PDA

View Full Version : The power of JTs


Perseus
04-29-2005, 03:34 PM
In a recent hand by Pokerbob the question of the value of JTs has come up, and I decided to make a new thread concerning the hand. This was the response I just read after I had said that JTs is a very powerful hand...

"Not to hijack this thread too much, but JTs must be the most overrated hand in poker. Yes, it's the best straightmaking hand there is, but it's certainly not the best suited connector because it has very little high card value. In fact, in a multiway hand, you stand a very good chance of being dominated when you do pair up one of your cards.

And always making the nut straight? This is one of those great 'fun facts' that everybody learns when they pick up the game. Of course you lose to a bigger straight about as often as you lose to a bigger flush, which is almost never.

As for JTs being the best suited connector, I'd much rather have AKs, KQs, QJs and even gappers like AQs, AJs, and KJs.

In the hand under discussion, if I was pretty sure I was going to get 5 or more people seeing the flop for only 2 bets, then I can see the call. But if everybody left to act folds, or one of the 5 people left to act 3-bets, then I'm really kicking myself"

My response to this is that JTs is still an extremely powerful hand. I consider it to be the second best suited connector out there (behind AKs) because of how many ways it can hit you on the flop.

You can make the straight, and it is the nut straight. You can make a flush, and it is a pretty high flush. You can also hit a J/10/two pair/three of a kind, and though unlikely, they are still possibilities. It is also very easy to get away from if the flop completely misses.

I think JTs is the most powerful connector IF you can get away from mediocure flops where you hit your pair and still know to fold.

As for almost always never losing to a higher straight or flush, I think this is something to strongly consider. While it isn't often it happens, when it does it can cost you a lot of money. Maybe I've been just on a downswing lately but quite a few of my straights in the last fews days have lost to higher straights.

Also, I this this is a fine hand to play when the flop is being bet and raised because there is less chance your opponents have J or 10 in their hand then a K or Q if you had played KQs. To say hands like KJs are better to play in a large multiway pot than J10s is not correct IMO.

JTs is a hand I love to play, especially in the case of Pokerbob's hand where there were two limpers and a raise. With one of the blinds most likely staying in if you cold-call, you are going to see the pot 4-6 handed. Even if both blinds fold and it's only a 4 way hand you are still getting good value for the hand, but you have to know when to lay it down and when your remaining outs are good.

This last part is something I am having trouble with, as my initial response to pokerbob's hand was to call the flop. However, after reading the responses and thinking more about the hand I realize folding the flop is the best option.

Please comment with whether you guys agree or disagree, as playing these types of hands correctly are the difference between good players and average players.

Thanks

Jon

Perseus
04-29-2005, 03:36 PM
The hand by PokerBob to which I have been referring to is here In too deep with JTs (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2270859&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1)

sthief09
04-29-2005, 03:40 PM
I tend the think that the hands that win more pots win more money. there are some exceptions (for example, JTs is capable of winning big hands with a straight), but I'd take QJs over JTs. QTs over JTs maybe, but I don't know. certainly in a shorthanded pot


I would have folded preflop in that situation

Perseus
04-29-2005, 03:44 PM
I agree with shorthanded, but let's assume for this arguement that the pot is limp limp raise with two loose blinds.

Would you rather have JTs or QJs? In my opinion if a Q flops you are more likely to be dominated. If you have JTs and a 10 flops as top pair you most likely have more clean outs and a chance for having the best hand.

I think both of these are better than KJs which is most likely dominated when a K flops.

flair1239
04-29-2005, 03:52 PM
This is probably true assuming you are not dominated. Playing around at 2 dimes, if you plug JTs in against three other decent hands and not have it dominated by card strength or suit. It has really good equity PF.

However once you introduce a hand like AJ, KT, QJ...etc it's equity drops dramatically.

Still it is not a huge deficit. In the particualr case of the hand in the other thread, I did not like the button acting behind us as a three-bet would be bad.

meep_42
04-29-2005, 03:58 PM
The main tricky thing about JT/J9/QT is that when you hit your 2-pair, there are about a bazillion cards that make a bazillion straight draws that are right in the playing zone, so you'll lose more of those 2-pair hands than you would with KJ or such.

-d

SeaEagle
04-29-2005, 03:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather have JTs or QJs? In my opinion if a Q flops you are more likely to be dominated. If you have JTs and a 10 flops as top pair you most likely have more clean outs and a chance for having the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
So using this logic, would you rather have 98s than QJs?

SA125
04-29-2005, 03:59 PM
I think the right way to look at JTs is reflected in Q-Tips post about looking at the players and the game and deciding how to play a hand, rather than look at the hand itself.

The last game I was in had 6-8 per flop, raised or not. JTs was a no brainer to raise or coldcall. In another game it might be much more situational and a routine fold from anywhere but LP or the blinds.

flair1239
04-29-2005, 04:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The main tricky thing about JT/J9/QT is that when you hit your 2-pair, there are about a bazillion cards that make a bazillion straight draws that are right in the playing zone, so you'll lose more of those 2-pair hands than you would with KJ or such.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good point

GetThere1Time
04-29-2005, 04:00 PM
I dont understand the mystique of JTs. I know a lot of players who think JTo is complete trash but think JT soooted is the almighty lock drawing hand of doom. The difference? One makes a flush and one doesn't. Would you call a PFR with JTo? I'd hope not.

I'm not saying JTs bad in a large multiway pot. But I'd much rather have larger suited connectors.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather have JTs or QJs? In my opinion if a Q flops you are more likely to be dominated. If you have JTs and a 10 flops as top pair you most likely have more clean outs and a chance for having the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could make the same arguements for T9s if a 9 is top pair and 98s if an 8 is a top pair and 72s if a 7 is the top pair, etc, etc.

Perseus
04-29-2005, 04:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand the mystique of JTs. I know a lot of players who think JTo is complete trash but think JT soooted is the almighty lock drawing hand of doom. The difference? One makes a flush and one doesn't. Would you call a PFR with JTo? I'd hope not.

I'm not saying JTs bad in a large multiway pot. But I'd much rather have larger suited connectors.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather have JTs or QJs? In my opinion if a Q flops you are more likely to be dominated. If you have JTs and a 10 flops as top pair you most likely have more clean outs and a chance for having the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could make the same arguements for T9s if a 9 is top pair and 98s if an 8 is a top pair and 72s if a 7 is the top pair, etc, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference between one having J as top pair and one have 8, as it puts two more overcards that can beat you.

However, you make a good point about rather having large suited connectors. In my opinion there is a good chance that any suited connectors you are going to play in this spot, excluding AKs, you will have to improve on your pair to win.

I also think this is largly player dependant, but I decided to still pose this hypothetical question to see what people had to say.

Perseus
04-29-2005, 04:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is probably true assuming you are not dominated. Playing around at 2 dimes, if you plug JTs in against three other decent hands and not have it dominated by card strength or suit. It has really good equity PF.

However once you introduce a hand like AJ, KT, QJ...etc it's equity drops dramatically.

Still it is not a huge deficit. In the particualr case of the hand in the other thread, I did not like the button acting behind us as a three-bet would be bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points about the button being behind. This thread is confirming my suspicion that I've been slightly overplaying JTs.

I appriciate all the responses.

bobbyi
04-29-2005, 05:16 PM
Whether it is the "best suited connector" is irrelevant. What matters is if it is playable here. If it is the best out of an artificial category of starting hands, that doesn't prove that it is or isn't profitable. I can say that A7o is "the best offsuit ace with a side card below 8". Even if I'm right, that doesn't mean I should call two bets with it here.

Yobz
04-29-2005, 05:25 PM
I think this is one of those situations Miller talks about where there is a lot of debate over a very small EV difference. I don't mind the preflop call if the blinds and button are loose passive, if anyone else in the hand was aggressive or the limpers known for limp re-raising then I would dump it. Either way, it couldn't make that big a difference and I think it is very situation dependent.

admiralfluff
04-29-2005, 05:51 PM
If I were in a raised and COLD CALLED pot with TAGs, I would want JTs or 98s more than QTs. QT is just too likely dominated.

In a limp then raise situation, with a TAG raiser, I would be more inclined to cold call with QTs than 98s, but would still prefer JTs.

Another beautiful thing about JTs in a rasied pot with TAGs, is that when you do hit a straight, your opponents will often hit as well.