most dangerous hands

[jake-free]

Is TT the most dangerous hand in limit holdem and AKo the most in no-limit?
jake

[PokerPrince]

No hand is "dangerous" if played correctly and played in proper position.

PokerPrince

[jake-free]

ok which is the most bustout hand in limit holdem and in no-limit holdem ? QQ? JJ?

[rusty JEDI]

Wow pokerprince what a profound response. I think it is likely that the poster knows at least this much but is trying to ask a question without having to spell out every single detail. Like what hand do most people play poorly. If you were as smart as it seems you are trying to sound then you could give a reply such as...in EP hand XX generally gets played wrong for the biggest loss of chips. And then go on for MP and LP. And even expand it into the blinds. Now obviously 27o is a hand that has some of the worst ev, but once again i should probably spell out the parameters to say. Hands that are commonly misplayed for the biggest loss of ev in each position. Now 72o is obviously not a good answer because it isnt commonly played.

I really dont know the answer to his question but i am sure that hands like TT are a big loser for some people like he asked.

[Ed Miller]

I really dont know the answer to his question but i am sure that hands like TT are a big loser for some people like he asked.

You'd have to be a pretty darn bad poker player to manage to turn TT into a longterm loser.

[Homer]

If you are talking about the most oft misplayed hands, I would say that in limit AK, Axs, and middle pairs fit the bill.

-- Homer

[mrbaseball]

I have found one of the most interesting things about internet poker is tracking my play and results with hand tracking software. My 4 most profitable hands so far (in order) are AA, QQ, KK, JJ. So for me anyway QQ and JJ aren't bust out hands. And I have done quite well with TT too. My hand 'o death so far (only a few weeks of results to date) has been AQs. It has been my biggest losing hand. I attribute this to small sample size and bad string of luck with that particular hand. If it is still at the bottom in a month or 2 I will try to analize the potential leak a bit closer.

[tewall]

[rusty JEDI]

Perhaps that is just a low limit mentality. When you are playing online lowlimit TT goes down in a lot of ways. And for those who cant let it go it becomes a very big loser. It is dangerous IMO because it is one of those hands people have a tough time throwing away.

[cpk]

I'd say that in limit hold-em, unimproved AK and 77-99 are probably the most difficult hands to play. In no-limit, KK and QQ are the most difficult.

I'll illustrate the latter really quickly. You're 25 seconds into the WSOP Big One. You look down and you get two red kings. Someone UTG raises to $100. The next player raises to $1,000. It's to you. What are you going to do now? Case closed. OK, sure, this is a tournament, but the same situation could arise in live play where you're confronted for a preflop decision for all your chips with the second-best-possible hand. Or perhaps the third-best-possible one.

Now, to limit. 99 is where I draw the line, but I consider 77-99 to be basically the same hand. It's a source of consternation for me, because I'm often in a situation where I feel that nothing I can do is the right play.

OK, say you're in a LL game with 99 on the button and some jagoff limps in UTG. Everyone else folds. Now what do you do? Raise? Call? Fold? I feel like this hand is too big to let go. But in a typical LL game I will probably get called by both blinds. There are 5 overcards to 99, and the odds are high that one of those overcards will come and hit someone. If not, then someone will make a straight or flush.

And yet, hot-and-cold simulations show that even if you're facing four opponents with overcards and/or suited connectors, you're a money favorite. Not a huge one, mind you, but you are a favorite. So you're screwed. You can't fold. I went through a phase recently where I pitched 77-99 if I was up against a single limper, because it just "wasn't worth my time." But that was improper thinking--in late position, you have the advantage, and you should get the money in the only time you know you're good--before the flop.

And I agree with whoever it was that said that AK is seriously overrated. Unless it improves, the only way you can do any damage with it is against opponents who play incredibly weakly and tightly. Against people with spirit, it is a very difficult hand to play. You almost have to play an unimproved AK randomly to make it profitable.

[SunTzu68]

Jake,

I don't play much no-limit so I can't speak from experience, however I did like Doyle Brunson's section in Super System listing what he considered 'trap hands'. They looked the same as what I would consider 'trap hands' in limit poker.

Two trap hands I see misplayed frequently are KJ and KQ (suited or not). A player will come into a raised pot with either of these hands will hit one of their cards and be dominated with a hand like AK or AQ and they will lose a significant amount of bets going to the river.

Just my observation.. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Ralle]

For me TT is a tough hand (and to a lesser degree JJ). Over and over I find myself in a situation where I have to throw it away on the flop because of one or more overcards. If I raise before the flop and get a few callers, then it seems likely that they have high cards that could have paired the board. Of course the real problem is that I have no way of knowing whether they paired or not, all I can do is guess, which is not nice. If I don't raise before the flop, there will be lots of callers and almost certainly at least one of them will pair an overcard when it flops.

So, in effect, TT (and maybe JJ) are not much better for me than the lower pairs. What I'm really looking for is to make a set, and chances are that the pot will be about as big with TT as it would be with e.g. 66. When I don't make a set, sometimes TT will still hold up, but in order to find out I'll have to play a guessing game.

[SoBeDude]

This is a great thread.

Granted many hands if played CORRECTLY are profitable. but many of those hands can easily be losers if played incorrectly.

I wonder if AJo is one of those hands?

-Scott

[tewall]

AJo is too good to lose money with in a non-tough game (unless it's played very, very poorly). K9 I'm guessing is an unprofitable hand for most players.

Most of the hands people are mentioning will still be making money, it's just a matter of getting the most out of them. Your bringing up a different point, which is also interesting, dealing with what hands are profitable vs. unprofitable.

[cferejohn]

I guess what you have to realize is you are making money when you throw away JJ or TT on the flop when there are overcards in a multi-way pot. That can be one of the good things about these hands, that they can be easy to get away from as long as you don't fall into thinking ('maybe all 3 of them are bluffing' or 'maybe the next card will be a T'). If you can keep from losing too much money in those situations, the amount you make when there are no overcards or (better yet) you flop a set will more than make up for it. If you win 1 hand out of every 4 times you see the flop with JJ, you will probably be making a profit.

I think these hands feel like trouble because it 'hurts' to throw them away on the flop after your pre-flop raise w/ 2 callers and the flop comes AQ4.

[Gahnia radula]

where did u get the hand traking software
and how does it work

[SoBeDude]

I just started using the program pokerstat, demo version.

In 320 hands, my SECOND biggest loser is TT at -2.67 BBs. I've had it 3 times, lost with it all 3.

My biggest loser? KK
I've had it twice, lost with it both times (neither time an ace on board either). -5.0 BBs

I know I know, I can hear it now. This is such a small sample etc. etc.

I am not trying to say this is right. I just thought it was funny that I'd start out with two pocket pairs as my big losers. And specifically TT as was mentioned in the original post.

(Also 22, 44, 55, and 99 are also currently losers)

-Scott

[Chris Alger]

If you play badly only in tough games you might squeak out a small loss with AJo, but I doubt it. AJo in particular positions after particular action? Sure. But losing with TT is probably impossible.

[mrbaseball]

I use pokertracker and it works pretty good if you ask me. Check the books and software forum here at 2+2 as that is where I first discovered it.

I think it is an outstanding tool.

[SoBeDude]

I don't know. In the private game I play there is so many aggressive fish that HAVE to see the river with any ace or two big cards, TT can lose a lot when it gets run down every time. In this game, raising just increases the interest in the pot, it doesn't scare ppl out.

-Scott

[Chris Alger]

There is no holdem game so loose that you can only win with the top 3% of all possible hands (AA-JJ, AK). This is what it would take for you to show a long term loss with TT. The win rate of for tens in a cold sim 10-handed to the river is nearly double that of random hands.

Further, I don't understand how TT can be "dangerous." You almost always raise or reraise before the flop. More than a third of the time you'll flop a set or an overpair. Of the rest, you can often ditch on the flop or check it down -- you'll rarely get whipsawed with a draw because you'll know you don't have one. There aren't many hard decisions except in games where players never bet their hand, but never fold either. But against those guys you can't lose.

[cpk]

The biggest way to lose money with AJo is overplaying it against other players who showed preflop aggression. That usually means the AJ is drawing to three outs, and you don't know whether you're drawing for a J (in case you're up against AK) or an A (in case you're up against KK-JJ).

AJ is good if you can be the sole aggressor and flop well. It is also very good in a game where people overplay crap aces. This is where conventional wisdom should be set aside--normally you would fold AJo if facing two bets, but against someone liable to raise A2, you should three-bet, as you are more likely to dominate as be dominated.

[Adde]

My most dangerous hands have been those hands that seem cheap to enter with in the small blind, but usually end up beeing dominated. A6, K8, etc.

[glen]

Isn't it A8o or something - the one that Wild Bill or somebody got shot in the back while holding. The DEAD MAN'S HAND! Sounds dangerous to me.

[SoBeDude]

He was holding two pair, Aces and Eights.

-Scott

And another bit o' trivia: Hoyle died about 100 years before poker was invented. He wrote a book about Whist (now called bridge).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Trivia question. What was the fifth card in Wild Bill's hand?

[SoBeDude]

the truth is it's not known. All that history recorded was the aces and eights.

-Scott

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Someone told me it was Q /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif

[Cyrus]

"Is TT the most dangerous hand in limit holdem and AKo the most in no-limit?"

"Danger" is associated in my book with "risk". And "risk" means "variance" (same book). Therefore and with the assumption that the tables one plays are filled with average to good players and not with just loose crazies, the obvious answer is that the most dangerous hands, in any game, are the hands that cause the most variance.

Variance means the distance from expectation. And the risk comes when variance hits you the wrong way, i.e. when fortune deals you a negative swing. (When variance hits me the right way, I am the best player in the history of poker.)

So, in Hold'em, on one extreme is AA and on the other extreme is 72o. Both these hands have their work cut out for them the most, within the range of possible starting hands, in the sense that the player's actions are more lopsided than with any other starting hand : go to war with AA; fold with 72o.

It is also obvious that the dangerous/riskier/most-variance-inducing starting hands are somewhere in the middle of the range. Q7 could be one such hand. However, the determination of a starting hand (or a group of starting hands) as the most variance-inducing would have to weigh the hands. I mean, you'd find yourself in a pot more often with QJ than with Q7, which should account for something.

These are my thoughts on the subject, which I consider to be purely theoretical, in any case, (taking into consideration the generic variance of starting hands in real life is too marginal a consideration) and if someone comes up with a specific answer, I'll be glad to be informed --but no more than that. I ain't getting scared next time I'm dealt "the most dangerous hands in poker"!