RE: Q2s in the SB Thread

[Georgia Peach]

Okay. I've read all of the replies in the thread "Q2s in the SB" initiated by JTG51. I see that I am in the vast minority (maybe just me) of those who would fold this hand pre-flop.

QXs is not among the hand combos suggested as viable in early position in Sklansky's "Hold 'em Poker" & Jones book on "Winning Low Limit Hold em" ).

I don't see how Q2s gives you much of a chance to make the best hand (the first condition Sklansky states you have to meet) with that many people in the pot. I know it gives you a shot at a flush, but does it really give you a shot at the best flush?

It just sounds like gambling to me when you're playing a hand like Q2s when some of those calling stations might be playing with A2s or K2s as well.

Or is it just sound poker to play any suited cards as long as one is a face card in a loose-passive game?

[Ed Miller]

The key point that you are missing is that you are playing this hand, not in early position, but in the small blind. You are only paying half a bet to see the flop. If you were actually in EP, then this hand would get mucked like it were 72o.

[JTG51]

QXs is not among the hand combos suggested as viable in early position

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I was in the SB here. When you see early position on a starting hand chart, they are talking about the first few seats after the blinds. You can play a lot more hands in the SB, since you only have to pay half price.

[Robk]

I feel bad for starting this nonsense. Q2s is certainly very close, and I just mentioned it as an
aside. It really doesn't matter much. But I thought you had to pay 3/5 of a bet to call? Tommy
Angelo style, I will continue to fold it, even if I am proven wrong.

[Georgia Peach]

The key point that you are missing is that you are playing this hand, not in early position, but in the small blind. You are only paying half a bet to see the flop. If you were actually in EP, then this hand would get mucked like it were 72o.

Thanks for the reply. However, I'm not missing the point regarding the small blind; I didn't think that Q2s was worth half a bet. It seems to fit the definition of two trash cards.

If you don't get a four flush draw on the flop, but you pair up as he did, you are still in big kicker trouble.

I can't see how playing Q2s is a better than folding when you can wait for a better starting hand against the same calling stations and maniacs.

But, again, thanks for the reply.

[Georgia Peach]

I feel bad for starting this nonsense.

It's nonsense for the experienced players I'm sure. But I'm new at this and I read this board whenever I can. I have a lot of respect for the no-nonsense, but fair, responses y'all give.

I'm just trying to understand the difference between trash hands and those that have possibilities. I know that starting hand requirements change when you are in the SB. I just didn't think Q2s was viable.

But, I'll take the word of the vets on this one.

[morgan]

There was a thread in the mid-to-high forum on playing 95s in the small blind. There Sklansky interjected it was a clear call. But the situation was that SB was 2/3 bet, 2 limpers, and a BB that is very unlikely to raise. I would have assumed this is similar, but maybe not.

I don't strongly disagree with folding, but I personally would call. I'd fold the flop unless I got two pair or 2 of my suit (someone pointed out that the odds of this are 7.5-1).

Morgan

[Robk]

Sorry, I did not mean to make it seem like it was "obvious" to me because I am an expert or
something. I just meant that in terms of EV, it's not a big difference one way or the other. I
still am unsure whether calling or folding is correct.

[rigoletto]

Hi Georgia

Apart from the odds question, the hands you'll call in the blinds should also depend on your postflop play. I think the replies to JTG's initial post showed that a lot of people are uncomfertable playing this hand even when they get a good flop. If they feel that way, they should probably muck it preflop and so should you. When and if you get the hang if it you can add more hands that you'll play in the blinds.

P.S. Just for the record I'd play this hand almost all the time in this situation and be happy about the flop!

[rigoletto]

Hi Georgia

Apart from the odds question, the hands you'll call in the blinds should also depend on your postflop play. I think the replies to JTG's initial post showed that a lot of people are uncomfertable playing this hand even when they get a good flop. If they feel that way, they should probably muck it preflop and so should you. When and if you get the hang if it you can add more hands that you'll play in the blinds.

P.S. Just for the record: I'd play this hand almost all the time in this situation and be happy about the flop!

[PocketRocketsBF]

Ever read anything about a thing called position?
What do you think about SB as a position for betting the
flop, turn and river? I agree with the poster - just
because you only have to put in half a bet (or slightly
more depending on the game) doesn't mean you should play
crap. In fact, playing the crap because it will only cost
half a bet will kill you in the long run because of hands
exactly like this. You are stuck in the worst position with no kicker when you pair your high card and the A & K high flushes will beat you more often than you will like when you do manage to catch your flush. Even catching two pair will many times kill you because when the board pairs your little duece doesn't look too good against someone who was playing ace queen. It is a bad starting hand made only worse by your position - don't get enticed into playing it because it only costs you half a bet.

[Homer]

I think this is utterly horrible advice. Q2s is easily playable from the SB getting 11:1 odds.

It will be very rare to have a Q high flush beaten by a K or A high flush, especially when it comes in the runner-runner variety.

-- Homer

[bad beetz]

paying half a bet is a reason to play SOME crap. Your odds are now 11:1 as opposed to 6:1.

I wouldn't play 72o here, or even 72s, but I would play things like 53s with 11:1 odds and nearly no chance of a raise.

with logical reasoning it's always good to take things to the extreme. Say you had to pay one tenth of a bet, now you would be getting close to 70:1

here, of course, you'd play any hand, and you would be right to do so even if you're only intention was to flop a straight or better or fold.

[Homer]

I would play 72s under these conditions...... /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[PocketRocketsBF]

Just curious what you are using to base your pot odds (11:1) against your cards pre-flop chance of making a winning hand? What are you using to base your belief that
a 27s is worth a call when pot is 11:1? What is the chance that 27s is going to be the winning hand? Is it better than 1 in 12? My gut says no but if you have some way of calculating this I'd be interested in finding out.

Thanks!

[pudley4]

Even though it might not win 8% of the time, it's pretty easy to get away from the hand if the flop misses you.

It's similar to the advice behind playing small pocket pairs - they might win less than their "fair share" but you can win a lot if you hit your set and they're easy to get away from if you miss.

[PocketRocketsBF]

I totally agree with you about the pocket pairs but I think there is a big difference here in that a flopped set with a pocket pair is much stronger than almost any made flop with 27s or Q2s. Is the flush flop with 27s all that comforting from SB position when you get some action going behind you? I think there are just too many trouble hands out there with these kind of hands. I think they are questionable plays from strong positions - from weak positions to me they are clear throw away hands. Do any of the credible Hold 'Em books or computer analysis recommend playing either of these hands from the SB? If not, I think that goes a long way in answering the question about whether it is profitable to play these hands from the SB.

[Ed Miller]

Q2s is a clear call in this situation because of the implied odds. You pay your half a bet to see the flop. If you flop a flush draw, two pair, or trips.. you are clearly in a +EV situation... you have the potential to make far more after the flop in these situations than your initial 1/2 bet investment. If you flop top pair/no kicker, then you can use your judgement about whether to continue if you are a strong player... but even a poor player should call with Q2s even if he plans to fold his top pair/no kicker every time.

The key to understanding this is to compare what you will make postflop with the size of your preflop investment. It isn't the pot odds that justifies this call (and people are misleading you when they tell you that it is)... it is the implied odds. This is a more difficult call (but still a clear call, IMHO) if you are in the BB.. there is an UTG raise and four cold-callers to you. You are again getting 11-1 pot odds... but your implied odds have now been cut in half. Hopefully this is clear...

[bad beetz]

check out the thread "would you play these two cards"

[Ed Miller]

Do any of the credible Hold 'Em books or computer analysis recommend playing either of these hands from the SB?

HPFAP recommends playing any two suited from the SB in a 1/2 bet structure.

[Homer]

I yanked this from a prior post....from HPFAP pg. 45

"If the fraction to enter the pot is half a bet, then you (the player in the little blind) should still be somewhat selective of the hands you play, though you should play loose. For example, hands like 8s 6d, any two suited cards, or if the pot is short-handed, a hand that contains an ace are all probably right to call with."

-- Homer

[PocketRocketsBF]

Thanks Homer & MajorKong for the references in HPFAP.
I guess my play is a little too tight from the SB.
Thanks for all your responses on this issue.

[JTG51]

Ever read anything about a thing called position?

Hey, thanks for the tip. I'll try to keep this position thing in mind next time I play.

Ever hear of a guy named David Sklansky? He says 95s is an easy call from the SB getting 11-1 odds. You seem worried about bigger flushes, so I guess you'd have to admit Q2s is far better than 95s

[PocketRocketsBF]

59s can flop a straight and I would believe why this would make it a much better starting hand - you can flop a straight or a flush. The Q2s has no such feature.

[Ed Miller]

59s can flop a straight and I would believe why this would make it a much better starting hand - you can flop a straight or a flush. The Q2s has no such feature.

Q2s makes a better flush and flops top pair with some regularity.

[JTG51]

59s can flop a straight and I would believe why this would make it a much better starting hand

At a full 10 person table, Q2s will win 10.9% of the time when all hands are played to the river. 95s will win 10.3%. I'd hardly call 95s a "much" better starting hand.

The data is from the starting hand charts on gocee.com.

[PocketRocketsBF]

I guess what I am having trouble with is getting my head around top pair with the worst kicker from early position being all that valuable. As I said earlier - I guess I am just being too tight calling from the small blind, probably because most of my play is at 3-6 with a $1 small blind.

[Ed Miller]

I guess what I am having trouble with is getting my head around top pair with the worst kicker from early position being all that valuable.

It's not "all that valuable" and I wouldn't play Q2o from the SB in this situation. But it does add value to the hand... sometimes you will have the best hand on the flop.

[PocketRocketsBF]

Just looked at some EV charts for both hands against 10 players looks like they are about the same -0.12 for 59s and -0.13 for Q2s. Once again, my instincts were wrong.
I thought the 59s would show better EV because the made straights would get bigger pots. Thanks for the reference to gocee.com.

[Ulysses]

Well, I don't really think there's all that much value in discussing the relative merits of Q2s vs. 59s from the SB, but since it's being discussed....

From Poker Room's EV Stats (https://www.pokerroom.com/evstats/totalStatsPositions.php?players=10), it looks like Q2s from the SB has a -.32 EV while 59s from the SB has a -.19 EV.

[bernie]

the players who disagree....ever read the small blind section in just about any book.

youre basically playing for the flush...and 11-1 is easy for any 2 suited cards...

afraid of trapping yourself if a Q flops? what do you think someone would be raising with if there was any real action on the flop...if you cant get away from this hand when you flop top pair, id suggest studying handreading and post flop play. especially if you think your obligated to see more cards just because you have top pair...

many of the biggest pots ive seen won were by baby flushes....i wouldnt worry too much about flush over flush...it's not a common occurrence. unless there's a 4 flush on the board.

for some of the responders who disagree, the hole isnt in the preflop play, it's your post flop play.

this is an easy call

b

[polarbear]

Be careful. These are all the SB hands mixed together, meaning they include pots that are raised that a SB was foolish enough to enter the pot with the Q2s or 95s.

[polarbear]

I don't understand, what's so bad about flopping top pair with no kicker? Sure if someone else has a Q, you can lose money. However, the money you'll win if nobody has a Q, plus all the money in the pot preflop, makes flopping top pair-no kicker profitable. This happens far more often than you'd think.

That alone isn't enough to make the call profitable, but when combined with the flush draw, it's far more than adequate.

[Ulysses]

Be careful. These are all the SB hands mixed together, meaning they include pots that are raised that a SB was foolish enough to enter the pot with the Q2s or 95s.

See, this is what I was worried about in the first place. Now, I've wasted time:

1) Reading a post about the merits of Q2s vs 95s.
2) Responding to aforementioned post.
3) Reading a response to aforementioned response.
4) Writing a response to aforementioned response to response.

Now, on to the response.

Since the matter at hand was the relative strength of Q2s vs 95s, I think it's safe to assume that those foolish enough to enter a raised pot with Q2s will balance out those foolish enough to enter a raised pot with 95s. Now, for a variety of reasons one might contemplate that Q2s in a raised pot will lose slightly more than 95s in the same situation, hence skewing the results in favor of 95s. However, I suspect that any such skewing, would be small, if in fact it exists.

Anyway, I stand by my two initial assertions:

a) Assuming that the sample size of the data I used is anywhere close to reasonable, 95s is a stronger hand than Q2s out of the SB.

b) This specific discussion is pretty silly and unlikely to make any of us much, if any, money. However, when it comes to the 95s vs Q2s from the SB 10-handed showdown, we'll all be well prepared.