"Hold'em Poker" Question

Hi. I'm new to this place. I posted this question at r.g.p. and got no reply. I'm hoping to have more luck here (it IS about a 2+2 book after all)


So, I am reading through "Hold'em Poker" by Sklansky for the 2nd time... really paying attention this time (first time was just a quick

glance through in a couple of hours to see what concepts were covered)


I've come across something that I don't understand.


"While KQ is normally better than JT, I would rather have the latter hand if someone raised behind me" This is in Chapter 5 ("Strategy"),

specifically, the "Strategy before the flop" section. In the paragraph he is talking about how some hands go down in value when an opponent

raises, because you might make a hand that is 2nd best.


So, given all this... WHY would you rather have JT in this situation? Are you somehow les likely to make that dreaded money-losing 2nd best

hand? Why? I don't understand...


Keith

Keith,


In a nutshell, when you cold call a raise with KQ or limp and someone raises behind, you will often find yourself against an AK or AQ. Both hands dominate KQ but not JT since a JT will often flop an independent pair or draw.


Regards,


Rick

Yes, it is about the second best. If you have KQ, someone raises, a K comes out, uhoh, you might be second best, but it's hard to give the hand up. With JT, you know where you stand much more.


Mark

Rick and Mark: Thanks for your replies.


I guess I understand this concept, but, if you limp in and there is a raise behind you (particularly in late position, when the pot is unraised) couldn't you just as easily be facing AJ or AT, meaning that your JT could just as easily be dominated? AJ seems more likely than AT.


To put it another way, if you hold JT, in mid position, you limp in, there is a raise behind you in late position, and you call, do you really feel all that confident if the flop comes down something like J73? Are you not scared of AJ or even KJ? (I would almost always fold JT in mid position and thus not get myself into this situation. Is that overly tight? It doesn't seem to be... it's just not that good of a hand)


I guess a lot of it depends on the flow of the game and how aggressive your opponents are, but it doesn't seem to be overly-aggressive to raise with AJ in that situation (late, facing limpers). Really, what could your opponents have? Anything better than AJ is probably a raising hand in ANY position. It seems unlikely that you are dominated.


Keith

Keith -


Yes, in your example (you have JT, flop comes J 7 3), you may in fact be second best. However, this is less likely than if you have KQ and the flop comes Q 7 3.


Also, with JT, (for the sake of argument, I'll say JTs, and JTo is very often unplayable), you are looking to make straights and flushes moreso than top pair.


Hope this helps


Josh

Thanks, Josh. I'm still not sure I understand though... WHY is it more likely that you have 2nd best hand?


If you have KQ and the flop comes Q 7 3, the hands you are worried about are AA, KK, AQ, QQ, 77, and 33. I will assume that your opponents will not play trash like Q7, Q3, and 73. So

you are worried about 6 different hands.


If you have JT and the flop comes J 7 3, you

are worried about AA, KK, QQ, AJ, KJ, QJ, JJ, 77, and 33. That is 9 hands. It seems to be far more likely that you are "in trouble" in the 2nd case than in the first.


What am I missing here?


Keith

Another thing to consider is that the JT is much easier to fold when you make a pair than KQ. It is likely that there will be an overcard to your pair on the board, and, since there are many hands that beat you, you are less likely to pay off when your hand is second best or worse.

AK and AQ are way more likely to be raising behind you than AA, or KK, or QQ. not that those hands are less likely to raise, but they are less likely to be there. JTs is looking for the flop to bring a straight or flush draw more than a pair. this doesn't mean you can't play if you flop J 7 3, just means you have a weaker hand, and must be cautious here. also, AJ and AT are hands that are way less likely to be raising after limpers are in, at least by strong opponents. if AJ is raising behind you and other limpers, you are either in california, or your opponent is not that skilled, at least not that tight adn selective preflop, and this lack of skill should include bad play postflop.

Do you really think that it is so bad to raise with AJ behind limpers? I think that it is probably usually correct. Sklansky (in "Hold'em Poker") says "If there are callers in front of you and you are in late position, raise with hands in Groups 1, 2, 3, and sometimes 4" (AJ is in group 4).


Abdul Jalib (http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html) suggests raising in this situation as well (the section on "facing limpers"). He even suggests raising (sometimes) with KJ or KT.


Personally, here is my thinking: You are in late position (say on the button) and you have some limpers in before you. You have AJ. What do your opponents have? Chances are, if they have AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, or AQ, they would have raised (not limped in). If they do not have one of these hands then you are either a favourite, or, at worst, a small underdog (say against a small-mid pair). On the other hand, by not raising, you let suited connectors and Ax suited see the flop cheaply, which seems to be a bad idea.


If you are facing passive players who WOULD limp in with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, or AQ, then things are different. Still, AJ seems like a "raise or fold" situation. If you figure that you have the best offsuit hand, raise. If not, fold. I can't see how calling would be right.


I am fairly new to this, so, of course, I could be (hell, I probably am) wrong. I would appreciate hearing if/why my reasoning is flawed on this one... I love talking poker strategy ;-)


Keith

unless the raiser's AJ or AT is suited. thats not bad preflop play. if offsuit, no i wouldnt raise here since offsuit sucks multiway, but suited its sure possible. especially in LP or button positions.


b

Keith -


Glenn and Baggins both hinted at this, but let me put it this way...


When you are JT, you are less likely to have the second best hand BECAUSE YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE THE 3RD OR 4TH BEST HAND. While this may seem immaterial, it is beneficial, because it is easy to get away from the hand.


Regarding raising with AJ or AT...


Sklansky wrote some time back that NOT raising with ATs after 3 limped in front of you is a HUGE mistake. Thus, let's assume that you should be raising ATs in this position, so you definitely should be raising AJs as well.


When they are offsuit...there is no harm in mucking them (in fact, that would be my suggestion). yeah, you've got position, but they play very poorly in large multiway pots.


Raise or fold is right. Raise sooted, fold offsuit.


Josh

I think your questions are very well taken.


JTs is not playable in a solid game based on its flush/straight possibilities alone. The pair value is at least as important, and probably more so. When Sklansky says he'd rather have JT than KQ if he's raised, I assume it's because in practice more players will raise with hands that dominate KQ than will dominate JT. While it's true that AT and AJ should be raised, in a real game your opponents may not do that, although they will almost certainly raise with AQ or AK.


Whether or not to play JT in a given game would have to take into account the chances of your being raised, and if you are raised, what hands your likely to be raised with.


I think you're right that it's a trouble hand. If you're confident in your ability to outplay your opponents in post flop play, it's probably profitable. But IMO it would be easy to misplay and lose money with. The straight and flush possibilities are not enough by themselves to play it, so you'd have to be confident in your abilities to play it if you flopped a pair.

Keith,


Do not take an out of hand comment and perplex over it. Quite frankly neither the K,Q nor J,T offer a great playing situation if someone raises after you limp. Sklanksy is a purist. And in pure Holdem situations where players play (somewhat) correctly K,Q played to a raiser is a tricky thing to have to do and much harder to get away from if second best than J,T. They way to look at statements like this from the mighty OZ is that there is more to playing Holdem than readily meets the eye.


Vince

Josh --


Ahhhh.... That "because you are more likely to have the 3rd or 4th best hand" is what I was looking for. That makes perfect sense, and it never even occurred to me (and does not seem immaterial at all -- I understand why having 2nd best hand is worse than having 4th best, since you will lose more money with 2nd best).


NOW I understand (or at least I understand more than I did before)


Thanks,


Keith