shutupndeal
06-15-2005, 03:01 PM
Ok,
I often make serious errors when I try to explain my point of view because I think about it so long that I lose site of what Im saying a bit AND I have a bad habit of not writing it out first and then looking at it good before I post so let me try to explain this a bit better.
My argument is this.................
JJ's of course is a very strong hand, its a complete pair and so often wont need improvement to win a pot. I cant and dont imply for a mminute that it isnt a good hand, what I am saying (and I cant use pokerooms stats because altho it may win more bets per hour its still a fraction to what QKs makes, and try Cardplayer and use whatever hands you like, QKs gets stronger as there are more people in the pot, the pokerrom stats are also deceiving because it doesnt represent the starting hand strenghth but only that it so far has won more money and we are talking % here as a strenghth Ok?)
I am trying to say that taking into consideration the other hands in group1 AA's--KK's--QQ's--AKs does it realy fit? Isnt JJ-s a much closer % to the group2 hands than the group1 hands?
(TT AQs AJs KQs AK) {{group2 hands}}
Would someone please tell me what the BB figures are for ALL the group1 and group2 hands are for us to examine.
Id like to se what a pair of tens do against AKo and QKs also from the pokeroom BB numbers.
Personally I was thinking that when it comes to straights you would lose a lot of those hands to qk.
I guess the real value of this hand is that when it hits against med or baby cards and people will play hoping to hit their overcards it can have some def decent pots.
So thats what I was TRYING to say, I just dont think all things considered it belongs in group1. Do you guys still think what Im saying is so wrong? /images/graemlins/smile.gif
I often make serious errors when I try to explain my point of view because I think about it so long that I lose site of what Im saying a bit AND I have a bad habit of not writing it out first and then looking at it good before I post so let me try to explain this a bit better.
My argument is this.................
JJ's of course is a very strong hand, its a complete pair and so often wont need improvement to win a pot. I cant and dont imply for a mminute that it isnt a good hand, what I am saying (and I cant use pokerooms stats because altho it may win more bets per hour its still a fraction to what QKs makes, and try Cardplayer and use whatever hands you like, QKs gets stronger as there are more people in the pot, the pokerrom stats are also deceiving because it doesnt represent the starting hand strenghth but only that it so far has won more money and we are talking % here as a strenghth Ok?)
I am trying to say that taking into consideration the other hands in group1 AA's--KK's--QQ's--AKs does it realy fit? Isnt JJ-s a much closer % to the group2 hands than the group1 hands?
(TT AQs AJs KQs AK) {{group2 hands}}
Would someone please tell me what the BB figures are for ALL the group1 and group2 hands are for us to examine.
Id like to se what a pair of tens do against AKo and QKs also from the pokeroom BB numbers.
Personally I was thinking that when it comes to straights you would lose a lot of those hands to qk.
I guess the real value of this hand is that when it hits against med or baby cards and people will play hoping to hit their overcards it can have some def decent pots.
So thats what I was TRYING to say, I just dont think all things considered it belongs in group1. Do you guys still think what Im saying is so wrong? /images/graemlins/smile.gif