KQJ10

[pokerstudent211]

Is KQJ10 non suited a calling hand under the gun in a $5-10 game in an aggresive game? In a passive game?

Just curious what opinions you guys may have........thanks

[gergery]

I would fold it rainbow. It is too easy for another straight to be out there. With straights you want to have redraws, and this won't have enough.

[Wintermute]

I play that one any time I can get my hands on it. Of course, I play mainly PLO8. But even in limit O8, I think it's easy to get away from on a bad flop, and very profitable when the flop cooperates. Even rainbow... how often are you going to be banking on a Q-high flush anyhow?

[Ribbo]

KQJT rainbow is a trash speculative hand I would not even consider for a raise in limit O8. Straights are for suckers.

[dcasper70]

For me, only if limping into an unraised pot, in late position, on a loose table, to alter tight table image if flop hits...

[chaos]

Since you are only going to like about one out of four flops, you want to play this hand cheaply against a large field.

It's an easy fold from UTG in an aggressive game. If the game is very loose and passive most pots will be unraised and have large fields. In that type of game you can see the flop from early position.

[Ironman]

Continuing on with this thought, from late position I have found that when this flop DOES hit, it is VERY profitable.

I would see this flop from late position in either a loose or passive game.

In a passive game I can knock out other players with two pair and redraws to either a straight or a boat

and in loose games I can get away from the hand for a small bet or two when things don't work out.

[toots]

I agree. I'll play this from late position when I can limp against a bunch of callers, and drop if I don't see a really favorable flop.

Against fewer players, I'll play it a bit more loosely if I think that the others are playing weakly, and can be pushed off a high flop.

[GooperMC]

In an aggressive game this would be mucked in a heartbeat. In a passive game it would depend on how many people usually see the flop. This hand will play reasonably well in a family unraised pot and will play poorly in a small pot. If there are usually > 6 people seeing the flop with very few pre-flop raises I will limp with this, if there are less then 6 or there has been pre-flop raising I will throw it away.

Overall I am making money with this type of hand and I am making money with str8s.

[Wintermute]

In PLO8, however, it is a good holdnig.

In my PTO database, I see that I've played the hand 52 times, win 50% of the time, which gives me 2.5 BB/hand.

For my stats, this happens to be the exact same winrate (BB/hand) as A238, and slightly better than AKK2, incidentally. Now, that's not to say that KQJT is as playable as these other hands, but in the right situation IN PLO8, the hand can (and should) be played profitably.

I can't vouch for limit O8, don't play much limit.

[gergery]

I don’t think it’s a good holding in PLO8. I’d say it might be playable (ie. EV+) under the right circumstances, for a decent player.

And I’d guess you have been running well or lucky with it so far if its been more profitable than AKK2 and A238.

[Wintermute]

I don't think that's the case (that my results with KQJT are a result of good fortune)--keep in mind that this is out of a larger sample of 60k hands, and these KQJT are evenly distributed over those 3 months.

I attribute these stats to two factors:
1) In situations where KQJT isn't going to play well, it's easy to identify that on the flop before bets get expensive.
2) Sort of related, almost always, when KQJT does win for me, it's going to scoop. (I say this because it is virtually impossible to "correctly" stay in a hand with KQJT that also results in a split.)


I'd suggest that the way to resolve this is to get stats from others about their results w/ KQJT hands from pokertracker... I mean, hunches only get us so far--numbers are a little clearer, IMHO.

[pokerstudent211]

Thank all of you for your input!!

To sum up: Pretty much UTG in fixed limit this hand is not playable in an aggresive game. (Fairly aggreed on)

In a passive game where you are fairly certain the pot wont be raised UTG then it is playable b/c if you hit one should be payed off nicely. (Debatable)

Ironman seems to make a great point that in late position passive or aggressive it is playable. In a passive game flopping two pair aggressive play can limit the field and help win the pot. In an aggressive game the hand is fairly easy to get off of but when you do hit pot sizes should be big.

Lastly Wintergreen says that in PLO8 the hand should always be played for small bets at the start and big bets to get paid off with if you hit. And he uses his PTO stats as evidence.

Hope I got this right and again thanks for your input!

[Noor]

Ribbo got it down 2 a T, perfect reply, it is a trash hand period.

[Noor]

Perfect reply, love your style.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
In my PTO database, I see that I've played the hand 52 times

[/ QUOTE ]

Wintermute - Really? Wow!

You must have played a lot of hands.

You figure to get dealt TJQK-rainbow roughly once every eleven thousand deals. (270725/24).

You've played the hand fifty two times? Wow!!! Either you've:
• (1) played about half a million hands of Omaha-8, or
• (2) have a very abnormal distribution, or
• (3) your data base is mixing in some other hands (perhaps suited?) with this one.

I'm amazed that you manage to win half the time with TJQK-rainbow.

I'll only continue playing TJQK-rainbow about a fourth of the time after the flop. The rest of the time the odds are simply too unfavorable.

In a nine handed no-fold-'em simulation, against random hands the hand won the equivalent of scooping roughly 11%. (Actually it scooped 718/10000 and won enough half pots, quarter pots, sixth pots, and eight pots to add up to the equivalent of another 415/10000 whole pots).

You've played it 52 times and you have won with it half the time?

That flies in the face of reality.

Buzz

[Wintermute]

Correct--this isn't just rainbow hands. Suited are included (as are xxxy triple-suited's and yyyy four-suited).

Thanks for clarifying.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
...this isn't just rainbow hands. Suited are included...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wintermute - In that case, your numbers seem very credible and represent considerable playing experience deserving of respect.

I don’t mean to offend, but if your data base lumps together rainbow hands, double suited hands, and the various types of single suited hands, aren’t the numbers in your data-base a mish-mash? With all your successful playing experience you must recognize that hands with flush possibilities, even non-nut flush possibilities, do better than rainbow hands. Indeed, there is a huge difference between rainbow hands and double suited hands.

Therefore, combining hands with flush possibilities with hands having no flush possibilities seems, at best, very misleading. Indeed, here you are, on the basis of your data base apparently thinking (or at least posting) that TJQK-rainbow is a strong hand.

Meanwhile, other posters here who do not have the benefit of your (flawed?) data base recognize TJQK-rainbow for the piece of crap it is.

Well... that’s maybe going a bit too far. I might even sometimes voluntarily play TJQK-rainbow. But if I do, it is in a very loose, non-aggressive ring game, and with the full awareness that the hand is on the border between marginal and sub-marginal.
K/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif,T/images/graemlins/club.gif, by contrast, is a fine hand in the loose games in which I play. I’d also want to see the flop with some of the single suited versions, of which a hand like
K/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif,T/images/graemlins/club.gif seems the best.

But K/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif,T/images/graemlins/heart.gif? Over the long haul, I’d expect that one to average being a loser. (Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t play it, depending).

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[Wintermute]

I definitely see your point... and I decided to go back and do some more detailed investigation in my database (which is in Pokertracker Omaha, btw). When I sort those 52 hands, here's what I get:

single-suited: 31 hands @ 3 BB/hand
double-suited: 5 hands @ 1.8 BB/hand
3-suited/flush: 12 hands @ 2.7 BB/hand
rainbow: 4 hands @ -1.3 BB/hand

So, indeed, it seems that KQJT *rainbow* is not the strong hand I had originally believed... however, when we get down to the level of talking about statistics of 4 hands, obviously we're seeing too small of a sample size to draw confident conclusions. As evidence, we see that the double-suited KQJT from above has lower win rate than single-suited KQJT, which we know should not be the case... it is likely due to that small (5 hands) sample size for the double-suited KQJT.

So, what I'm getting around to here, is that KQJT rainbow still isn't a loser in my book, based on these 4 hands. I say that because I personally do not strongly consider suitedness before the flop with the exception of Ace suited. Now, what I mean by that is not that I'm too stupid to recognize the importance of having suited options in your hand, but the betability of flushes smaller than A-high is low in PLO8, unless they are the nut flush with A or A&K on board. Those are rare events. IMHO, the strength of KQJT is when the flop comes Axx with the xx being two of K,Q,J,T,and 9. In that case, you have a very strong hand to work with. If that flop does not come, it is often very easy to get away from the hand, because the next-best-case scenario is Axy where y is a low card, putting two to the low on the board and reducing the chance of a scoop significantly.

Also contributing strength to my argument are the results for the 3-suited and flush KQJT data from above, which is strong despite the fact that the flush aspect of the starting hand was less likely to factor in significantly than in single/double-suited KQJT's.

Hands like that--which commonly flop either very strong or very weak, but not often in the middle, are ones that I consider strong PLO8 hands.



(Note: One other thing that occurred to me to check was to look at each hand that I scooped with to see how often the straight was the winner vs. a flush, for the hands with suited-ness. Unfortunately, my PTO database is from the beta evaluation period, and for some reason, the only HH's that are visible are those which resulted in a split pot, high and low. I've got a little over 10k hands working in the new database in PTO "official release" where I can see all the HH's, when I compile 60k hands, I'll write an addendum to this post about the hands that won there.)

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
I've got a little over 10k hands working in the new database in PTO "official release"

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like the hands from the beta period aren't in your new database? If so I strongly advice exporting all the hands to a file. Its under the utilities menu. These files can then be imported into your new database.

[Wintermute]

Yeop, that occurred to me--here's my dilemma though... half the hands I played weren't recorded, because they were "observed" by my machine at home (from a different skin) while I played at school. Yes, I realize I am a degenerate for playing poker while at school. Since the hands are recorded first in observed mode, the HH's aren't saved. I thought this was weird, since I transferred all the HH's from my school machine to home, but the HH's still are not overwritten on the hands observed. I guess PTO developers assumed you wouldn't be so stupid as to observe yourself playing.

Also, I considered taking the hands I actually do have and exporting them from old database, importing to new database, but it occurred to me that by keeping the hands seperate, I can track improvement in my play more easily. It also works as a motivational tool to playing well--right now, I'm trying to keep my win rate above 12.5 BB/100 hands, compared to 9 BB/100 from the previous 60k hands. I'm 11k hands in and meeting that goal so far, but I suspect I'm just off to a hot 2-week start, based on other indications.

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
...can track improvement in my play more easily.

[/ QUOTE ]
The filter tab makes it easy to compare different date ranges.

[Wintermute]

Ah, on the tab all the way over to the right.

I am a dumbass, still learning PT softwre. Thanks for the tip

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the tip

[/ QUOTE ]
No prob, there's quite alot to go through.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
So, what I'm getting around to here, is that KQJT rainbow still isn't a loser in my book, based on these 4 hands. I say that because I personally do not strongly consider suitedness before the flop with the exception of Ace suited. the betability of flushes smaller than A-high is low in PLO8, unless they are the nut flush with A or A&K on board. IMHO, the strength of KQJT is when the flop comes Axx with the xx being two of K,Q,J,T,and 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

KQJT single suited is probably EV+, double suited it should certainly be. Rainbow its still trash.

Its betability and value comes from when it hits two pair or a straight wrap -- the flush then serves as redraw potential if the other flush is not there, or as blocker cards to someone elses flush. Having a Qxx flushdraw on a Axx board for 2nd nut is nice, but if that's all you had its fairly weak.

[Buzz]

Wintermute - Allow me to take back my suggestion that your data base was flawed.

Instead it seems very impressive.

I’m not being sarcastic.

Thanks for the info. (Looks like if you follow Bremen's suggestions your data base might be even more useful to you).

[ QUOTE ]
So, what I'm getting around to here, is that KQJT rainbow still isn't a loser in my book, based on these 4 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in my book, based on 10000 hands (simulated). (And also based on some incidental calculations and reasoning).

[ QUOTE ]
I personally do not strongly consider suitedness before the flop with the exception of Ace suited. Now, what I mean by that is not that I'm too stupid to recognize the importance of having suited options in your hand, but the betability of flushes smaller than A-high is low in PLO8, unless they are the nut flush with A or A&K on board. Those are rare events.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you have written above. Yet suited hands, even baby suited hands, do average a higher win rate and profit than non-suited hands. You maybe can't push them, but I think you can take suitedness into account when you consider the playability of a starting hand.

The other thing is - in a limit game like 5/10, you often can bet the second nut (or maybe even lower) flush. In my humble opinion it just depends. For example, say you're on the button holding TJQKs with a flushed and straighted but non-paired board and it gets checked to you, I think you should often bet the king-high or queen-high flush. Someone could be patiently hoping for a check-raise with the nut flush, but probably not, and even if they are, it's no big deal. (More likely someone with the nut flush, or even king high flush would bet it, looking for a chaser with a lower flush or worse). Under similar conditions in a pot limit game, it would be scary (for me, at least) to bet the second nut flush.

I'm not advising anyone to bet a non-nut flush in a limit game, but sometimes I will, depending.

[ QUOTE ]
Also contributing strength to my argument are the results for the 3-suited and flush KQJT data from above, which is strong despite the fact that the flush aspect of the starting hand was less likely to factor in significantly than in single/double-suited KQJT's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And that's a reason why I think simulations are useful. But even in 10000 tries, you don't generally get exactly the same result running the same simulation twice in a row, or sometimes even within one or two per cent of the same result.

Buzz

[BBB]

Hi, my first post here in the Omaha forum.

I did some calculations, and here are my numbers (I think they're correct):

With KQJT, you'll flop:

KKx, QQx, JJx, or TTx (including boats and quads) - 3.19% of the time.

KQx, KJx, KTx, QJx, QTx, or JTx (exluding boats and repeats) - 11.86% of the time.

Q98, J98, or T98 - 0.83% of the time.

All these flops give you either the nut straight, top set, or top two pair I believe, a total of ~16% of the time, while putting no more than one low card on the board. But much of that time you'll be vulnerable to flushes.

If my numbers are correct, I think this is too low of a percentage to make this hand profitable when it's unsuited in all but the best of circumstances (maybe on the button after about 6 limpers).

If the K is suited, then the number would go up to somewhere around 25% I think, if all flops with two of that suit are included in the calculation (although many of those flops would yield lows or low draws). I think this would definitely make the hand more valuable and playable.

[Buzz]

Hi BBB - Interesting. You got around 16%. I got around 25%. I don't think your numbers are incorrect - and I don't think mine are either.

I could do this again, using more stringent requirements (like not drawing to a straight with two cards to a flush on the flop unless you also had two pair) and I'd get a different total.

For example, folding to a flop of T9X, AKX, AQX, AJX, and ATX (see chart below) would reduce my total by 1755 and put it more in line with your own 16%. (2560/17296 = ~15%). For me it's a judgement call, certainly not cut in stone - and actually would vary depending on how I perceived my opponents to be playing, the implied pot odds I thought I'd be getting, and how I was feeling myself.

For T-J-Q-K-rainbow, I would like:
• flops where you flop a full house or quads,
• flops where you flop two pairs (and thus also a straight draw),
• flops where you flop a straight (and possibly a draw to a full house),
• flops where you flop a set (and possibly also a straight draw),
• some additional straight draws.

I think those amount to about 25% of all possible flops when you hold TJQKn. (4375/17296 = about 25%)

The great majority of these playable flops, 3819, or almost 90% of them, are draws. Some of these draws might win unimproved, or might take the pot with a second round bet, but for the most part, at least in a loose game, you probably need to improve, and then you can make your draw and sometimes still get beaten by a better hand.

How did I get those numbers 3819 and 4375? I made a chart and then tallied the numbers in the chart.

Here’s my chart for TJQKn:

34.....AKQ not all same suit..4*3*3-2
34.....AKJ not all same suit..4*3*3-2
34.....AKT not all same suit..4*3*3-2
34.....AQJ (not all same suit)
34.....AQT (not all same suit)
34.....AJT (not all same suit)
1......KKK.......
9......KKQ.......3*3
9......KQQ.......
9......KKJ.......
9......KJJ.......
9......KKT.......
9......KTT .......
45.....K98 (not all same suit)..3*4*4-3
1......QQQ.......
9......QQJ.......
9......QJJ.......
9......QQT.......
9......QTT .......
45.....Q98 (not all same suit)
1......JJJ.......
9......JJT.......
9......JTT .......
45.....J98 (not all same suit)
1......TTT .......
45.....T98 (not all same suit)
60.....987 (not all same suit)
556...sub total, made hands on flop
............
108.....JJX.......
108.....TTX.......
272.....JTX (not all same suit)
315.....T9X not same suit.7*3*4*4-7*3
360.....AKX not same suit.8*4*3*4-8*3
360.....AQX (not all same suit)
360.....AJX (not all same suit)
360.....ATX (not all same suit)
108.....KKX.......3*36
272.....KQX not same suit.8*3*3*4-8*2
272.....KJX (not all same suit)
272.....KTX (not all same suit)
108.....QQX.......
272.....QJX (not all same suit)
272.....QTX (not all same suit)
3819...sub total drawing hands on flop

4375...total flopped made+drawing hands

Clearly some of those draws are better than others.

No guarantees I didn't omit something or make a math mistake somewhere. Lots of places to go wrong.

Maybe playing some of those flops is stretching it. (Or maybe someone would generally play a flop of
9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, a flop belonging to a group (98X) which I intentionally left off my list. However, no sense in fooling with the list any more because it's variable anyhow, depending on the odds you're getting and your sense of what cards your opponents are playing.

Enough.

Buzz

[BBB]

Wow, nice list Buzz. (Actually, when I started lurking in the Omaha forum, I went back and read a lot of your old posts, and it helped me out a lot I think.) I agree our numbers are pretty comparable. I imagine it's the inclusion of flops like ATx that might make this hand marginally playable in Omaha High, but pretty much totally unplayable in O8.

As you said, we both got 15-16% when you removed certain flops from your count. You appropriately excluded suited flops, which I didn't, but I think you may have counted a few flops more than once (for example QQJ falls under QQJ, QJx, and QQx), although this is probably an insignificant number.

But in any case, I think we agree that this hand is a loser, there are simply not enough good flops.

[Buzz]

BBB - Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
....I think you may have counted a few flops more than once....

[/ QUOTE ]

I might have, although I tried not to count anything twice (or more).

[ QUOTE ]
(for example QQJ falls under QQJ, QJx, and QQx),

[/ QUOTE ]

It's harder for me to explain what I did than it was to do it, and doing a list like that is a bitch.

In coming up with a sub total for QJX, I didn't count Q or J as X, since those were already elsewhere (up above) on the list. In other words, the 272 total for QJX excludes Q, J, and some other ranks that were included elsewhere.

Similarly, J was excluded from X in the 108 sub-total for QQX. That one must be have come from 3*4*9. Looks like I counted nine ranks there, and jacks would have been one of the excluded ranks.

I could have made what I did clearer, but I hadn't intended to post the list when I originally wrote it. It was more or less for my own benefit. Then when you stated how you got 16%, I decided to share. So I moved a column and replaced the tabs with dots, etc. to make it more postable, but I didn't give any explanations. Since I posted the list, I should have explained it better. But then I was thinking it's a tentative and variable list anyhow, depending somewhat on how much money is expected to be in the pot and some other variables.

At any rate, I don't think I counted anything twice, but I might have. What I mean is I made a conscious effort not to count anything twice, but I might have missed something.

Buzz

[BBB]

Sincere apologies Buzz /images/graemlins/blush.gif- I had quickly glanced at one of your calculations, but I made a mistake in interpreting what the numbers meant. Now I see what you did. (in fact, my original interpretation of the calculation made no sense (I took an 8 to mean something else, when it actually meant 8 "x" cards - looking back at it, my thinking made no sense)).

Our numbers are probably in perfect agreement, I got 16% where you got 15% - the 1% difference is probably due to my failure to exclude all-suited flops.

[PokerProdigy]

I'd like it in late position with a few limpers if I could see a flop for one bet /images/graemlins/grin.gif