top losing hands

In many beginning hold'm books, there is usually a list of the most profitable starting hands, always beginning w/ AA of course. I would like to see comments on the costliest starting hands, beginning w/ AA, which can win alot, but can easily get you in a bind.


I got to thinking of this today because I was in a hand at Paradise where I was dealt an AJ spades on the button. There was a raise in front of me, I called, and the BB, a lousy player, re-raised, and the second player capped it. I called. The flop came J and two spades. I felt pretty darn good.... top pair, flush draw. BB bets, second player raises, I call, BB reraises, second player caps...


Turn... 7c.... no help at all... dang... BB bets, second player calls, I call. river? 7s... coolness. Bet, call, I raise, call call... Show my flush... muck muck.


I check there hands on 'hand-history.' BB was betting KK all the way... amazing, he actually had a hand. 2nd player had QQ. This surprised me a bit. Anyway, bottom line was, KK and QQ, the number 2 and 3 hands, were beaten, as they often are, and while you could argue that perhaps the QQ might have been mucked earlier, it also might not have, as the BB is a nut. In any case, these hands often go down, and thus my discussion.


One more example if I may. The other night I was at a casino, in a 3/6 game, and was dealt AKs in the bb. Anyway, the flop is K9x, and I play the way the book says I should... I bet. One caller. turn, I bet. River, I check, he bets, I call... he turns over 99, flopped the set. I'm just grateful I didn't bet it all the way for him.


Soooo, would the costliest hands fall in the same order as the best hands? AA, KK, QQ, etc.


Comments? Thanks.


Badbrad

"I check there hands on 'hand-history.' BB was betting KK all the way... amazing, he actually had a hand. 2nd player had QQ. "


Does Paradise show other player's cards if they mucked when a history is requested?

I just check some hand histories I had in my mailbox. It looks like if a player call and then mucks then the hand history does show the cards. I wish I had known that in the past. :-(

I think a MUCH more useful list would be those hands that actually lose the most money over-all because of weak play by actual players. That is, those hands that are losers but are typically played. (Note that 72 doesn't lose much money since its rarely played).


My guess for [1] would be A8. My guess for [2] would be AJs when capped by a tight player before the flop.


- Louie

Are you talking overall or in the context of a single hand?


Also a hand a certain expectation as you know under different cicumstances.


The most u could lose is capped on each round. Many hands will qualify here.


I think the big pairs will lose the most when they come up set over set against any kind of draw. They must pay off the extra bets when they hit.


Possibly nut flush will pay the most when 2 opponents hit full houses.


Although I responded I not sure the question has any value. I would say a hand like quad gappers lower than 9 are the to play with at a full table

x

I've often said that the worst hand in hold'em is K-10.


Tommy

<font color=red>"My guess for [1] would be A8. My guess for [2] would be AJs when capped by a tight player before the flop."</font>


Louie maybe is having some fun, but there is great truth in his replies. Ferrets from near and far know this.


Sredni's research shows AJs and A8 have profit in them. But these hands have great danger of discombobulation. It is the player who has the discombobulations. The hand is plain marble awaiting transformation into sculpture.


AA is too strong a hand to lose money even by charitable players. AA earns on average four times the blinds. It would take intentional misplaying to lose money on average with these hands. If the spirit of giving is strong enough, perhaps.


Hands that Sredni postulates on the list include many hands in the medium zone: KJ,QJ, JT, QT, KT. These hands are in a boat with a hole in the hull when there is a raise; AJs is better but loses much ground as the raising grows. Some hands are a dry desert to charitable players.


There is no wisdom in Sredni's post. The collective already knows that dominated hands are dominated. It is some of the individuals in it that don't behave as such.


Destiny is in your own hands.


Sredni Vashtar...


went forth, His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white. His enemies called for peace, but he brought them death. Sredni Vashtar the Beautiful.


<a href=http://www.shania.net/photogallery/photoshoots/24.jpg<shania twain</a>

Sredni,


Tommy ever searches for gentler renderings to outswim the 'fish' and 'suckers,' to reveal the condescension of 'idiot' and 'moron,' to lay open the self-enhancing judgment of 'live one.'


Your virtue is a beacon.


Tommy

Sredni, The hands you showed are among what Brunson called "trouble hands" if I am not mistaken. And I do consider them as such with some exceptions: When I have a good degree of confidence that the person playing the hand is a loosie, then I may a take a chance.

KAM-GONG,


Sredni has great affections for your name: it is a name worthy of a great war leader.


Sredni has no doubt that Doyle Brunson knew many things that Sredni has postings on. Sredni would bet much nutmeg that Tex Dolly knows things that Sredni could only mediatate over.


When I have a good degree of confidence that the person playing the hand is a loosie, then I may a take a chance.


Sredni bids you well, but expresses caution, and expects great things from your findings of exceptions.


Sredni Vashtar