sklanskys strategy

does he say in an early position a JT is preferable to KQ because it has 6 outs compared to 4?

[Vincent Lepore]

No - it's because he's nuts. Also you are less likely to flop second best hand.

Vince

OK, notwithstanding your view of him, am I correct in the analysis of the outs?

[ewashingtons]

before i jump in and say you're wrong steve, how are you calculating these outs?
outs against what hand?

Did I calculate this right to a straight?

JT has AKQ987
KQ has AJT9

[eisanm]

I don't know where you get it from, but I think you're wrong about the straight outs.

From the way I read your argument, I think he could mean that when you flop top pair with JT you're more likely to have the best hand than if you flop top pair (from early position) with KQ, since with KQ there is a bigger risk of being dominated by AK/AQ than with JT against AJ/KJ/etc since people play those hands less.

Since KQ is more likely to be dominated when flopping top pair, you have to compensate for that by not counting your outs as full outs, which makes it 4 instead of 6.

I consider KKKQQQ outs for KQ and TTTJJJ as outs fro JT. I don't think he's meaning straight outs, that's just too long a shot to be considered preflop. At least in this context.

That said, I never limp JT in early position. Maybe if it's suited in a passive game, but otherwise, not neccesarily.

Where did he say this and in what context? In full ring I'd fold JTo in small stakes from EP.

All other things being equal JT does make more straighte than KQ, but I would take the KQ anyday.