Is 22 more valuable than 66?

[Redhotman]

The only time you are likely to win in a loose game with 22 or 66 is when you hit a set. Hitting a set with 22, means that one of the cards on the board is a 2, which is probally less likely to help anyone than a six.
Agree or disagree?

[slavic]

A 6 makes more straights and has a higher likelyhood of winning unimproved. Marginal but better.

[Ed Miller]

Disagree. You will win significantly more often with 66 than with 22.

* 66 will occasionally win unimproved
* 6's make more straights than 2's
* flopping a set with 66 is a more robust hand than a set with 22. For example, every time the board double pairs and your set is 22, your hand has been seriously weakened. This is not the case with 66.

Quoting from vehn's favorite tool, http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Value.htm

66 63.3 43.2 31.5 24.5 20.1 17.3 15.4 14.0 13.1
22 50.3 30.7 22.0 17.8 15.5 14.2 13.3 12.5 12.0

(in case you aren't familiar, these are the percentages that 66 and 22 will beat N random hands in a hot-and-cold simulation).

In general, I think a lot of people on this forum underestimate the value of having medium-sized cards in a typically loose holdem game as compared to the very smallest cards. 98s is a much better hand than 54s in almost every situation, and 66 is a noticably better hand than 22.

In games where your opponents use stronger preflop hand selection, the difference is greatly diminished.

[GuyOnTilt]

No, 66 is a much better hand. Although set over set is very rare, it does happen, and with 22, you will always be on the losing end of it. 66 also can make more one-card straights, and can win unimproved short-handed.

Basically, 66 romps all over 22 and shows it who's boss ALL NIGHT LONG!

[Dylan Wade]

Hey, if you're curious about things like these, I have found a free tool at www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com) which is really fun to play with. You can simulate 22 vs 66 or 22 vs x random hands vs 66 vs x random hands or maybe compare how they fare in multiplay action. You can also limit the random hands, so that players are only playing "good hands". This way you can test your theory about 2's not helping good hands. There are tables for this stuff that are probably more accurate, but if you're curious about a lot of things give it a whirl...

On a side note, I've been reading SuperSystem, and for No Limit Brunson likes the smaller suited connectors for the reason you propose (i.e. they are more disguised and anything that helps the hand is not likely helping the hands of your enemies).

[Mike Haven]

obviously there's no difference in odds terms of hitting trips on the flop whether you have 22 or 66, and if you do hit your trips you will win almost exactly the same number of played out hands (strangely, 222 will win a few more than 666 because the 6 on the flop will help others' hands slightly more)

the trouble with 22 comes when you DON'T hit trips but you play on

taking one example, if we compare the two hands when JJx flops, (four opponents playing random hands, all hands played out), 22 will win only 15%, (15 out of every 100 played),of hands from this point whereas 66 will win 24% (an average hand will win 20%)

neither result is great, but as you can see there is an enormous difference in values between the two in such a situation

one final example - the best draw that you can get with 22 is a 345 flop - looks good, but (conditions as above) you will win only 19% of hands (less than average)

my recommendation, fwiw, is that if you have the discipline to hit a 2 or fold, period, then play 22 if you are getting proper 7 to 1 odds - if you don't have that discipline, like me, don't put yourself in the position where you may be lured into temptation - avoiding playing 22 will cost you "nothing" in the long run

the same argument goes for 33; 44 and 55 are just about playable, but, personally speaking, i start playing at 66)

[ramjam]

As well as all these other tools, you can also check out the real-world EV data at pokerroom.com (http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evstats/totalStats.php?order=card) .

Results as follows (all size tables, all limits):

66 +0.07BB/hand based on 417,000 instances
22 -0.08BB/hand based on 420,000 instances

[Mike Haven]

by the way, i wanted to add the reason i recommend waiting until you get your full 7 to 1 odds before playing a 22, rather than accepting, say, 5.5 to 1 plus implied odds

let's say you are in a 1-2 game, for ease of calculation

your p/f call costs you 1, your flop call and raise if you hit costs you 2, your turn and river bets cost you 4 - that's a total of 7

you lose 7 on your seven failed hits

so your total cost to reach the finish of your trips hand is 14

which means you must pull in a final pot of at least 16 to end up in small profit after rake

but you only win maybe 80% of the hands where you hit your third two, so you need to add in another 2 to allow for this loss

therefore you need to win pots of 18 to end up in small profit

at a passive 1-2 this is a tight enough order - average pots being perhaps only 12 - so stick to ensuring you have proper pot odds before starting out on this long haul to a winning hand - you could hit the "right" number of trips and still lose if the pots don't reach the necessary 18 threshold

[SirRaleigh]

I am not certain how common this is but at Mandalya Bay playing 4-8 on a Saturday they pay over $500 if you hold a pocket 22 and make a 4 of a kind. They had similar payoffs for all pocket pairs but the payoff for AA was very small. On this fact alone I was playing 22-55 in any position. Does any one know what the odds of hitting 4 of a kind after getting pocket pairs?

[pudley4]

Your calculation is off. You say you need to win $16-$18 when you win, but the way you calculated your win/loss means you must include the $7 you put in when you calculate the size of the pot. So you only need to collect $9-$11 from your opponents.

Look at it this way:

Say you win 4/5 of the time you flop a set (or better). You flop a set (or better) 2/17 (7.5 to 1) times. So you win 8/85 times.

Of these 85 hands:

75 times you will pay one bet to see the flop, miss your set, then fold. This is -75 bets.

2 times you will flop your set and lose. Assume it costs one bet preflop, two bets on the flop (a bet and your raise), and two more (small) bets on the turn and river. This is -14 bets.

8 times you will win. In these wins you need to make up 89 bets, an average of 11 bets per win. If you get 5 callers preflop, and then just one single caller to the river, you have made your 11 bets.

[Mike Haven]

You said:

Your calculation is off. You say you need to win $16-$18 when you win, but the way you calculated your win/loss means you must include the $7 you put in when you calculate the size of the pot. So you only need to collect $9-$11 from your opponents.

and:

8 times you will win. In these wins you need to make up 89 bets, an average of 11 bets per win. If you get 5 callers preflop, and then just one single caller to the river, you have made your 11 bets.

I said:

therefore you need to win pots of 18 to end up in small profit

at a passive 1-2 this is a tight enough order - average pots being perhaps only 12 - so stick to ensuring you have proper pot odds before starting out on this long haul to a winning hand - you could hit the "right" number of trips and still lose if the pots don't reach the necessary 18 threshold

We said exactly the same thing, to the dollar!

[conform]

mike, you made some comments to me a few days ago after i took a pot UTG with pocket 2s in a party $0.50-$1 game that seemed to suggest you didn't think much of my play. i think you underestimate the ease with which one can make up the implied odds needed in those games...

i'd been thinking about posting the hand, but this is a fine opportunity to mention it. i think you're giving up good money if you really muck 22-55. if you really can't bring yourself to muck them when they miss the flop, then you're probably making the right choice, but honestly, i can't think of an easier hand to let go of than a 22 that missed. especially in EP.

[conform]

[ QUOTE ]
at a passive 1-2 this is a tight enough order - average pots being perhaps only 12

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think this is even close to being true at party. 10-12 avg pot is on the tight end of the 1/2 spectrum, with 14-17 being typical.

if you're UTG and limp, you very often will inspire others to do the same. if you're in MP and get a couple limpers you're in good shape also.

[Mike Haven]

i looked at the Party list at the time i posted that figure and nearly all tables were about 12, but, in any case, 17 is too low to make a profit in the long term

if you have had profit out of 22 then good on you, and long may it continue for you

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not certain how common this is but at Mandalya Bay playing 4-8 on a Saturday they pay over $500 if you hold a pocket 22 and make a 4 of a kind. They had similar payoffs for all pocket pairs but the payoff for AA was very small. On this fact alone I was playing 22-55 in any position. Does any one know what the odds of hitting 4 of a kind after getting pocket pairs?

[/ QUOTE ]

The odds of making quads when holding a pocket pair are 407:1.

As far as Mandalay Bay's high hand bonuses go, it has nothing to do with the rank of the card. The reason making quads with 22 paid $500 is because it has been several weeks since somebody has done it with 22. When the next person hits those quads, they will get the $500 and then the 22 bonus will reset to $20 and grow a little each day, possibly reaching $500 (the cap) again. The payoff for AA was small because somebody had hit it recently.