to try this out, you might want to first pick one orbit out of 5 to play "stupid" (picked with some modicum of randomness) so that you're generally playing opposite of what people have seen from you lately. Now your random garbage will tend to look harmless when it hits, and will tend to look dangerous when it misses. Actually, I think I am going to play a couple $50 NLHE tournaments on stars today to try this out- just big enough that people attempt to read hands and can be outplayed, but cheap enough that I won't be too upset over making a 100% incorrect read for all my chips. I remember a top pro saying that when he got started, he would have one day a week which was "play anything day." And I believe he was talking about LIMIT holdem. Don't think he claimed to win money doing it, but said it made him a much better player years down the road because of all the sticky situations he had encountered. So even if I can't manage this insanity profitably, I may learn something form it regardless.

2nd

[Poker_God]

I will say that i some what agree with the orignal poster but i will say that as it is hard to tell if you are behind and could easialy be pushed out its vise versa with good hands..... too many people are blinded with great cards and think they are much stronger than they actually are and are harder to fold for some while junk hands can easialy be folded if they hit low