REVIEW: Hands 114 K Q & 115 K J (They are related)

[GrunchCan]

HAND 114 :
Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with K, J.
1 fold, Hero folds

HAND 115 :
Preflop: Hero is UTG with K, Q.
Hero raises, UTG+1 calls, 4 folds, SB calls, BB calls.

I can't help but point out the obvious here. Why such a bright line between these two hands? I don't wanna hear no kool-aid, either. I want a real reason. I can see a huge difference between say K9o and K8o: K9o has 1 additional way to win.

Convince me to not raise KJo in UTG+1 while at the same time I should raise KQo.

[MrWookie47]

KQ can be dominated only by AK and AQ. KJ can be dominated by AK, KQ, and AJ - 50% more hands.

That said, I sometimes raise KJo in EP.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
KQ can be dominated only by AK and AQ. KJ can be dominated by AK, KQ, and AJ - 50% more hands.

That said, I sometimes raise KJo in EP.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but it's still very few hands that we are dominated by. Also, if the opponent has a hand strong enought to dominate KJ, this will usually become apparent postflop. I believe a skilled Hero can outplay his opponents often enough to make raising with just about any 2 broadway cards more +EV than just limping. Agree/disagree?

[Rev. Good Will]

you gotta trust your pattern mapper man

in all seriousness, I agree on that, I couldn't find it(furthest back the search function is going is my response to the bankroll post /images/graemlins/frown.gif), but one of my first hand posts involved me limping, and I got abesolutely FLAMED by everyone, scarring me from ever limping that in EP ever again...

[MrWookie47]

Also, KQ fears an A on the flop. KJ fears A's, and Q's whenever there isn't a K. A pair of J's is less likely to win than a pair of K's.

I don't think raising any two broadways can be profitable. I think JTo and QTo are just too weak to be profitable in EP. KTo might just be profitable, and I think all the others could conceivably be profitable with a skilled hero.

[slavic]

Think of KJo, what hands call when you raise? How do they play versus KJo? What you do by raising is stop the hands you want to play from playing and the hands that call you don't do so well against.

Now with that said KJo UTG and UTG+1 I tend to muck.

[GrunchCan]

Right. Remember, I said 'just about'. I agree JTo and QJo are much weaker, becasue they have less TP strength than A or K high. I guess what I'm saying is any A-b or K-b hand should be playable here (b=broadway).

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KQ can be dominated only by AK and AQ. KJ can be dominated by AK, KQ, and AJ - 50% more hands.

That said, I sometimes raise KJo in EP.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but it's still very few hands that we are dominated by. Also, if the opponent has a hand strong enought to dominate KJ, this will usually become apparent postflop. I believe a skilled Hero can outplay his opponents often enough to make raising with just about any 2 broadway cards more +EV than just limping. Agree/disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. KJ benefits from people playing KT,K9,... QJ, JT, .... you get the idea. How od you make money from those players if you raise them out. Now switch this around, your in LP and a few people limp who are "loose" ok now you can make an argument for a raise. Playing any two broadway cards in EP and especially playing any two broadway and raise is a leak.

I'm not sure if pokerroom still has their hand stats but go look at how offsuit broadway hands fair in ep.

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KQ can be dominated only by AK and AQ. KJ can be dominated by AK, KQ, and AJ - 50% more hands.

That said, I sometimes raise KJo in EP.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but it's still very few hands that we are dominated by. Also, if the opponent has a hand strong enought to dominate KJ, this will usually become apparent postflop. I believe a skilled Hero can outplay his opponents often enough to make raising with just about any 2 broadway cards more +EV than just limping. Agree/disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. KJ benefits from people playing KT,K9,... QJ, JT, .... you get the idea. How od you make money from those players if you raise them out. Now switch this around, your in LP and a few people limp who are "loose" ok now you can make an argument for a raise. Playing any two broadway cards in EP and especially playing any two broadway and raise is a leak.

I'm not sure if pokerroom still has their hand stats but go look at how offsuit broadway hands fair in ep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh we are in luck here is KJo in all positions.

KJ -0.08 -0.17 -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.06

As you can see it loses money until MLP.

[MrWookie47]

Those Pokerroom stats, though, are for the average poker room donk. In the hands of a skilled player, I'm pretty sure he can make KJ and AT profitable. KTo though is a pretty big question mark for me. I could seeing it being just barely profitable, or I could see it being slightly more unprofitable.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if pokerroom still has their hand stats but go look at how offsuit broadway hands fair in ep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were these stats an aggregate of all pokerroom players, including the donkinsh majority? See what I'm getting at here?

Regarding your analysis, this is the kind of argument I'm looking for. But your argument implies that KJ-type hands are actually good multiway hands, yes? But I can't really buy in to that, since there are very few ways for it to win a multiway pot. Fewer ways in fact than KQo since KQ is a zero-gapper, and even still fewer than KJs. And yet we raise KQo? Sounds paradoxical.

[MrWookie47]

KJo and KQo can make exactly the same number of straights.

[GrunchCan]

Yep.

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if pokerroom still has their hand stats but go look at how offsuit broadway hands fair in ep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were these stats an aggregate of all pokerroom players, including the donkinsh majority? See what I'm getting at here?

Regarding your analysis, this is the kind of argument I'm looking for. But your argument implies that KJ-type hands are actually good multiway hands, yes? But I can't really buy in to that, since there are very few ways for it to win a multiway pot. Fewer ways in fact than KQo since KQ is a zero-gapper, and even still fewer than KJs. And yet we raise KQo? Sounds paradoxical.

[/ QUOTE ]

KQo is a table feel hand for me, unlike many players I see nothing wrong with limping several hands in the right games. I have folded it to an open limp from an UTG player, I have raised first in UTG, I have limped, overlimped all things could be right at any time. It also suffers from the same paradox that KJ suffers from, it doesn't play all that well against multiple players, but when you raise you chase out the hands you want to call (same with AJ btw).

Now as we get to MP with them, yes we are going to open raise with them because the dynamics of the hand have changed but in EP in a full 9 or 10 handed game they don't do as well as people think.

[GrunchCan]

I'm pretty sure I agree with every word you typed just then.

[slavic]

Yes they are a compilation of hands, but they give you very good trend data. Not all players are "donks" and in fact I believe I sorted these out form the upper ring games, so yuor donkiness should be a bit less, however as you look at the postional shift in value you just can't say that an expert will make up for that. Position happens to be one of those key items that is hard to make up for, and expert players try to do things with position, not out of it.

Playing sub standard cards out of position is just not the way you want to go.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing sub standard cards out of position is just not the way you want to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I agree. But I'm still wondering why the line is between KQ and KJ? Why not KJ and KT, for instance?

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]

Ahh we are in luck here is KJo in all positions.

KJ -0.08 -0.17 -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.06

As you can see it loses money until MLP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are my figures for KJo and KQo after 65,000 hands.

KJo starting at SB and working towards Button:
-0.21 SB
0.03
0.83
-0.12
0.62
0.48
0.40
0.48
0.00 Button

Not sure what to think of the 0.00 for the Button since I raise with it about the same in the last 4 positions.

Here is KQo:
0.47 SB
1.03
1.11
0.78
0.22
1.00
0.70
-0.16
-0.48
0.15 Button

As you can see, KQo is a great hand in the blinds and in early position but sucks in late position. /images/graemlins/wink.gif I raise with KQo everywhere but the blinds between 80%-88%. Apparently I'm bluffing too much on missed flops in late postion. Something I hadn't noticed before.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't help but point out the obvious here. Why such a bright line between these two hands? I don't wanna hear no kool-aid, either. I want a real reason. I can see a huge difference between say K9o and K8o: K9o has 1 additional way to win.

Convince me to not raise KJo in UTG+1 while at the same time I should raise KQo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like I'm late to the party on this one, but everyone seems to be having fun in the meantime /images/graemlins/smile.gif

In an ideal world, I want to raise when I feel that my hand is best or at least has an edge preflop. When you're in later position, you have the luxury of seeing people act before you and making a judgement based on how much strength they've shown so far. When you're in EP, you don't have that luxury -- many people will still act behind you, and you have to decide how well your hand will play without much information.

The strongest hands (big pairs, AK/AQ/AJ etc) don't suffer much from this impediment, because there's just too few hands that dominate them. As you move down the spectrum and hands get weaker, you fear more and more hands being active in people behind you. KJo is right around where that border is for me -- I'll happily raise it behind a limper in late position, but it's just a bit too weak for me to want to play it in EP.

My best answer to "why KQo and not KJo" is that with the offsuit cards, the strength drops off quickly with your side card. A king or a queen has a pretty good chance of making top pair. A lone jack, less so. A ten, even less. Kicker issues also play.

As to why exactly KJo, well, you have to draw the line somewhere. If you like raising with KJo, then I could as easily ask why you wouldn't play KTo but would raise KJo. If we never cut it off anywhere, we'll eventually convince ourselves that 72o is worth a raise in EP /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
My best answer to "why KQo and not KJo" is that with the offsuit cards, the strength drops off quickly with your side card. A king or a queen has a pretty good chance of making top pair. A lone jack, less so. A ten, even less.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was going to say, and I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned earlier in the thread. KQo is better than KJo because a pair of queens is more likely to win a pot than a pair of jacks.

This is the exact same reason why Axs is better than Kxs. There are many situations in which I would raise the former but fold the latter.

Granted, the difference between KJo and KQo isn't *huge*, but really it's KQo thats the borderline hand. Like an earlier poster mentioned, the decision to limp or raise with that hand is at least somewhat close and table-dependent. KJo is a clear notch below the borderline.

[benkath1]

[ QUOTE ]
As to why exactly KJo, well, you have to draw the line somewhere. If you like raising with KJo, then I could as easily ask why you wouldn't play KTo but would raise KJo. If we never cut it off anywhere, we'll eventually convince ourselves that 72o is worth a raise in EP

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. I liked this line. I think it is all situational. It's kind of like raising Q 10 o from late. There's a reason you do it and figuring out what that reason is is why we're here.

This was a good read.

[Nilbud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if pokerroom still has their hand stats but go look at how offsuit broadway hands fair in ep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were these stats an aggregate of all pokerroom players, including the donkinsh majority? See what I'm getting at here?

Regarding your analysis, this is the kind of argument I'm looking for. But your argument implies that KJ-type hands are actually good multiway hands, yes? But I can't really buy in to that, since there are very few ways for it to win a multiway pot. Fewer ways in fact than KQo since KQ is a zero-gapper, and even still fewer than KJs. And yet we raise KQo? Sounds paradoxical.

[/ QUOTE ]

KQo is a table feel hand for me, unlike many players I see nothing wrong with limping several hands in the right games. I have folded it to an open limp from an UTG player, I have raised first in UTG, I have limped, overlimped all things could be right at any time. It also suffers from the same paradox that KJ suffers from, it doesn't play all that well against multiple players, but when you raise you chase out the hands you want to call (same with AJ btw).

Now as we get to MP with them, yes we are going to open raise with them because the dynamics of the hand have changed but in EP in a full 9 or 10 handed game they don't do as well as people think.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'm confused now. SSHE says to limp from UTG with KJo, in fact, it recommends limping from all positions. Now, I can certainly understand open-raising from MP, but I have no idea what to do with it in EP. Is there really much difference in expectation between raising and calling from UTG?

I know SSHE starting charts are not gospel, but I need to know why I'm deviating from it at this stage of my poker knowledge.

[GrunchCan]

There was a thread yesterday in which I strongly supported basically never open-limping a TP type hand. Open for a raise or fold is my line.

Edit: linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2981357&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

[Nilbud]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a thread yesterday in which I strongly supported basically never open-limping a TP type hand. Open for a raise or fold is my line.

Edit: linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2981357&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I read that thread with interest and it definitely convinced me to raise with KQo from EP. I like the idea of never limping a TP hand, but I think I'd have a hard time justifying an UTG raise of KJo, so I guess it's a fold.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'd have a hard time justifying an UTG raise of KJo, so I guess it's a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

By jove, I think he's got it!

[Nilbud]

We've already agreed, for the most part, that raising pre-flop in hand 115 is good, but what about calling the flop bet? I figure we're getting 9:1 with only four, maybe 4.5 outs. Do we not need at least 10:1 for this to be profitable?


<font color="green">HAND 115 :</font>
Preflop: Hero is UTG with K/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, SB calls, BB calls.

Flop: (8 SB) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, SB calls.

[GrunchCan]

I think this is an easy call for implied odds. Considering only the straight, we are getting 9:1 on a 1:11 shot. If we hit our straight on the turn, we'll easily make up the bets we need.

[Nilbud]

I had a feeling it was implied odds when I didn't see any mention of it as a bad call. So, I admit it, I don't really understand how to apply implied odds on the fly. I think I understand the concept, but I'm always left wondering where the line is, and without a line, I worry about fudging and throwing a way chips.

I think a re-read of the section on implied odds in SSHE is in order.

[ghostface]

[ QUOTE ]

Convince me to not raise KJo in UTG+1 while at the same time I should raise KQo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just dont open limp.

[detruncate]

On the fly: how many bets do you need to make up? Remember to think in BBs. How realistic is it given the number of players in the pot and the board texture -- will making your hand result in a super scary board? What are the chances you're going to win if you hit, and will your opponents have strong redraws? Will you have to put in more bets on this or later betting rounds (effecive odds)?

In the context of this hand (assuming 4 outs):

I need to make up 1 BB, and the players left to act will sometimes call and reduce that. On the other hand, they might raise, which I'd hate, so I'm going to have to make up more than 1 BB on average if this call is going to be profitable. But not that much more, I don't think, unless the players behind us are routinely over-aggressive -- in which case we might want to rethink our call as we have to make up a lot more bets as the chance of being raised approaches 100%. Assuming typcial players, another bet or two will probably do it longterm.

This is fully doable, as I'm usually going to make up 2+ BB from Villain, and the other cats in the hand will often call a least a turn bet since this board will have hit a lot of likely hands. If I'm in luck, someone will have 2 pair or something and things will heat up.

We'll have the nut straight. AA (and TT to a slightly lesser extent) is unlikely. That usually leaves only one likely set. Other hands will be drawing to 4 outs or less. When we hit, we almost always win.

It all adds up to pretty good implied odds. Certainly good enough to make up our small deficit.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I admit it, I don't really understand how to apply implied odds on the fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I never really had more than an intuitive sense before I started planing NL, either. But once I started playing NL, I needd to figure it out pretty damn quick.

Sorry, but most of my links these days are going to be to SSNL posts. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Implied Odds (http://http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=3014641&amp;page=1&amp;view=colla psed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1)

[Rev. Good Will]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a thread yesterday in which I strongly supported basically never open-limping a TP type hand. Open for a raise or fold is my line.

Edit: linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2981357&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=)

[/ QUOTE ]

what about ATo? open-raising seems wrong in most cases IMO

[MrWookie47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was a thread yesterday in which I strongly supported basically never open-limping a TP type hand. Open for a raise or fold is my line.

Edit: linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2981357&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=)

[/ QUOTE ]

what about ATo? open-raising seems wrong in most cases IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

What? ATo is exactly the kind of hand I like to open raise. What is a situation where you think open raising ATo is wrong? I can't think of one other than for those people who fold it UTG. I hope you're not thinking of others, because I strongly disagree.

[Rev. Good Will]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was a thread yesterday in which I strongly supported basically never open-limping a TP type hand. Open for a raise or fold is my line.

Edit: linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2981357&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=)

[/ QUOTE ]

what about ATo? open-raising seems wrong in most cases IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

What? ATo is exactly the kind of hand I like to open raise. What is a situation where you think open raising ATo is wrong? I can't think of one other than for those people who fold it UTG. I hope you're not thinking of others, because I strongly disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant in EP, where I would open-limp it, still disagree?

edited for punctuation

[GrunchCan]

I disagree. If you don't want to open ATo for a raise in EP, I think you would be better off folding it.

[MrWookie47]

I'm with Grunch. Limping encourages multiway action, and you have a hand that fares quite poorly multiway.

[Mroberts3]

Im Grunching here, so forgive me if I am way off.

I don't think the line should be that bright, as you put it. However if i did believe that one should fold KJ but raise KQ I would point to the tendency of weak players to play many trouble hands. KQ is only dominated by 2 hands, and most people will raise with AK and AQ. Therefore, it should be more obvious when one is in trouble. With KJ, you can reasonably think you have the best hand considering the circumstances, but really be facing an early limper with AJ, for example. I also see KJ as more dangerous because it is closer to the "draw zone" of 8-Q, cards that are used in more straights than others. It is much easier to have top pair jacks, but have several players drawing to legitimate hands than with KQ. (also note that a pair of queens is much stronger than a pair of jacks and will win the hand a fair % more often). There are several other ideas that make some difference, but probably not important enough to mention. I guess my short answer would be that I dont think hte line is that distinct, but if I were to try and tell you why it is, I would say that KJ is much more of a trouble hand than KQ.

[MN_Mime]

Late to the game... last reply on these threads until they cycle off the front page again.

---


HAND 114 :
Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with KS, JH.
1 fold, Hero folds

Good fold.


HAND 115 :
Preflop: Hero is UTG with KC, QS.
Hero raises, UTG+1 calls, 4 folds, SB calls, BB calls.

Flop: (8 SB) 9C, TD, AS (4 players)
SB checks, BB bets, Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, SB calls.

Turn: (6 BB) TH (4 players)
SB checks, BB bets, Hero folds

Good... um, raise? I'm not sure I play this unsuited, but others may. Either way, I agree with the raise over a call.

Flop: I don't understand the call here. The pot isn't that big, the board is pretty coordinated in the playing range so EVERYBODY hit something, and you've got two players acting after you. Either raise to clean up your outs or get the hell out of the way. I favor folding, but an Aceless board would cause me to raise.

Turn: Personally, I don't think the turn changes much unless Hero thinks someone filled up (i.e. should middle or bottom pair even be in this hand still?). A flop raise would have helped provide this information. The way Hero played it, I think he's best getting out of the way since a raise behind him seems likely.

---

Someone (Detruncate, I think) did some implied odds calculations to illustrate a call was close. I've never been that good with these calculations myself, but it strikes me that it's assuming that you are playing for a straight to win and that improving to 2nd pair has no chances. Transitioning from PF aggressor to passive caller telegraphs that you're now trying to draw out and that you somehow missed this flop. I don't think that approach gives you the best chances to win this hand.